Slashdot Mirror
The Dark Side Of Napster
Julian Morrison writes, "An article on Salon shows the dark side of Napster (and implicitly, Gnutella and all the other clones). Artists say they can't make money from t-shirts and touring, and if sales of their CD drop on the auto-indexer, the label says goodbye. Can anyone come up with a distribution model that will work with the new tech rather than being swamped by it? " Also check out the recent Suck article about the "Zapster". Pretty funny.
Yeah, artists are getting screwed over pretty bad. Someone's gonna have to come up with some way to fix the problem. Another thing: people are way too picky about "mass fed music"... True, some popular bands really aren't that good. However, there are a lot of mainstream bands that make good music. Some people just won't accept the fact that a band can make money and good music at the same time.
.
The same as the OpenSource Model (tm). Give your balls away for free and ask money for service. As everyone here agrees on this that this model is the best model for software and making money for it, why can't it apply to other goods like music?
In fact, a hit song generates more revenue from airplay, than from record sales. The songwriter and publisher split $0.0755 for each sale of their song (album or single). A million-selling song gets them a whopping $75,500. Not much, really.
By contrast, a hit song can easily get them $300,000-$500,000 in "performance fees" just from radio airplay.
So, if you download MP3s and play them for free, not only has the artist lost out on $0.0755 (which I don't believe they really miss), but the potential is there that radio airplay becomes less and less profitable, since you're listening to your computer or Rio instead of the radio.
Even if MP3 usage translated into CD sales, the real problem for artists is the long term one. When radio airplay could start becoming less lucrative, because everbody's listening to Rio's.
So, strictly speaking, listening to an MP3 you haven't really ripped anybody off, as some artist have claimed. You've chosen a different medium for getting music (a "pull" instead of a "push"), and the industry has no means for translating that into revenue.
IMHO, the industry needs to be creative here and come up with some good solutions. Y'all have invented a new medium, and a potential revenue stream for them. Instead of capitalizing on that, all they seem to want to do is whine, and sue.
Thats not true at ALL. I would much rather know exaclty where I can get a song and know that there was some sort of quality control. I have spent hours on napster only to end up with maybe one song that I liked and that was a good rip. Most downloads are interupted because the host leaves or you cant find the song your looking for. Napster is fine if your just looking for some music in gerneral but very poor if you have certin songs your looking for.
i personally hope Napster and other technologies will eliminate the music industry all together. ...but the whole record industry going down isn't going to effect any of the music i listen to Dont you think those are contradictive statements, how can you say you hope the music industry goes down. I personally use napster to sample cd's before i go out and buy them... but i do still think that in the long run the music industry will be greatly affected by the illegal distrubution of mp3s. Think about it would you like to hear that as a rookie artist someone has bought one of your cd's and has distrubuted it to the net. I dont think you would be a happy camper...
So no one's going to be the next Michael Jackson, making squillions of dollars and able to buy up the whole Beatles back catalog (christ!). And that's a bad thing?
They could get a real job and play music for fun.
But seriously, how many people are going to have the good conscience to buy a cd if they can get it for free? I'm sure that if you look at the average napster user, they will buy almost no cds, unlike before.
But what happens when high bandwidth is widespread?
Will the record companies start to move away from genres such as "alternative rock" which appeal to the most 'net-savvy demographics (high school and college students), and towards genres which aren't, such as: bubblegum (grade-school kids) country and jazz (middle-age folks) and rap (low-income inner-city).
(Sorry to generalize, but I hope I get the point across.)
There's a BIG difference, tho. Red Hat, and others don't own the software. Whereas artists, own, and (usualy) wrote there songs. BIG difference there, bubba.
Hey, if you make the check out to the artist, you get a free autograph on the back of the check!
But wouldn't any music tax on CD-Rs and CD-RW drives run up against the same brick wall that the RIAA hit when they sued Diamond over the Rio? These aren't MUSIC devices, but COMPUTER devices, and thus they don't fall under the Audio Home Recording Act purview. Yes, the RIAA could lobby for an amendment to that law, but then they would be taking on some rather large hardware manufacturers that have just as much soft money, or maybe more.
And I don't think it's too late for a new distribution model yet. The industry is just dragging its heels, and for now, they can still afford it -- Napster hasn't killed CD sales yet, and not one web site out there knows how to develop artists and make them superstars. What I'd really like to know is this -- for all the talk of "everyone" getting free music, is anyone out there actually BUYING music, MP3 or Liquid Audio or otherwise?
-Dave @ OnlineMusicWorld.com
I've downloaded some metallica songs with napster, and now i'm thinking of buying the CD. I dont have a CD burner, so i can't listen on my radio. But even if i buy the CD, how much will they actually get? a few cents? I would rather just download all the songs and send them 20$ directly
Acutally, if you've ever read Billboard magazine, they do. In the 1990's there was a BIG controversy--labels would not support major chains that sold Used CD's, and Garth Brooks became the artist who decried the use of Used CD's. They've sort of backed off on that, but the music industry was trying to use the software license type of argument--that royalties should be paid, etc.
This is totally the oposite of what I have heard about how music artists make cash. See, when it comes to putting out a cd they have to actually pay LOADS of cash out to the label, artists for artwork or photos, studios, marketing, and more. What it all comes down to is the band makes about $1 to $2 per CD that is sold. The rest goes to other people. Now, when it comes to touring, ($20 to $50 a ticket with various numbers of people) they usually make out rather well even though Airfare and other travel expenses play an important role. Now onto merchandise. $50 for a Tshirt? Who is profiting from all that cash? The vendor would be first place I would say but then again, can the band themselves make arrangements for thier own vendor? That means, sell 1000 shirts at $50 a piece and you got mad money. $50,000 just on tshirts. Sickening. I believe in supporting music artists. Wether or not I actually BUY the CD or borrow it from a friend of mine to listen first should not make the band go broke. I can't stand listening to bands cry the blues about not making money because of MP3s.
That is a ridiculous, tired argument. If you are not willing to go out and pay money for something, then you have no right to posess it! That is like saying that it is alright to steal a diamond from the jewelry store, because I never would have paid for one!
If my friend bought a diamond and was able to make an exact copy of it(ala the Star Trek replicator), am I still stealing from the jewelry store? I don't think so!
""Our label has been behind us from the start," notes Morgan Rose, drummer for the hard rock band Sevendust. "They work hard for every nickel they make off us. They deserve to be paid. It's a no-brainer." More importantly, Rose says if fans are downloading Sevendust records instead of buying them in stores where their tallies are calculated by SoundScan, the band won't be making records much longer. "If it's not scanned, then the label at the end of the year says so long, and all of a sudden our careers are over, and I'm back at McDonald's."" Wow! what a great label! If they make a few cents less, they dont sell any more CDs! I wish i was a musician, so i could sell through that label!!!!
Ever considered the possibility if I couldn't break into BestBuy and steal a VCR without getting caught I wouldn't even bother to go there and buy it? The electronics I really liked I bought, but for the rest I couldn't care if they burned it all.
What a pile of horseshit. It's amazing the twisted logic that some will use to justify to themselves their own theft.
The point is this -- the artist who produces the music owns it. Period. If he/she wants to give it to you for free, fine. But if they don't, why do you think you have a god-given right to it?
It's always struck me as ironic how quick people are to give away things that don't belong to them to give...
Why do we need Record Companies around anyways? If artists have a way to get their music distributed, then they can do things themselves! Maybe they would start making even more money by burning their own CDs, using their own sound equipment, and going on their own tours. People would start to realize how great this is and accept it more and more. I think the artists need to embrace the new music revolution in order to survive. And screw all that POP crap, we need to go back to the days when music really meant something and lyrics were from the heart and mind of the BAND! Anyways, I'm not a musician (but I LOVE music) so maybe I'm way off base here, but I don't think so.
They rationalize that "I'm not ripping off the artist. The record company makes all the money anyway, and they're stinking rich." Which is true to a great extent. Artists make about 2% of profits, if there are any. People are far less likely to steal if they know they are directly preventing the music makers from making a living.
It's the artists who should drop the record companies and market directly to the consumer over the internet. We are already seeing this shift take place. The internet is a tool for empowerment. Sure there will always be a certain segment that steals no matter what. So what, things will be a lot better for the artists when they market directly and tell the record companies to take a hike.
Bigotry promotes separation and thus might be the only way to preserve diversity in the long run.
Canada is fucked up!
And this is different from the U.S. how, exactly?
So why don't the record companies promote vinyl as a current format? There's already a huge installed base, it has superior sound quality to CD, and you can't rip it.
Before someone patents the Business model : 1. Start an internet distribution company with a good privacy model (no cookies, no sharing of customer data base, etc). 2. For a small fee, Artists list their product with a free download sample and other promotional material. 3. Artists agree to use the Artistic License, GPL, etc. Anything except the DMCA. 4. Customers open an account and make a deposit, using a credit card, check, whatever. After the deposit is accepted and approved, credit card info is destroyed. Customer gets an account number and password. 5. When a customer down loads a full work (other than the samples), his account is debited and the artist paid. He uses his unique customer id and password to authorize the download. Down loads shouldn't exceed about $0.25 for a song, $1.00 for an album, about $0.10 per page for a book. Full length movies should cost about the same as a DVD. 6. Delivery could be made on-line or via snail-mail. Snail-mail items will require sending a "mail to" address for each transaction. This information will be destroyed after a fixed time for delivery.
. . . and they're foul-mouthed as all fucking hell when they're not actually in front of a jury. Comes with the territory. Their job is to engage in pissing-contests all day long. They're extremely competitive and combative people. It's all about testosterone and mine-is-bigger-than-yours.
Personally, I find them funny, but they piss on everybody worse than doctors do.
*sigh*
NOT EVERYTHING AT MP3.COM IS GARBAGE! If we can all agree that 90% of everything is crap, then there are at least 5000 really good bands/soloists at MP3.com, and they are as worthy of your support as any major label act -- perhaps more so, since they are bucking the RIAA system and getting more tangible results from CD sales.
This is the real Catch-22 -- everyone wants free music, but then when an unsigned band gives something away, everyone scoffs and says, "If you're really dope, why aren't you signed yet?" If you like someone's music, why should it matter? Support the artists you like. They'll reward you with more good music. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
-Dave @ OnlineMusicWorld.com
Did anyone else but me notice that, by substituting the word 'radio' for 'napster', these same arguments could have been made fifty years ago? It's only very recently that artists started getting a commission from airplay.
Typical fucking Linux nerdy "We want everything handed to us for nowt" whine. WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM???
Hmm, well those of us in bands that don't get continual air-play actually make money by touring and playing in bars. Frankly we have to treat the records we make as just promotional material. After studio costs, record promotion (ha ha) and the publisher have had their slice we never usually see any more than the token advance. MP3s and Napster only hurt us in theory (the one where we get drunk and dream foolish dreams of sudden popularity among the promotions staff at the label). Musicians very rarely make money. We do however get lots of chicks...
Now, I do also have loads of mp3s for which I have not bought the corresponding CD, but they're all singles for which I'd never have forked out $20 for the whole CD anyway. Never.
mp3s are also a boon for smaller artists who never get airtime. When was the last time you heard Mukala on the radio, for example?
Artists really show their ass when they say that without the money, they won't produce. The creative people I know (writers, mainly, some musicians, others that are uncategorizable -- the really creative ones) can't *not* create. It's just part of who they are. The only issue of money relates to how the creative output be distributed, and the Net has already answered that question. It will be distributed in a way that makes it impossible for businessmen and super-groups to get unbelievable rich. Aww. "There won't be any music if people don't pay!" And there won't be any software either, right?
They get money from shows, blah, blah, blah.
It is notorious that there must be a change. There is no way someone can stop this.
Mp3 and friends make it easier for someone to make music, so, many people that just want to do it, not to live of it, can. I think it is a wrong assumption that everyone that is an artist should live of art. This could be when it was expensive to do a record or whatever, but whe're in the begginning of a revolution, it will become cheaper and easier to to distribute music and art in general.
The artists getting the most demand will have a chance to live of the art, but the others will just have to do something else. There are many bands that make one or two good record and that's it. They did their best, now it's over, move on, if can make it again, just do it, will be easy.
The actual recording companies could become some sort of a song repository. Then one would pay a monthly fee and could download whatever song one wants.
I think we are going to see an end on art as a career for most people.
By the way, love the language. I only hire lawyers that are Irish and have a mouth like yours. Yea right, I'm a worthless piece of shit who made my money from inheritance and a wrongful death lawsuit so that I can sit around hacking in my underwear, so what? Nobody bothers me, and I'm just going to end up dying alone someday in a nursing home after being "cared for" by a bunch of ex-cons no matter what. Fuck it.
Have a big MP3 database in MUSICSTORES! Then you go to the store, pick the stuff you want, and it is burned IN THE STORE to CD for a FAIR price!
Why hasn't this been done mainstream yet? It seems like an obvious solution.
Then I have the CD all set to play in my car, with only the songs I care to listen to...and when home, I am free to create my own MP3's of as high a quality as I like.
I PREFER to own the original media..but $17 for a CD that only contains 1 or two songs that I even like? BULLSHIT!
a music tax on them for all the music that will get stolen is in the works)
Punishing the innocent is no way to go -- you'll make the problem worse. Hopefully nobody will try this. What I thought would work well is just a few high profile piracy cases. Actually catch a few people using Napster illegally and charge them with piracy. (Of course, who's guilty? If somebody downloaded a song from you that you have the right to use, but they don't, they are clearly pirating. But are you, for making it available?) But by punish the guilty (fairly - no need to make him pay for anyone else's crimes), and more importantly, making it high profile so people understand its important, that would hopefully slow it down. Of course, it never looks good when somebody said "Josie was a good kid, she had a 3.8 GPA. All she did was download some MP3s" so it could be a tactical blunder when the wrong person is charged, although charging an "undesirable" over someone else is discriminatory. Oh well...
I now see the need for the DMCA - Napster has little to no legitimate use whatsoever. Unfortunately, I think stopping it would be censorship (hell, software should be protected by both the 1st and 2nd amendments) and I can't support the DMCA. Not sure what to do in this case, unless piracy is . I guess I will write a song about how much Napster users suck and distribute that.
Why would anyone in their right mind charge this to a credit card? There are numerous ways to do micropayments for a tiny percentage of the cost of credit card payments, and once one is set up everyone can use it. The reason they haven't taken off in the past is because they've been such a pain to use, and few people have had anything to sell; if Madonna, say, started selling MP3s of her songs on the Web using a micropayments system then it would soon take off.
As for 25 cents being too cheap, if a band makes a dollar or two per CD sold by the record company, with ten songs per CD (and most of mine have more than that) that means they're currently getting at most $0.10 to $0.20 per song. The rest goes to the distributors.
music has been around a lot longer than any label on this planet. i think everyone has gotten so wrapped up in there anti/pro corparte ideas that they forgot what they were truely dealing with. how do you charge someone for something that barely exists physically, can't be held in its purest form, travels through almost anything. music will ultimately always be free, the real question is who pays for it to be created?
Oooh, my hero! Yes, but it still doesn't to anything to offset all of the other stuff you have pirated, or to put it another way, stolen. Theft is theft and you are guilty, whether you try to dress it up as a moral crusade or not.
>You have the right to say what you want. If other people wish to read it they can. It is not being removed from view. Unlike a newspaper where letters can be arbitrarily assigned to the wastebasket for reasons of space.
Moderation on slashdot is equivalent to font size in newspapers. -1 moderation would be like printing a letter to the editor in 4 point type. Having to read it with a magnifying glass is too much effort, and it may as well be censorship.
>If you dislike the moderation, you have the right to set up your own website. You have the right to make it very similar to Slashdot. You have the right to say whatever you want on it. You can allow moderation. You can prevent moderation. The constitution just means that the government can't restrict what you say.
That's why I use www.kuro5hin.org mostly now. Slashdot is just good for headlines - this moderator crap has caused the trolls to come out in full effect. Doesn't seem to be a problem at kuro5hin.
Feel free to make me unreadable, I don't care anymore. Slashdot isn't about ideas, or interesting facts anymore; it has become a "who has the biggest dick", "windoze sux, Linux rools", "natalie portman petrified", "Your opinion sux" type of place.
That's why I won't come back very often.
If moderation was working properly, wouldn't we see an IMPROVEMENT in the quality of posts? I have news for you - posts were better before moderation. Now they are all mediocre crap, from people hoping to whore themselves out for "karma points", or hoping to get the lowest "karma score".
Awww!!! The poor beleaguered artists. They've kept silence for years while the big labels ripped them off, us off, and everybody else off, while allowing Geffen et al. to enforce their diktat with guns and goons (aka cops and lawyers). They're vocal enough about protesting tyranny *outside* the tyrannies they protest, but let *their* little pocketbooks be put in any danger and the silence is deafening. Complicity with a crime is worse than the original commission, and I have no sympathy with a bunch who have, among other things, publicly advocated cop-killing under the banner of free speech. Tough.
A $2000 computer whose capabilities I need and use in full is a good deal. A $15 CD on which only 2 of 12 tracks are decent is a ripoff.
Let rock die.
Have you listened to the radio lately? Pure dreck.
I've been saying this all along, but the /. herd seems to be virulently opposed to any attempts to ban the criminal tool that is Napster. People here seem to think that it is their God-given right to download pirate MP3s, rather it being a criminal act worthy of jail like it actually is. Maybe this article will wake them up from their "open-source" reverie, but somehow I doubt it.
By downloading and using Napster you are deliberatly enagaging in a systematic rape of the music industry, starting with the artists themselves, many of whom struggle to make enough money anyways, and moving through every level of the industry up to the corporations which nurture and promote the artists.
Every song you pirate, or "share" if you can't face the truth, takes money from the music industry, meaning that less new artists can be supported by the record companies. If Napster continues unchecked, as many here seem to want it to be, then eventually the music industry will be reduced to only being able to support a dozen or so of their most successful artists. Remember, every song you buy rather than get using Napster contributes to the growth of new talent.
Hey - Your friend wouldn't happen to be Wesley Willis would it? He's REALLY got the talent! Send him my best and suck a honey badgers ass.
If you are, then I sincerely doubt that it's an experience from which you learned anything
if people know who you are, then when you come to town they're more likely to see you than if they didn't.
Oh, I see, your experience was "I, like, once heard of this band. Then I found out they were playing my town! I was like, totally stoked. Bands rock". The fact is, even selling out the local sports stadium, most tours lose money. Because it's only if your as famous as Bruce, Tina or the Stones that people are prepared to pay a ticket price that will pay the costs of a stadium gig. And similar factors work all the way down the scale. if you promote tours, then the money is going to go to venue owners, not musicians, because venues are in shorter supply than bands.
And if the artist is concerned about getting kicked off the label, learn the business end and start your own fscking label.
Yeah, that's what people get into music for, so that they can "learn business" and spend all their time looking through spreadsheets. Let me guess, you're a Garth Brooks fan, right? He's probably playing your town this week. It doesn't take much, and it's about 400% more profitable for the artist.
Dickhead.
Canada is fucked up!
"... If it becomes free, than it becomes extinct."
Ha ha.
How can Phillips-Magnivox advertise on national TV a cd recorder but napster and the like are getting all of this hoopla!!!
That's stupid. The idea would work, I believe. Why would anyone running a site like this send 25 cent charges to the credit card company? All you need to do is have a membership program where a client/user gives a credit card number and from there a "tab" is made up. At the end of each month you total all of his transactions and then send that to the credit card company as one charge. I'm sure there are ways of combining all of the charges incurred monthly.
Record sales are up, and it's somehow the fault of new technology that artists can't make money? It seems to ME that the real problem lies with the record companies. The are totally intent on screwing over the artists AND the fans. They won't give us a distribution model that is less antiquated, and they won't let the artists out of their contract-enforced slavery. Let's face it, in this case it really is the fat cat big business who is causing all the harm, not the little '31337' music pir8.
John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier have published a proposal on how to deal with exactly this problem. The article is called "The Street Performer Protocol and Digital Copyrights".
> but I know other artists who really should, and > I'd like to see them get the chance.
Yes. But I don't see how a random artist can have a good chance.
Most of todays successfull artists are created artificially or come from the past. Those which really create something original are quickly sucked by the labels and their music is distorted by the company, and I don't consider this to be so artistic anymore.
Art should be independent of obligations.
"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind." -- Aristotle
Your water analogy is a perfect analogy. Why would you buy water when you get it free from the tap? One word - QUALITY. A lot of people buy drinking water (myself included) because of quality issues with tap water.
It's the same with .mp3. Mp3 is usable, and yes you can convert it to CD audio (you can drink tap water), but the quality is not the same.
As for th4e people wanting to blame Napster - get a clue. Naspter is just an easier way to trade mp3's. There will still be FTP, HTTP, hotline, whatever.....
CD sales are up in all demographics, setting records in sales and profits. MP3 has not hurt the bottom line at all... I've bought plenty of albums after downloading a few hit songs from an artist.
The RIAA actually had the nerve to "blame" MP3 "piracy" after the SHARE of sales in the teen-to-twenties demographic went down (though overall sales in that groups skyrocketed to new highs). It's all a numbers game. No labels are going under because of music piracy. If anything, the RIAA fears losing control of it's monopoly on music and distribution, as sites like MP3.COM flourish with independents. Free distribution also hurts the "per-per-play" model they have worked so hard to make happen in the digital age. They can't stand the fact that we consumers feel we OWN a song, once we've purchased a CD, and are free to resell the CD or listen as many times as we desire. They would prefer we buy a CD with X number of reads, then buy more sessions under a licensing model.
RIAA and the major labels SUCK. They bleed legitimate groups dry and represent the worst middleman bleedoff of any industry.
If they dont want to lose money then they should stop producing crappy albums. I buy albums still but Thanks to mp3s I am a bit more careful about which ones I buy. It never fails I hear a song that I like on the radio and buy the album and bam! the album is nothing like that one song. The artists must know that and that is why they stopped releasing singles in America . No matter what the record companies just hate it that they lost control and that a distribution channel has opened up that is independent of them and allows for smaller bands to bypass them all together.
it would work. I'm speaking as a hard core music fan, who has a cd collection at 2000+. napster rarely has anything I'm looking for. I find one or two tracks, if anything. I would be happy to go to some indie label's site and pay to download music that would be impossible to find anywhere else- even on napster.
And yet, somehow, there has always been music, in every culture, throughout history. I daresay there always will be, whether it's a way to get rich or not, because lots of people find it intrinsically rewarding to make music. What we are moving toward is not a music-less world, but one which is less divided between professionals and "consumers." A world in which art is more participatory, done for love instead of money. Especially as audio production tools continue to get cheaper.
Well, if you haven't noticed, I doubt that me telling you will help, but they're dead.
Have you not noticed that there is this thing called techno/dance/garage music? And have you not noticed that it is also do-it-yourself music, and that you can dance to it? Or are the people who like it just a little bit too brown for your taste?
However given the hippy nature of the communist Liunx bigots, it is to be expected that lame 60's bands like "the dead" would be worshipped on this forum.
If Linux users were as revolutionary as they liked to think they would only listen to consciousness-raising rap music such as Sir-Mix-A-Lot, Tash, Biz Markie and Ol Dirty Bastard.
thank you
Look at the ordinary guy who helps build a road? Does he get money each time someone uses it? Or the guy who builds a car - does he get royalties each time someone drives it? Or the architect who builds a house - does he get money each time the house is used? The why the fuck does these people get money over and over - its damn indecent!
fucking you a fucking lawyer???
do fucking you fucking believe it your-fucking-self???
I fucking seems to me that fucking lawyer don't fucking talk this fucking way!!!
Maybe i'm just fucking wrong, but i under-fucking-stand why you're an Ex-lawyer.
Anonymous fucking coward.
A: Yes
That's incorrect. the largest demographic of purchasing music in the North America is the 14-18 crowd - they have more disposable income since they aren't concerned with rent, tuition, car repair, food. Sales are down because the records are boring and over saturated. Get a hit group like backstreet boys and suddenly you've got 3-4 clone bands overnite - 5, Nsync, 98 degrees all doing the same lame crap.
The record industry has year over year increased the number of releases of titles. There is no way the consumer public can absorb all that product and so forth.
Perhaps the artists could release work with added value, instead of the standard 44.1 khz under an hour cd, if an artist realeased an album at 120 khz, multitracked so you could hear each individual instrument, along with demo tracks, a half dozen live performances, a making of video, artist interviews, couple hundred jpegs of the band, some remixes... wouldn't add much to the production cost plus you could charge $25 bucks for as a dvd
Not to mention Puff Daddy, who be persecuted by the Man for something any self-respectin blackmon would'a done. Down with the White opresser!!!
BTW Please spare us your hippie-music bashing.. grateful dead and phish have a number of excellent songs.. and a few horrible ones. (I don't know what phish was thinking when they wrote "bouncing 'round the room.) They were probably on some weird drug that I've never heard of.
'Bouncing around the room' is one of my favourite Phish songs, and I've got all their albums! It just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste.
Perhaps I'm on some wierd drug that you've never heard of. Then again, I can still close quotation marks, use parentheses correctly and stick to either the singular or the plural within a single sentence when referring to a single entity.
YOU WANT PRETTY POLLY? YOU TAKE PRETTY POLLY!
If songs are available direct from a web site in .mp3 format for, say, $0.25 each, then I'd much rather to go the band's web site and pay to download them than waste half an hour searching the web for a high-quality free version of the file.
Not to mention that, like many people, I actually do want to support the people whose music I listen to (though not enough to pay current CD prices!).
There would not be no need for napster if cds did not cost a much as they do... The music industry is just getting to greedy....
Do you need any more proof? Even the artists are complaining that they are getting ripped off.
The old method (limiting access to material unless compensation is received) DOES work, in every case.
http://www-4.ibm.com/softwar e/developer/library/barcode/
De Icaza also plugged one of his most recent additions to GNOME, an Excel-like spreadsheet program, referring to the coding as "art" and adding "I didn't know much about spreadsheets, I just copied every single thing from [Microsoft] Excel."
the real work in music isn't just the music, it's the refinement, the sound studio, the sound engineering, etc. All this shit goes uncompensated when you just take the end product and copy it...
similarly, the real work in software is debugging, fixing UI flow, trying 15 diff UI's & features before closing on the right subset. All this stuff is ignored when you just copy the end product.
Why would someone pay for something when they can get the same for free? Does anyone think around here?
You forgot Step 6.
6.) Customer then makes product available for free using Napster to the rest of the world.
Well, it's a lot more outside the mainstream than most of america...
No, they are not. Infact, Gun's and Roses was basicaly the backstreetboys of the 80's. Comercial fed crap.
Heh, heh, heh. Then you haven't met many lawyers outside the context of business meetings. All the lawyers I've ever met (I work for the legal department of an investment bank) curse like soldiers. Anywhere where you have mostly male professions, working under stress, typically, you'll hear a lot of bad language. Michael Lewis' book "Liar's Poker" talks about the "Fuckspeak" language which prevailed on Wall Street in the 1980s
Here's how I think the whole situation will be resolved. There will be music providers on the net that will allow you to listen to any song you want in their database for a one time charge per month (something along those lines). It will be broadcast live over the net, wireless device, car stereo, whatever. The distributer knows what songs you listen to and how often you listened to them and pays the artist a fraction of its income. All artists are paid fairly. More popular songs get more money and thus competition is kept alive. In addition, advertisments could be placed in the songs or on the web site in return for a lower cost (just an idea). As long as virtually all artists agree to this business model, customers will be inclined to use the service and will not mind the reasonable cost. Perhaps this could be applied to videos someday (though the bandwidth is not quite ready yet. The reason I think this will work is people are going to find this more conveneient than downloading mp3's separately-they can just type the song and artist and have it streamed to them in seconds. Also, I do not believe a terribly large amount of people are going to resort to piracy-many people have morals they would like to abide by and since there is no legal alternative to the easy-to-use Napster, they find it hard to resist. A new business model similar to Napster for a nominal fee would work.
So how much money would the Bay City Rollers have made if everybody had simply copied their music rather than bought any of their albums? Answer: Nada, zippo, nothing... And the record company would have never been willing to send them out on tour.
just cuz there are one or two bands / artists / etc. that make more $$$ from concerts doesn't mean that the model can/should apply to all other artists. The world would be screwed if the only way Salman Rushdie could make $$$ was via "live performances".
This may seem incredibly simplistic, however: 1. To download an MP3 from a high-bandwidth web server, you first have to look at the advertising. The money from this will go straight to the artist. 2. People will do this because they know exactly where the track can be found, and they know that they will get good transfer rates. 3. If radio picks it up, they can play the tracks for free, so long as they say, "You can pick up that track at http://xxx.com" afterwards - that's your marketing. The idea is to get people looking at the advertising. Sort of like commercial television. Also word of mouth is a fantastic way to hear about music, apart from the many internet-based radio stations that could potentially pop up, not having to pay fees to play the music. I can see a similar model to this becoming popular. So long as the music is free on Napster, no-one will pay for it. So the only option is to offer the music for free, but recoupe some of that money with a bit of advertising. The RIAA can't fight Napster any more - Napster has won round one. The RIAA just has to change the way people get their music. Also, the big-wig execs etc should not have as big a piece of the pie (as it stands, the artist only ends up getting around 10% at the most of the retail price!). It's all about cutting out the middle men.
sorry, gnarph. Didn't realise it was you.
jsm
Here's how I think the whole situation will be resolved. There will be music providers on the net that will allow you to listen to any song you want in their database for a one time charge per month (something along those lines). It will be broadcast live over the net, wireless device, car stereo, whatever. The distributer knows what songs you listen to and how often you listened to them and pays the artist a fraction of its income. All artists are paid fairly. More popular songs get more money and thus competition is kept alive. In addition, advertisments could be placed in the songs or on the web site in return for a lower cost (just an idea). As long as virtually all artists agree to this business model, customers will be inclined to use the service and will not mind the reasonable cost. Perhaps this could be applied to videos someday (though the bandwidth is not quite ready yet. The reason I think this will work is people are going to find this more conveneient than downloading mp3's separately-they can just type the song and artist and have it streamed to them in seconds. Also, I do not believe a terribly large amount of people are going to resort to piracy-many people have morals they would like to abide by and since there is no legal alternative to the easy-to-use Napster, they find it hard to resist. A new business model similar to Napster for a nominal fee would work.
Pre-bleeding little girls who love to obssess over the latest teen-dream spend big bucks on CD's. To get this money, they of course sneak into their parents room while Daddy is showering, carefully and quietly removing a 20$ bill from Daddy's wallet. They do this while he is showering for reasons not the least of which is to catch a fleeting glimpse of those whimsical naughty and oft-talked about penises.
Old white men who no longer hate black people also spend a good share of their money buying all the Billy Holiday CD's they can find to make up for not having masturbatory fantasies of her when they were twelve years old.
Middle aged men spend lots of money on Rolling Stones CD's to help make them forget about their fat ugly wives, their bald head and obnoxious pre-bleeding little girls, and too help them remember the days they were cruising around town in a 69' Mustang looking for pussy.
Middle aged women also seem to enjoy teen-dreams. I suspect it has something to do with them no longer being able to bleed. So they spend ltos of money too.
Now here's where it all comes together... Little 14 year old kids dont have any money, and they dont have enough balls to walk into daddy's room to steal 20$ to buy a Kid Rock CD, well without the drive to see a cock and all. And mommy is just out of the question, as they've long since learned to fear vaginas at this point. So they go on the computer and pirate MP3s. These kids never bought CD's in the first place, so there's nothing to worry about. You dont have to worry until they grow up, get fat, hate their wives and stop bleeding.
It is well known that many legal professionals (as well as IT professinals) swear like troopers when off-duty. It is a reaction to all that "move to adjourn" and "admissable evidence" crap they have to speak in court.
As someone with legal contacts, I wonder if the moderators have ever thought of the constitutional impact of their censorious actions. The USA guarantees us the right to freedom of expression. Slashdot moderation goes against this core American value.
You fools. Don't you see Napster is just another weapon the starving ex-communists are using to bring down the west? They sit in their huts, bent over old AT clones and hack out these free software things they turn loose on the internet. Poof, another industry bites the dust.
Nothing will be able to stop music piracy - so the next obvious step will follow every other industry that is losing money... Advertising... Honestly - if every little teenie bopper could have get free BackStreet Boys song from the internet, then how much would Coke be willing to pay to throw an ad at the begining of that song? Lots probably. Sure artists have to 'sell out' so to say - but they still need to make money. It's simple - you give everyone your stuff for free - if it's good you'll be able to set up a lot of concerts and generate revenue, and you'll have ad agencies knockin on your door to throw ads into your songs.
Actually the electonic I tried are not bad. Why don't you post a list of your favorite for our amusment.
CY
I can't post unless I type a comment.
and, of course, back in those days, listeners had FAR FAR FAR fewer choices and songs available to them. today's listeners (as a result of IP-protection & royalties stimulating more musical outlets) have 100x as many listening choices now as they did back when most music was paid for via live performances. How many songs do you think a 70's teen could put together in a "play list"? 50? 100?
I have to disagree... I can't stand going to HMV lets say and have to sort through 500-1000 cds ... stand in line for hours to listen to them and find out the one I want is an import and will cost me $40!!! (That's Canadian $$) Or they are not available here at ALL! Example: DJ Rap has an album called Learning Curve . She's well know in the UK. I listened to the Album in MP3 format. Loved it... Loved it so much that I was willing to go out to HMV and pick it up... not there... asked to special order it. Not in there catalog... 6 months later it's available here in Canada. Why should I pay for the album art print? Why should I pay for the distribution? Why can't I just pay the artist? Though I agree that 0.25 is too little for a song. $1 would not be unheard of. If I could get a whole album for lets say $5 and I could get it from the comfort of my own home without having to sort through tons of cds and MAYBE find what I am looking for then I would probably double what I spend on cds right now. And the artists would probably get the same amount of money that they are getting now from the sale of these files. I think it will either happen this way or the music industry will fall. There will be a period of NO music coming out and then the independents will come out strong and the corporations will disappear. Same for software and the rest... man... ok... no more from me... not that I know what I'm talking about! :P
No website distribution model will be faster easier or cheaper than Napster. So why should people switch to downloading music from several websites or officially sanctioned MP3 servers when they can just use Napster to get all the music they need.
Q: Do university/college students in North America make up a large part of the music buying public in that continent?
A: Yes
Q: Where is Napster banned most often in North America?
A: Universities/Colleges
Kill all traffic going to *.napster.com., by IP, etc. Done. That stops 95% of non-clever people right there.
While university and college students aren't the end all and be all of music sales here, it is a large enough market to be lucrative. Universities/colleges aren't likely to ban access to a legitimate site where you download MP3s from a group or artist for a fee.
Not all people in this market segment need a resnet high speed connection to use Napster, but many do. Even some "normal" dial-up and high speed ISPs ban Napster. It's not a permanent "answer" to free MP3s.
Something like gnutella, on the other hand...
This is patently false.
The 12-18 age group is a huge market, at least in the US. Tens of billions of dollars are spent each year by this group (and their parents), and a big chunk of this goes to Limp Bizkit and Britney Spears CDs.
It is always nice to hear how many people ... honestly, hand over heart, are willing ... back to real life usually no-one shows up though 8-o
Next even if 90% are going somewhere else, those 90% help to provide others with jobs, the state with taxes and so it goes on.
Oh yes, and what you like or not is not the most important thing, but let's face it ... most people here do not give a shit, as long as they can get something for nothing.
I have American Beauty score (not soundtrack) tracks in 48, 96, 128, 160, 196, finally one in 320kps. And I have 4 tracks missing. You know why I don't use napster anymore? You can go to freeride.com to get point by clicking ads and honestly get a CD faster than napster. CY
You're assuming the artists are losing money from IP theft. There's been no evidence of this, as the record industry is making more money than ever. I'm not saying it's right, but if the record industry is stealing money from people (i.e. anyone who wants to burn a Linux CD, back up their files, or use a CD-R in any legal way), people will feel the need to steal money from them.
my taste in music is unpopular though, mostly underground punk rock. But these bands thrive without ever going "mainstream" or "signing"
Yeah, until their parents ask them to leave home
or even charging that much money for a CD, most of the CD i have purchased have been under $10.
You have been royally ripped off
concerts still make money and MP3's will never change that. they are just forcing the artists to actually go out and play. and its a f#&%^ing lie to say the concerts don't make money. I lived with someone who organized concerts and he took in enough money to start donating money to local charities
Local whorehouses are not "charities"
if even 200 people showed up and he only charged 5 bucks to get in, while getting 5 bands to play. its friggin cheap as hell to play a show.
Yes, but bands who don't play punk rock have other living expenses like soap, rent and drinks other than cider, and as a result can't live on that kind of fee. Punk is dead -- join it.
Contrary to what many here say - the music business is little more than theft right now. The labels don't give a shit about the artists or their music, they throw hundreds of acts against the wall every year and whoever sticks gets another album produced. The artists typically get about a buck or two per CD and the rest goes into the black hole of accounting amnd promotion. The cost of doing business with the Big Labels is like dealing with the fucking Mob - you get to pay out the ass for the privelege of recording for them, only when you get so big you can develop under your own label do you gain some kind of independance from the outright theft of monies and the rights to your own work. By the way - you get to undersell ONCE (that could mean under half a million units) and no matter what your track record, you lose your deal - after all there are millions of musicians who would sell their souls to be where you are at.... Fuck the major labels AND the RIAA, they are theives. "Been there done that."
(I can't tell if you think this or are just saying that others feel this)
A lot of people have problems that much of their money from buying a CD goes to the studios and not to the artist. When you buy a blank CD, ALL of the money that goes into the industry goes to the studios, and none of it goes to the artists!
does that mean ftp and http are illegal protocols because they may promote piracy?
this is nonsense! almost any good intentioned protocol can have evil purposes. heck, let's out TCP/IP!!!
I'm in complete agreement. The article had a quote from the president of a management company: "The genie's out of the bottle, now artists need to let evolution happen," And I think evolution will kill the existing system and replace it with one where people are compensated for the value they create. The rich rock star is going the way of the dinosaur. It is exactly what is happening in the open source movement.
Maybe this is why my Korn ticket costed so damn much this year... All of you guys bitching about how songs should be cheaper and more easily accessible (downloadable) are the little kids who A.)don't have a job, B.)don't make a whole hell of a lot of money to go out and buy cd's w/, and C.)don't drive, so you're really screwed. People have to take into consideration that the damned RIAA is still controlling the majority of America and that MP3's aren't on television very much yet. If they DO come on (I've never seen one..), they don't have enough time to explain the technology to the misinformed. The common people won't know what an MP3 is and won't care to learn about it because this is America and we're just too damn lazy to find out about anything new. (Except techno-geeks ;) What's going to happen is ticket and "concert" shirt prices will rise. People won't tour as much because they can't make money, but the bands that are already rich out their ass will tour by themselves w/ a few roadies and do small-time gigs. Local bands will be MUCH more common than tours. The local bands will rise at an exponential rate. I think it would be neat if people started making state or city-wide music sales internet sites. More concerts would happen in your area more often, and the money that could be made from this kind of thing COULD be large, if done right. Damn.. just told the world my business secret... :)
Halfway through the first page I smelled a rat, then as I neared the end my doubts were confirmed as I read it was written by reporter from Rolling Stone, a publication that has seen it's day as far as being a truly insightful paper with regard to the state of the music scene. Now it's nothing more than a tool for the big five to push their latest slop.
I'm very dissapointed that Salon ran this coporate-sponsored-matter-of-fact story for the reason that many will probably just browse right through and not give a second thought as to agenda of the writer, where his publications advertising budget comes from and the context in which the sob stories he chronicled sprang from.
A note on the underground: I've been an active member of my local/regional punk scene now for about 10 years now and even though we can now find a few downloads here and there by some of the bigger groups (NOFX, Rancid etc.) What we are interested in has been and probably will be for some time: 7 and 12" vinyl records. At $6-8 dollars for a new LP and $2-4 for a single (usually post paid), we rest assured that most (if not all, in the case of DIY unsigned bands) of the money is funneled to the artistes. It's strange how the format alone commands the alegiance that it does, but hey, there's nothing like getting new wax in the mail accompanied by perhaps autographed pictures, stickers etc. It lends authenticity and a feeling the the musicians are just as excited to send you their latest release as you are to open it up and put in on the turntable.
Viva La Vinyl
You are right about that, of course. Perhaps I made my previous comment a little bit too provocative, I do in actual fact not own any of the specific components I was referring to. They were mentioned as examples of some decent quality equipment that will not break the bank. Had I wanted to brag, then I think you will agree that I could have done much better.
Using headphones and a (possibly homemade (cheap)) headphone amplifier are in my opinion a relatively inexpensive way of getting good sound quality. The above setup need not cost more than your average home plastic theater from the far east, but alas - no speakers. Lots of sound quality though.[1]
I believe in the free choice just as you do. Unfortunately in my experience most consumers (geeks included) haven't even heard how good recorded music can be. I am slightly worried that we will end up with a whole generation of people, who are judging music playback quality after only having been listening to MP3's etc. The music industry will probably love this (no need for expensive studio equipment anymore), but what about us?
Are we not allowed to try and persuade other people of our opinions, if we believe they have not experienced all the options available to them before they make their choice? Can you say 'Open Source'?
For most of my life I have more or less just ignored music besides listening to the radio or the occasional live concert. It just didn't 'do' anything to me, besides the distraction. Then not too long ago I had the opportunity to hear one of my (few) CD's through some fairly good audio equipment. *Boom* No comparison, the difference was obvious even to my untrained ears. The rest is history...
I do not have Golden Ears or something similar, in fact I suffer from a bit of tinnitus and generally reduced hearing (no, not from the use of headphones), and even to me the difference in recording quality between CD's is obvious. The difference between MP3's and CD's are disastrous (to the MP3's). Test for the public: Bring A) a discman of your choice and B) a portable MP3 player to a store near you, where they sell Sennheiser headphones. Try out a pair of HD580's (the difference to the more expensive HD600's is mostly cosmetic) in both units while playing the same piece of music.[2] Consider that the discman is IMNSHO probably among the lousiest CD players available (except for internal CD-ROM drives). Test ends.
For the record: For some peculiar reason the best ever binaural playback I have ever experienced came from a SB16 in a Linux box. Go figure.
You too. ;-)
[1]The 'headphone connector' on most consumer equipment is not a substitute for a dedicated headphone amplifier. It is estimated that approximately 1% of consumers use this connector on a regular basis, so the cost consious equipment designers have not wasted many cents in the circuitry around that connector...
[2]: Be aware that the discman and the MP3 player may not have sufficient output power to drive these high impedance headphones.
Sorry to disappoint you, the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears will be all that's left. And they'll still be rich, because they can sell a lot more merchandise than, say, all folk artists combined.
As for compensating artists for listening to their MP3s, Ted Nelson's Xanadu project put forth a solution to that problem many, many years ago. Essentially, he advocated micropayments for "transcluded" material. In this example, a small payment (perhaps ten cents) would go to the artist each time you listened to his MP3. (Obviously the implementation of micropayments relies on computers and networks to be cost-effective.)
I'm not saying that's the right solution, just that it's one idea that has been out there for a while. Certainly the music industry has a lot of overhead built into the cost of a CD, and it sounds like there's a lot of interest on the consumer's end in reducing that overhead.
You are obviously fucking stupid if you don't like the Dead. You're probably one of those prissy kids who wants to be a bad ass rapper
What the hell is a check?
Seriously, the last check I touched was five months ago when I set up direct deposit at my new job. Electronic payment baybee!
Can I have royalties too for doing my job - over and over and over and over and over? My job may not sound as sweet Love Me Love My Big Boobs Britney, but my work is as valuable as hers or any other "artist" out there.... and I hardly get paid millions of dollars for doing it day after day. Toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube without a mess being created - the toothpaste in this case is the technology to allow information to be exchanged over the internet, including MP3s - and the tube is the RIAA and its messy fight to make it all go back where it came from. It aint gonna happen - it's sad, it may even be awful, but the reality is IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. So the RIAA and the artists are going to have to realign their thinking and put their creativity into figuring out ways to deal with the internet, the technology, and the exchange of information. Prediction: they will eventually - and then they will act as if they invented it.
After checking out Napster and getting thrilled by dloading popular cuts to CDs, I perused many of the Libraries of users I was dloading from. I "discovered" at a minimum SEVEN "new" artists I'd never heard of (mostly were European/Scandanavian). I was able to dload - i.e. SAMPLE - their songs (and of course not all of their songs were available on Napster - just one or two cuts) - liked what I heard and now I am on a quest to buy the full CD as imports. And we all know how expensive imported CDs are, don't we? At least seven world artists will be directly benefiting from my trips to Napster, and I would guess if you multiply me by the other posters here at /. by the thousands utilizing Nap - I would venture to guess that CD sales will be up again this year.
I too use Napster for finding new artists - and I've discovered loads of new people from around the world that I'd never heard of. I am trying to track down some of these artists via CDNow and Amazon - and am even willing to pay import prices. What the record industry does NOT understand is that a revolution is taking place, and like all large entities, they will try to bully the status quo upon us for as long as they can with all the money they have - but you can't stop progress. Nothing ever has - so they need to get a grip and realize that whatever they had is being shifted to a new paradigm. Keep up or be left by the wayside. They're just plain scared by something they truly do not understand.
don't worry, you spelled antagonist correctly
Oh course you can protect intellectual property. You can use encryption, license keys or any of the other 100s of methods available.
In fact, a hit song generates more revenue from airplay, than from record sales. The songwriter and publisher split $0.0755 for each sale of their song (album or single). A million-selling song gets them a whopping $75,500. Not much, really.
By contrast, a hit song can easily get them $300,000-$500,000 in "performance fees" just from radio airplay.
So, if you download MP3s and play them for free, not only has the artist lost out on $0.0755 (which I don't believe they really miss), but the potential is there that radio airplay becomes less and less profitable, since you're listening to your computer or Rio instead of the radio.
Even if MP3 usage translated into CD sales, the real problem for artists is the long term one. When radio airplay could start becoming less lucrative, because everbody's listening to Rio's.
So, strictly speaking, listening to an MP3 you haven't really ripped anybody off, as some artist have claimed. You've chosen a different medium for getting music (a "pull" instead of a "push"), and the industry has no means for translating that into revenue. IMHO, the industry needs to be creative here and come up with some good solutions. Y'all have invented a new medium, and a potential revenue stream for them. Instead of capitalizing on that, all they seem to want to do is whine, and sue.
Why would I pay for something when I can get it for free?
I am sure you wouldnt either.
Why would I pay for something that is free?
Oops, what a fool I am , I posted the same thing twice. Oops. Feel free to shoot me, moderators.
Fifty cents per CD is still a much greater amount of money than zero cents per Napster transfer, though. Is it really fair to say that because artists are getting very little under the current system, a new system where they get nothing isn't really all that different?
...who gave up all their rights to the record companies? If you want me to buy your CD's for $15+ a pop, then don't give away your music to the bastards who are really taking your profits. I support ARTISTS, not corporate leeches.
I've had Napster installed for a little more than a month now. The effect it had on me was that I downloaded some mp3s, listened to them and then ordered the CDs. I've spent more on CDs in the last month than in the 6 months before that.
And yes, I have a CD-burner. Haven't bothered burning any from the mp3s yet, but I do listen to the mp3s on the computer.
In my case, mp3s stimulated CD sales. I'm not even sure why, but once I'd heard a song enough times I wanted to go get the real thing rather than burn a CD of it.
As more and more "geeks" (I still hate this word) start to use Napster exclusively to get their songs, the artists that "speak to" "geeks" will be bringing less and less money. So the record labels will intentionally stop promoting the artists because their music will not "speak to" the dumb people. So all the promotions will be for very dumbed down music that is inteded for the least smart and least educated people, who can't figure out how to use Napster.
On another downside, we'll have another explosition in "popular" media of anti-"geek" sentiment. This will make sure that peope will continue to be proud of how ,i>little they understand about life around them. Because the people are are clueless will be continuosly made look "cool" (or whatever word we choose to use for it in the next 15 years).
Having a lot of money behind it, allows "popular media" do more than just sue. It allows them to go on offensive by redefining the way the game is played.
What's the solution? I don't know. There are no "solutions" in life. It's just something that happens. If someone, has a better idea, I am all ears. But for now, the artists that we like will be the ones most hurt by us.
If the artists are mad about the new mp3 distribution, why don't they support them in such a way as designing a new economic outlook. Look for a way to make money per ratings or feedback, they can get thier $0.10 worth per song. Use ads or something. They are looking at the old 1960's way to make money. We are in 2000 now. Do some thinking instead of being pissed off about the whole thing, work with it. It is going to happen anyways. Even if you crush napster another will take its place!! So get creative and deal with it.
No, you need a remedial reading class. Nowhere does it say that university/college students in North America make up the LARGEST part of the music buying public in the continent, it reads "large". "large" != "largest".
you dont seem to get it. actually most of the people posting on this forum really dont get it. it's pretty sad. This is a long post, but it explains the industry for some of you out there who really need a crash course lesson. first of all MOST (not all) musicians LOSE money on tours. Even the BIG names - U2 lost tons of money on their second to last tour and they were sold out in EVERY MAJOR ARENA in the US. Arena owners made the money. And it's not just Touring. Don't you ever watch VH-1 Behind the music? This is how the game works, boys and girls, so please pull up a a chair and listen. Let's say you are a band. You have been gigging around for years, scratching by, barely making any money, but really trying to make your DREAM come true. This is your LIFE. Not just a hobby. Not something you do on the weekends because it is fun. This isnt a cute thing you like to do to impress the girls or your family. No, this is who and what you are. This is your LIFE. Ok, so after these few years, you finally get a break and a label signs you. Let's say it's for a generous deal- $500,000 advance/recording contract. You go into the studio and record an album, and it runs about $250k, which is a little below average. Sure it can be done for less and a hell of a lot more, but I am using an average case here. So now you have $250 left over between 4 people. Well, not really, because you need to get new equipment and pay off some old debt. (Over the last few years, even with washing dishes, you have accumulated about 50k in debt for the entire band). Now you have $200k left over! great! Oh wait, we forgot the manager and lawyer. Assume they get 10% each, which is about standard. So there goes another 100k (50k of the original 500k). So after all this you have $100k left over. split 4 ways, its 25k each. oh wait, they have to pay taxes (it's income) on the original 500k. lets say they are in a 20% bracket (i know, it would be closer to 40%, but let's pretend for a second). that's 100K they have to pay. nothing left over. nice, huh? guess what the best part is? the advance was just that, an advance on future earnings. the band has to pay this back from their royalties before they see a dime in artist royalties from the sale of an album. the average band makes about $1/record in ARTIST royalties, so to pay it back, they need to sell 500,000 albums. they have to go gold before they get a penny from their artist royalties. oh, yo unow those videos you love? the artist has to pay for 50%. so if a video costs $300K, plan on selling another 150k album units to pay this off. Tour support also comes out of the artist's pocket (like videos-50%). So if it costs $300K to go around the country playing 50 venus (6k per show- not expensive if you consider the roadies, management, venue, gas, food, hotel bills, etc etc etc). add another 150 to the units needed to be sold. so to pay the record label back, it takes 800k units. i know what you are thinking, let's get rid of the labels, they are f@king evil. well... i guess no one here really knows what goes on at a label, they dont make all that much money. one flim studio with a big hit will make more money than a label in an entire year. if a label does $100 million in sales, they are LUCKY to make $10 million. LUCKY! That's only 10%. Not a big return on your investment. an average return in an average industry is 15%. And to be real, most of the labels out there lose tons of money. they all lose money on the developing bands, the life blood, but fund this from the big bands that sell tons. the ones that you are trading. get it? if it keeps up, no new music. i know, it is easy to hate and want to destroy the BIG EVIL FACELSS labels, but when you understand that these EVIL companies aren't making much money, maybe you will get how precarious the this whole Napster thing is. Trust me. You have got a good source here. So where can bands make money? PUBLISHING!!! they make $0.0755 per song. about $0.85-$0.95 per album, depending on the tracks and the caps, etc. they get this $$$ even if they "owe" the record label for the advance. It's a guranteed income for the publisher holder. Sure, it's not a ton of money, but if you can sell CD's, it is atleast some money coming in the door. But if you guys are "trading them", the artists dont get a penny. come on and think for a second. it's pretty low to steal from the bands you say you love in the name of "free music". go ahead, keep stealing from them, and we will wind up with no music at all.
not only that, but to be real for a second, there are 100,000 bands on MP3.com and they all suck. well all except that 3-5%. It's worthless to wade through it all because it all sounds like junk. MP3.com has even said that. guess what happens if you get rid of the labels? they help FILTER OUT THE SHIT! GET IT?
no brah, they are not short sighted, they are doing what their members pay them to do- protect their rights. stop this crap about how the RIAA is evil. They just want to make sure that copyright holders (the people that write the songs-musicians) get paid. what if someone started taking $$$ out of your paycheck because they could? i bet you'd stop working!
Slavery is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
Intellectual property is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
Even PHYSICAL property is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. Certainly, most people find slavery morally repugnant; it certainly had the largest impact on the freedom of the people involved.
Artist produces a song. Artist sells property rights to the song to record company. Everyone else living in a WIPO-treatybound country is bound by the asserted property right not to share that song with their friends. We do not have a choice in the matter either.
There are any number of reasons to prefer a system in which any of these property rights exist. There are also reasons to hate these systems. In the embarassingly recent past, enough of humanity decided slavery was wrong to abolish it--although that certainly didn't benefit the plantation owners much (not that I shed a tear for their loss).
The phrase is 'human property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to exploit the owned human for your benefit. If you don't recognize the right of the slaveowner to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the slaveowners' rights.
Why does that sound ridiculous? Because our society and legal system don't recognize that type of property as just or legally binding.
You can assert all the property rights you want. You can get a legal system on your side. You may even be in the moral right--but it takes more than "because I said so", "because that's how it's always been", or "because that's what we're used to" to justify it.
Odd. I have three of them. All of them purchased at shows. Just because it SAYS "this is not a fugazi t-shirt" on it . . . ;-) FUGAZI has never made t-shirts... any shirt you own with the name fugazi on it is a bootleg that they have made NO money on... ask any of em, they'll tell you the same. and they also continue to survive making music because they live like virtual monks.
Do you know what punctuation is?
Remember the Bay City Rollers, and how many albums and concert tickets they sold? They wound up with nothing, zippo, nada. One of the members is in England, flying bedpans in a hospital to make ends meet. He got picked up for some petty charge, and the rest of his sad story came out.
Artists ain't making nothing now. Go with your own distribution, you won't do any worse than with Geffen or any of the other pirates.
I can think of three reasons why Napster paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC wouldn't work:
1. Napster doesn't have that much money. It's a free service, and while it's been a while since I've used it, I don't think it has much (any?) advertising.
2. I doubt that that the companies would even consider negotiating with Napster, and if they would, all they would do is jerk them around during months of "discussions" of royalty rates (what rate should we charge? we've never seen a company like this) while the record companies push through legislation to kill Napster. Remember, the record companies consider Napster to be the enemy, and ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are the record companies customers.
3. Negotiating with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC gives Napster an air of legitimacy. At that point, what Napster is doing isn't illegal, but it is still ripping the record companies off. Why settle for pennies per song when you can charge a consumer $16.99 for a CD?
Actually, I think it would be nice if a solution like this would happen where Napster would still exist but royalties would be paid to the artists/record companies, but I don't think it's going to happen. The record companies are freaking out about Napster and want to crush it as soon as possible (like crushing Napster will stop mp3 distribution on college campuses).
It saddens me when I read comments like these. Yes, MP3's are nice, quick, easy and cheap, but do they deliver good quality music? If your answer is 'Yes', then I suspect you have never really heard the difference between a good CD recording and an MP3 made from the same CD.
Allow me to suggest that the one and only reason why MP3's have caught on is due to the crappy plastic stereos most people use in their 'home theaters' and elsewhere. The sound you get if you combine a decent pair of headphones, an at least halfway decent CD player and perhaps a homemade headphone amplifier is absolutely out of this world compared to the digital line noise called MP3. The fabled SB64AWE Gold and directly ripped WAV files (ie. no compression) is not even close to natively played CD's on decent playback equipment. If you are stupid enough to connect your high quality headphone amplifier directly to any sound card, then you will quickly discover that computers generates noise and distortion in more ways than by the spinning of fans and HD's. That people dont notice can only be attributed to the crappy japanese department store plastic they hook up to the PC.
Do I have a large HD shock full of MP3's? Sure I do, but they are mostly used as background noise when programming etc. When I really want to listen to music, then the PC's are shut down and the tubes are heated up. These days I mostly download MP3's to seek out new musical waters before diving in with my wallet. You just might get a feel of the real thing by listening to MP3's, but to get the totally enveloping experience you just got to have a CD (or LP). If you think differently, then you have a problem, pal...
After watching my father slave away at his keybord for years, producing tons of music and never seeing a dime for any of it, I cant say i have any simpathyfor the *po widdo music indwstry*. Who cares if there will never be another millionare rock star! ;)
Imagine, if you will, if we listened to music not because MTV told us to, but because the music was good.
Alot of the people reading this write alot of code that they never see a dime for and it gets passed around because it is good, not because they have good pr. (Although a little good PR never hurt
Imagine what will happen to popular culture if we only hear musicians who are interested in music as apposed to a buck!
I work in TV and I think we're next. You can allready see it coming, when ATTCI dropped comedy central for a year, I watched the entire season of southpark @ 320x240 on a 21' monitor, and ya know what, it wasnt all that bad. Movie's will be after that.
I think, (and I hope) what we are seeing here is the death of popular culture!
- Duration: 10 minutes average
- Cost: $20
- Cost per hour: $120.
Uhmm...... what cds do you buy that are only 10 minutes long? The ones I have are (average) 10 songs at (average) 3min each. Even at 2 min / song that's still 20 minutes. Personally if I bought a CD and found it was only 10 minutes long I'd be quite pissed.
Of course, based on your calcs I think you mean 10 hours average, not minutes, so I'll shut up now :)
Given that you are not the real Lux Interior of the Cramps, what does the real Lux Interior think about this issue?
Besides which, you're very much in error if you think mp3 pirating gives away your rights. It fails to produce mechanical royalties, is what it does. Nothing about it takes away from your copyright and ownership of the music because no matter how much you give it away that doesn't mean someone else wrote it. You're more likely to lose rights to your music by signing with a major label- read your contract if you ever get one, you won't be able to negotiate any parts of it away and you may well be signing away your copyrights to the label.
I know that making music for the love of music has somehow gotten way out of hand.
It's not for the love of music, or the money: it's for the girls, man! You think Rick Ocasik would be married to Paulina Poriskova if he wasn't a musician? And Napster can't take that away...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If I could replicate unlimited diamonds, at fraction of the normal price, then I get the feeling that the diamond corporations would do anything to stop me.
In fact, the de Beers corporations have ~100 scientists researching how to tell the difference between the best manufactured diamonds and mined diamonds. Their best way so far seems to be firing X-rays at them: manufactured diamonds glow for a bit after being hit with the rays. As an alternative strategy, de Beers is also starting to etch micro-labels on their diamonds as a marker of authenticity.
I believe it was Nova that had an hour-long episode about this.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
As someone who wishes he was making a living as a professional athelete (see http://www.wincom.net/trog/) I can testify that the only way you can afford to do stuff like this is with outside help.
;)
;)
Race cars are devices for transforming money into smoke and noise, and if mine ran on only my own money, it wouldn't run at all.
The big difference being though, that it's easy enough to cram sponsor logos onto my race car, but it's a little more difficult to get logos onto, say, the Spice Girls.
BTW, if anybody wants to get exposure (*cough* Red Hat *cough* VA Linux *cough* Andover) on a Nationally active race car team with proven sponsor performance, they should drop on by our web site.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The big difference is that the overwhelming, vast majority of programmers don't sell their software. Instead, they sell their services.
We solve problems and enable solutions at banks, manufacturing plants, insurance companies, HMOs, and the like.
Really, programming is more like being a doctor or a mechanic than anything else.
Music, however, presents another problem. Firstly, music is sold directly, and the entire industry is devoted to increasing sales. Secondly, (very much unlike programming) music is tied very tightly to an individual or group of individuals.
Linus could die tomorrow, and Linux would go on. Once a music artist kicks off... that's all she wrote folks.
I don't feel bad for people who sell software who are being put out of business by Open Source, as software _started out_ free and it was the "suits" that corrupted and prostituted it into something that was sold. But music artists I feel bad for.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Check out the Street Performer Protocol.
Ya know, to the extent that I'm known at all it's as an "avant-garde" musician. My ensemble, Comma, has put out a CD, on which, among other things, we do the music of John Cage and Pauline Oliveros.
That said: what the hell do people have against the Spice Girls, other than that they're rich and attractive? They work within a particular genre, and do what they do rather well. When I'm not listening to John Zorn, Cage, or Ornette Coleman, odds are strong that I'll be listening to something from the top 40, and liking it.
2. The big lie in the above message is this:
Hint #2: the good musicians are making a living.
A few weeks ago, I saw an incredible musician, Lisle Ellis, playing with a jazzoid trio, What We Live. I don't know that I've ever seen a better bass player. If the good musicians were making a living, he'd be a millionaire.
And yet an email is going around asking the following:
In the fairyland where good musicians were making money, this wouldn't be happening...The beginnings of a good idea...
But the thoughts I've had about such always trip over one problem: how do you tell that a given MP3 is related to that artist? After all, there's no control over the naming, or over unique tags within MP3s that might identify the song, especially since multiple users might have ripped the same song.
I mean, last night, I nabbed what I expected to be a Phish song, and it turned out to be by David Bowie (and no, it wasn't Phish's song "David Bowie", it was something else). How could we ensure that the right artist were getting paid.
I'd love it if such a thing could be put into effect. But the authentication problems would be a challenge.
"If I'm not stealing, i.e. taking something away from somebody so they lose it, AND not making a profit (i.e. publishing, performing, or redistributing it to make a win) that's not shared with the original owner, I'm not a pirate; I might not be an owner, but a user, and this is morally fine with me."
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
The point is that what you do has to make money before you can do it for a living.
The music industry in its' present form has only existed for 50-60 years. Human history is considerably longer. The industry exists in the form it does because of the distribution technologies available. The technology (and their topology) is changing; the industry is going to change.
A model will develop where people can make money from music. It may not be the same people, it may be more it may be less. Perhaps the real question is whether the music is better because of it. With attitudes like this: "Why would anybody sit down and write a novel if it's going to be pirated for free the first day it's released?". I think the music might get better
--
Is Napster only used to trade current pop, rap, rock music?
What about Classical, Medioeval, ethnic? Those are musics hard to find on CD whose fans theoretically would benefit from Internet ditribution.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Personally, I prefer to pay for a CD that I can enjoy for years than for a concert where you stand deafened by the coupling and reverb. Artists who base their business on concerts and merchandising would get no money from people like me.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I can't believe your post got moderated up.
/. about someone who took gpl'd code from "insert your fav opensource project here" put it in their product without acknowledgement or contribution and sold it.
Lets spin this a little, imagine that we're no longer talking about music. Lets say that there was a story posted on
Now, according to your logic, they're not doing anything wrong. Why is that? Because they didn't really steal anything. They just took a copy of your source code, who cares...it didn't cost you anything right? They would have paid but you know that huge opensource machine would have kept most of the money for themselves and the people who really wrote it probably would have just gotten a few cents on the dollar, in fact, they're doing those coders a favour because they're distributing their work and someone might see it who wants to hire them.....
Are the two scenarios really that much different?
I don't think so, but I tell you this much, under scenario two the header on this story would have been much more hostile and no one would be posting that it was really ok to do it because it 'really wasn't hurting anyone'
Gimmie a break, lemmie know when you live in the real world and it's your work being stolen.
Although you may not like N-Sync or Backstreet Boys or whoever (I know I don't....although I like to mute the spice girl's videos and just watch ;-) ), there are people, particularly younger people that like that. If you don't like it, don't buy it. 'nuff said. SOMEONE is buying it. Hardly a reason to pirate what you do like.
My personal opinion: If you have a CD, you should be able to rip it and make an mp3 FOR PERSONAL USE. You shouldn't share it with friends or the internet. If you like music, buy it. Same with games. I'm not perfect about it, myself, but if you like something and use it, you should buy it. If you don't like it, change the channel.
--
John Kramer
John Kramer
God may be my co-pilot, but the devil is my backseat driver.
Before anyone does anything, it would be nice if *everybody* could be honest about the issue, even if one doesn't want to be because it may hurt their arguement.
:-D
This is about piracy, but this is also about equally-important (more?) issues like freedom of speech, the right to assembly [online], and - probably the pivital issue - the EXPLOITATION of artists by the record labels.
Piracy.
Sure, I download MP3's. Most have been (pathetically) compressed by some cheap bastard who too much values their disk space, and at 128/44 and are a useless substitute for The Real Thing. The recording industry would like everyone to believe the CD that takes all day to download on a 56k modem is an exact digital duplicate worthy of re-recording. Bzzt!
Freedom
In the US we have [on paper] the right to free speech and assembly. Napster, etc. are both. The same arguemnents that say this technology should be illegal because it may be misused... well, I'm sure some folks at Microsoft or SCO would love an atmosphere where they could argue "foreign hackers" are hurting US Companies because they're doing commercial work (LINUX) for free. Or maybe trading of Grateful Dead shows - even though the GD says it's OK - should be banned because the concept of non-free works is too threatening.
Limiting the right to online assembly would be a fatal blow to the US Constitution. Sure, people *are* trading copyrighted works online... but think for a moment how frightening it would be if the media adopted the arguements against rap or heavy metal concerts, on the assumption there will be drug use inside that may not take place otherwise. Tough shit. The RIAA has no soul and NOTHING is too draconian if it means protecting their 20th century pre-digital business model.
RIAA: Want a way to make it more difficult to pirate movies and audio?? Make the content BIGGER. 24-bit, 4 channel audio is noticably better than 16-bit stereo. Push the channel envelope and maybe we will get some REAL innovation in speaker design (you'll need to hide 2 dozen discrete speakers..)
The Artists.
The artists LOSE when we pirate music, but remember the RIAA has an AGENDA. Just like the US Government declaring pot smoking can cause insanity, etc. the truth between two stubborn groups is somewhere far away.
Artists should question the information given to them by the RIAA regarding this technology. I do "keep" some MP3's I download, and burn them to CD. I also BUY music I "find" online.
Culture, CONTROL and media manipulation.
I saw a "frightening" story of online piracy on Fox News. Hey, does Sony own a TV network yet? Does anyone see a bigger problem with this??
This is about CORPORATE CONTROL. These companies hold TREMENDOUS influence over the artists, and the outlets (radio). Why else would so many artists request anonyminity when discussing Napster. Why else would CD's be price-fixed at $15 each, when in 1984 we were told this price was "temporary" until production was up. Why else would most of the radio stations be either owned or influenced by the big recording studios. Most radio stations are soooo distant from what's new and cool. Why is that? My answer is because the radio networks are conservative and get their suggested playlists from the RIAA. The DJ's are old because no one in the AUDIENCE would ever play the Eagles and Metallica back to back... but the radio networks don't see the irony in this. Rock music is not supposed to be conservative, but most rock stations play the same sound since the mid-80's that even my parents recognize. Why is it you can always strike a conversation by saying "MTV sucks"? This is about who should be allowed to influence our culture!
Because the radio sucks, I've found a lot of MP3's from artists I've "heard of" (or not heard enough of to justify a $15 CD purchase). These are artists you never hear on the corporate radio, like Frontline Assembly, Muslimgauze, Bauhaus, Black Flag, [ironically] Throwing Muses, and more. They may not have got my money before I listened to them, and i may not have purchased my every MP3, but they DID get my money BECAUSE of MP3.
This post was made with Mozilla and Linux, because I'm too cheap to buy Windows 98 to get on that there Internet Thingy.
"Bernstein says that Napster is "absolutely" illegal "
OK, is it posession of the file which is illegal? Or maybe it's just illegal to install it. Is it illegal to do a search in Napster? Or is it only illegal if you download mp3s.
Maybe the protocol is illegal. Because the protocol certainly promotes piracy.
People like this who paint things with such broad strokes make me yack. They are a danger to society; they don't care what crazy definition of illegal they apply to you and what you do, as long as it fits into their business model.
I think I care less after reading that article. So WHAT if I uploaded 99 Luftballoons and a Bauhaus track this AM. These people are on to other things (or dead), and if I don't provide the tracks, you'll end up buying some shit 80s compilation for one song.
I don't like uploading whole albums and make an effort to not keep those laying around in my uploads dir. Just doin' my part.
kabloie
That is how the vast majority of musicians in the world make their money: playing gigs. Whatever kind of music they play.
It is only a TINY minority that the corporate marketing juggernaut smiles upon and makes millionaires out of.
The whole system of corporate manufactured culture is coming to an end, and that is a good thing. Oh, so Brittany Spears won't make any money in the new world order. Boo fucking hoo.
The RIAA needs to be destroyed.
support gun control: take guns from cops
...how John Katz likened the recording industry to the drug cartels.
Now the recording artists, like campesinos struggling to grow their coca leaf or Kentucky ex-coal-miners raising grass on the sly, realize that if the cartel ever stops working -- through ending the war on drugs/through the traditional Internet-blind distribution model collapsing -- they stand to lose their accustomed income. The campesinos have to try to survive growing coffee, cane, rice, or vegetables; the musicians have to -- what? Find a new way to get their products directly to their listenership, I guess.
I wonder...If there were a way to subscribe to a fan site for They Might Be Giants that charged my club-dues account for every song I downloaded, would I be honest enough to go to TMBG's site to get my fix rather than hunt around and scrounge up songs behind the band's back? I think I might be that honest -- on my good days, anyway.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I have a couple of musical projects online, where
I distribute our MP3's. I do this because I want
to share the music.
For money, I work a day job.
No one is guaranteed a living through only producing art. Everyone has different goals, I
know, do what you have to do, but at least consider the idea that your art be something you give, not barter with.
Technically, selling "promo copies" is illegal, as they have been "on permanent loan", rather than given, to radio stations. Been that way since the 70's. Printed on them in tiny little letters.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This was my favourite from the article:
"No matter what you do for a living you should get paid for your work," says Atlantic recording artist Bif Naked, "whether you're washing dishes or recording songs."
If the implication of "what you do for a living" is that somebody is prepared to employ you, then this is something of a circular argument.
This is exactly the issue. If, on average, my skivvy breaks more plates than he cleans, I don't see myself employing him for much longer. Similarly, if a band is long-term unprofitable, a record company will drop them; it's a no-brainer.
Information wants to be free. Now we have the means by which is can be freely distributed, record companies are going to have to start selling physical goods!
I see the future of record companies as being something like this: they give me access to recording studios, and money to buy my bread, and in return I give them the rights to piggyback off my talent (royalties on T-shirts, etc - even CDs if people will still buy them for the inlay or whatever). I probably get to keep a decent share of my touring profits. If no-one's interested in this deal, well, that's a free market for you!
Wah is partially correct, even if he's wrong about Creed (I've never heard of them before myself). Music will start to sell more on the strength of its quality. Record companies don't like the idea of this, because there are a lot of talented bands out there and they don't want the poor consumer getting confused; it's less profitable to make a smaller amount of money from many sources than to make a large amount of money from a few.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I think you'll find that it's only the big commercial "artists" who are whingeing about Napster. The guys with day jobs aren't making enough money out of CDs to care.
Read the article. They quoted Kristin Hersh of Throwing Muses, among others. Have you even heard of Throwing Muses? I suspect not.
"she deserves to get paid for her work."
Inherently? Do I deserve to get paid for my work? For all my work? For the work of writing this?
I'd say anyone who invests a substantial body of time into such an effort deserves compensation, more specifically, if they are choosing to do it as a career. Let me turn it on the flipside - do you work for free? Do you ask other people to work for you for free? Yes, it does depend on what work you're doing as to what it's worth. I'm not saying all musicians should get rich, but I don't think you have the right to deny them pay because you don't feel like paying $14 for an album.
*sigh* Time for "Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Music Business" theater...
I think it's bullshit. I for one have gigs upon gigs of mp3s, and while i'd admit Napster has saved me from buying another CD from time to time, however if I like the album I downloaded i'll probably catch them in concert when they stop by. They must make money off concerts. While they do have to pay up to venues, why not use advertising to help out? I'm not talking about cutting in the middle of a song to say it's brought to you by M&M's or something like that, but banners and such should definitely help bring in some cash. T-shirts I usually pass on, because they usually don't come in my size. They should have XXL and XXXL - the other sizes shrink too fast. There's always ways to make money, and I think if artists start looking at concerts and touring more, they can tell the record labels to kiss their ass.
How many times do you have to be told before you realize that MOST TOURS DO NOT MAKE MONEY. It's in the frigging article on Salon. Come on kids, learn to read! Please. I'm begging.
You're suggesting bands find sponsorship from corporations. That's great, if you're a band with a significant audience. But even so, most corporations have plenty of other ways to advertise that are cheaper and more efficient.
And bands do not typically have to pay venues.
I noticed Salon didn't interview any of the less popular artists whose music does not sell and they end up in massive debt to the record companies.
Artists quoted in the article (among others):
Aimee Mann
Kristin Hersh
Scott Sapp from Creed
Jonatha Brooke
drummer from Sevendust
Mandy Barnett
Bif Naked
Debbie Harry
At most, two of these people are living comfortably. The guy from Creed and Debbie Harry. Some of them, I haven't even heard of, and that's saying something.
You know, not all bands play arenas. Not all bands charge $50-$75 a ticket. Hell, I can't remember the last show I went to where I paid more than $30.
And most of the bands I go see don't have baseball caps. You went to a Rolling Stones concert once, I guess.
But this can't last. Take the Aimee Mann case. Someone I know saw Magnolia and liked the Aimee Mann songs. He downloaded the most memorable songs -- "One" "Save Me" and "Wise Up" -- from Napster and they are indeed good. He looked up on CDNow what the other album tracks are. He downloaded a few of those...but they suck. He burned the 3 MP3s (160 kbs) he liked to CD. He listens to that CD a lot and he even burned copies for his brother- and father-in-law, neither of whom know how to use a computer at all.
Personally, My friend is never going to buy a music CD again.
Meanwhile, Aimee Mann has gotten dropped from a few labels, had problems making ends meet, etc. Now she runs her own label because the majors were so short-sighted and did such a poor job at promoting her. I'm glad you only liked 3 of her songs, but she deserves to get paid for her work.
Did anyone else but me notice that, by substituting the word 'radio' for 'napster', these same arguments could have been made fifty years ago? It's only very recently that artists started getting a commission from airplay.
While I can see similarities, you are in fact wrong. Airplay royalties have been around for about 50 years. Since the creation of ASCAP and BMI in the Tin Pan Alley days. SESAC, I honestly don't know enough about.
You're in the UK, so you'd be forgiven for thinking that. They're one of those bands that is far more famous in the UK than in the US, not unlike Madder Rose. On the commercial end, I'd doubt any of their albums has sold even 100,000 copies. And since Throwing Muses broke up, I don't expect the revenues are going anywhere but down.
That's such BS.. I've been a HUGE dave matthews fan for quite a while.. he lets his fans record his music, and trade his shows... as long as it's not being sold and a profit isn't being made OF HIS NAME, he's ok about it. heck he even let people do sound board recordings at one time..
same thing with phish, grateful dead, and tons of other bands out there
my philosophy on this whole thing, is that if you're just NATURALLY GOOD.. people will know about you.. so why would you need to complain??
worked with ICQ.. Winamp.. hell, even Slashdot. I remember linking to slashdot from some web board, and then frequently I would hear people talk about it, and finally it became a haven for myself..
but that's not REALLY what I was trying to get at.. the thing with artists is that these days, everyone is one.. with software programs that could par up against recording studios, it's disgusting how a sucky performer can actually sound good..
from personal experience.. i'm thinking of the band: Bran Van 3000... got their mp3.. drinking in la.. it was a pretty cool song.. saw them on jay leno.. and they blew.. saw them live.. and they were actually pretty good.. the moral of my ramblings.. well.. artists shouldn't be worried about profits made from cd's.. my idea of thought is that .. distribute the music.. BE GOOD.. and make your bucks of the tours that you go on... and if you're good.. then you wouldn't worry about your music being gimp'd.. in contrast to bv3k.. i've heard that elton john's candle in the wind song a bazillion times.. and then I think I saw him on jay leno or soem talkshow.. he played it again.. and i thought it was the most beautiful thing i had ever heard..
that's all
Based on the title of your comment, you seem to operate under the same ideals as others around this place. That in effect might makes right. Because the bandwidth is there, and the capability to copy is there, it's your god given right to pirate whater you want, whenever you want.
You give a list of "options" that an artist has to make money.
With regards to the value adds, what's to keep someone from copying those? Why suddenly are the words, or the art less a piece of art that should be protected, than the sounds are? So any copier can just as easily duplicate the entire package.
Teaching music is a valid way to earn money, and it is how quite a lot of musicians make some money.
Once you've destroyed the commercial art fields, why would anyone be willing or able to pay a living wage for studio artists? If the main group isn't getting paid for the recording, how can they ever pay you for working on it?
Creating custom pieces is no longer an option, since art is now public domain. There's no money in making a piece of IP, so there's no money to hire collaborators.
Working as a subject matter expert, is one other way that struggling artists make $$ now. But how many retail jobs are there? And how much can an expert make, when his clients aren't making any money?
So in summary, there are ways that some artists could make money, if the system were scrapped, and redone. But if it were possible for them to live in a manner that they find acceptable, don't you think at least a few of them would? Why is it that even the artists that own their own labels, don't release all their product as freebies, and live off the alternative revenue streams that you suggest? Could it be possible, that they can't live in the style to which they would prefer to?
I suppose that living in the style to which they prefer to, is something that some people think is ok. Why should they be rich? Because they work their asses off, and earn it. That's why. The economic system that the US thrives under, rewards people for what they do. And I see no reason whatsoever, to object to someone elses success. Tearing down someone else, doesn't make the world a better place. You make the world better by improving peoples lot in life, not by reducing everone to the same low standard of living.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Ok, here's how we intend to take off as audio artists that explicitly allow replication of our audio:
Mass customization. When you buy a CD from us, you get one that has tracks on it that were resequenced, or have an extra sample, or a track of us talking, or whatever.
The point is that every fan I've ever known would flip over getting something that showed personal attention.
We're never going to be multiple platinum artists, but so what? I think this is a survivable strategy.
~mindlace
That's a good idea!
Maybe companies like Napster, and radio/TV stations, should be commissioning these works of art. Hell, they are profiting off them, and ask any artist how much money artists make from radio stations playing their music. It's practically nothing. And we all know that Napster isn't paying anyone.
That's not to say that artists should be selling away the rights to their own work, which is effectively what is happening under the current model. But perhaps some responsible investment in the musicians is in order. What a good idea.
This is not sarcasm, I'm genuinely excited by this idea.
That's one thing that I've been thinking lately about the Open Source movement, that it seems to be something of a leveling force, akin to pure capitalism in a way. Take Red Hat for instance. They don't, and almost certainly never will, have the ridiculous market share that Microsoft has. But what they are doing is making money, good money, off of a good product, and giving Microsoft one hell of a run for their money. It's competition, and the end result is not a bunch of starving programmers, but better software and an end, hopefully, to the kind of exploitative degenerative capitalism that has sprung up in the software industry.
How does this relate to music? Simple. Open standards. The RIAA, not the artists, is the group that is freaking out over this. Ask Adam Duritz from the Counting Crows about how his whole band was starving while they had a number one album sometime. But open standards pave the way for entirely digital distribution of music, and that effectively ends the need for record labels (and ends the ridiculous profit that they have been making from the exploitation of artists).
That's why the RIAA is so shaken up over MP3s, because the party (or gang-rape, depending on which side you are on) is over. I doubt that we'll see anyone making as much money as Puff Daddy in the near future, but that's a good thing.
A few weeks ago I (among others) install a computer in the studio for the purpose of playing MP3s. With this machine, a lot of a smaller/unknown people will get airplay. Thus, they will get more record sales and more people will know of them.
That is perhaps the only way I can think of Napster greatly helping smaller bands and labels as well as the entire music community. [Oh, I should add that I play experimental/avant Guard and 20th Cent. Classical. I can t find a single MP3 on Napster ofwhat I normally play. Perhaps this is why certain labels/composers are somewhat protected from the mp3 rush.]
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO.
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO. It's often cheaper to buy imports directly from the US because of import duties and things -- that are not the record companie's fault.
And how do you have them paid for composing ? IMO, the main reason people are pushing napster is it makes freeloading easy, and makes it easy to circumvent compensating the artist. IMO, it doesn't matter how the artist is compensated as long as they are. Unfortunately, the napster pushers haven't come up with good alternative models.
Buy yourself a single
I object to the term "share", because it makes it sound as though you're being generous as opposed to cheap. This act of "sharing" is really an act of forcing someone else ( namely the artist ) to share. IMO, you have no right to force someone else to share.
If artists want to offer MP3s on a "try-before-you-buy" basis, that's fine and good, but IMO, you should respect the artists wishes and not "share" their work if they don't want it to be shared. At best, such conduct is rude, at worst, criminal.
But why should copyright be abolished ? Because Joe Slashdot Freeloader wants something for nothing ? This is what it seems to boil down to. Sure, there are these other business models, but why abolish the copyright business model ? It works very nicely ( especially in the software industry )
No one's forcing the band to sign on with the record companies. If they really can get it to the market for much less and still make more $$$ per CD, then perhaps they should set up their own independent label instead of signing on.
Do some research, and then you'll be in a position to make comments like this ( the truth is that the money is intercepted by all too many levels of middlemen in the distribution network ). If you really think the record companies are inefficient , you can always start your own outfit that gives the artist more and sells for less. Then all the artists would sign onto you ( because you offered them more money and better quality wrapping for their CDs ) and you'd be rich, and so would the artists and everyone ( except the greedy evil record companies ) would live happily ever after !
( my point isn't that you should do it -- but that someone could and would if your theory that CDs were overpriced held water )
After nearly a decade and a half of freeloading, the freeloaders are finding newer and better ways to freeload, and to justify their freeloading. "It's too expensive, so I'll just take it without paying!" Surprise surprise.
Don't fool yourself -- when you copy an MP3, you are not producing creative work anymore than a monkey who imitates Einstein is doing theoretical physics.
If the market is willing to pay for their music, then I would guess that their music does have "some monetary value". It's easy for someone who's never produced anything creative in his entire life ( like most slashdot monkeys ) to poo-poo creative work and say it "has no value". And that's a good point of view to hold if you want to live in a society devoid of creative work.
No-one should make music for money.
Yeah, and no one should teach or be a doctor or whatever for money. Everyone should do whatever they're doing ( unless it's not an honourable profession ) just for the love of it. But we all have to put food on the table, you know.
Record companies are not inherently evil. If it were not for them, we would not have many of the albums that are considered classics now (Nick Drake is one example that comes to mind). How many orchestras would have recorded the music of Arvo Part or Harry Partch were it not for somebody at a record company. Would we have recordings of Charlie Parker?
Musicians are not necessarily good business people, or they would never sign bad contracts. Many of them would never even make it to the studio if it were not for a producer and a record company budget. The main problem is that the way recordings have been distributed has become less efficient. Most record stores/shops need to sell four to ten CDs to support each CD they have in stock. So you have Brittney supporting Captain Beefhart or John Zorn, in a way.
I want to go into a store and buy a CD that was exactly what I wanted. If I want a comp of throwaway hits, make one for me (even if the artists are on different labels). Nothing would be "out of print" or "not in stock." I could print the artwork any size I wanted, or not at all. I could get lyrics if I wanted. In other words, give me service like no one else, not even pirates. Set up a patronage system whereby we can designate a foundation to bestow grants on new artists to record the next best thing. The old distribution system is dead. Use your energy to create a new model, not in keeping the old one alive.
Tried getting tickets to a PHISH show lately?
Better mail order early.
The only thing I've used Napster for is trading
legit legal copies of live performances from bands that allow taping/trading.
The only cds I've bought in the last 2 years have
been studio releases from the bands that I just couldn't get enough live recordings from.
What's wrong with that?
The funny thing is that the RIAA had two choices 3-4 years ago, if they were paying attention:
1) Try to beat back the tide (the path they chose, with the inevitable consequences we are seeing today).
or
2) Embrace and promote a new business model. Anyone remember Millicent, a DEC project for micropayment that would have made it easy to fund an account with 10 bucks and conduct transactions in a lightweight transparent way with amounts down to 0.001 cents (thus the name)?
Think about paying 1 cent per track on napster. Would this kill you? What about 10 cents? Is it fatal? Is it worth it to checkout a new band you have never heard of now? What would it be like if the RIAA had chosen this path and rolled with the punches? Basic economics says that if the prices go down this much, the volumes should go up. Will the result be the same amount of revenue? I don't know... that's what you have businesspeople for, to set the prices.
This is probably what they will have to do now -- beat Napster at their own game, if they cannot win the legal war to shut it down entirely. And, in about 10 years I would expect that the RIAA member-co's P&Ls will look radically different than today, just as Disney and all the studios found they could make money off VHS. Go figure, there's more than one way to make money.
ObBias: I think I have a total of 4 MP3s, all burned from stuff I own. I own 600+ CDs and have settled on CD as my archival/storage method for music. I love music (and the RIAA probably loves to see me walking into Tower Records!), but I find the appeal of sampling new music to be what is pulling me towards Napster, plus the completist part of having all the mixes/dubs/promos/weird-o tracks of bands that I really do like. I am more than likely to end up buying the actual CD so I can listen to it in any room of my house, my car, at work, my friend's house, whatever. The commonality of the format is the major boon to me.
The full paper is available from http://www.counterpane.com. <rant>Unfortunately, Bruce Schneier hasn't yet realized that PDF and Postscript are only appropriate for printing, not publishing on the Web</rant>.
Wasn't Bob Dylan one of the people who testified before a congressional committee in favor of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wow, I don't know what to say to your post except - what the hell is wrong with wanting to make money with music? I am a musician, and right now I have a job as a programmer to support myself. However, music is my true love, and it's a talent I am blessed with, and I would love to do it fulltime someday. Why can't I try to make a living making music? If you are saying that there is no value in my hard work writing songs and touring, and therefore I don't deserve to get paid for it, then I suppose that other people with "hobbies" in the humanities shouldn't get paid either - actors, writers, painters, sculptors.....
"There's lots of jobs out there, and why should you be exempted from being a productive member of society?"
In your view of the world, there is no inherent value in creativity. I don't really need to point out how ridiculous that is, do I? The world would suck without music, books, movies, art..... Artists ARE productive members of society. We create value, and all we ask is compensation for that value. It's just plain silly to ask that we get "normal" jobs in order to support our "hobbies" so that you can enjoy the fruits of our labor for free.
Siobahn
www.siobahn.com
Information wants to be free ! !
Napster is a perfect example of what this adage is really saying. Music is just information. It "wants" to be free, both in the free beer and the freedom sense, exactly because the marginal cost of production is zero. And as is the case in other markets, regardless of whether or not the market happens to be legal, the market moves to equilibrium between supply and demand. As others are saying here, yes it is too bad in a way (especially for those few artists who have made it in the old system. Who are the ones that Salon quotes, in the main). But in another way, it is simply a thing that is coming, whether we want it or not.
That's a useless proposition...
Come, work for me, and if i feel like it, i'll pay you... Any takers?
In the best case scenario, an artist sells a downloads and has to go to the bank to deposit one million checks?!? It's going to take them a couple of years just to sign and bundle all those checks. They'll probably have to hire a staff of workers to do it in a reasonable time. Guess what? Those'll cost them money... They'll probably lose 75% of their cash just to the overhead of employees sitting there stamping checks all day long.
Now if an artist was okay with that idea, came forward and said, yes, distribute this on the internet. If you like it, send me a buck, that'd be cool. But let them decide how they want to do it! Many would rather just get a cash advance and then a few large sized checks from the labels rather than suffering through hundreds of thousands of one dollar checks. Remember, it's their choice as to how to distribute their music not yours.
To put it in the slashdot perspective, it's akin to me saying "hey this linux thing is pretty cool, but you know, i don't really like the GPL... So i guess i'll just make my own distro, pull out all the source and references to the GPL, because, you know, computer programs should be free... my interpretation of free being that i can do WHATEVER I LIKE with it, even if that means ignoring the copyrights"
How about look to other labels? There are LOTS of bands out there, in my opinion, that churn out record after record of quality material... They're not on the major labels though. You know, you can like stuff besides what they tell you you should like. And some of the smaller ones treat artists much nicer...There's even one that's fabled to sign off on contracts with handshakes rather than pens.
Well, with that $2, how does the artist pay for:
promotion
production (like engineering, mixing, etc...)
studio time
and all the rest of the costs that artists never have to worry about? The money they get is after all the rest of the expenses have been paid...
And yes, the labels are money grubbers... but as of late, it seems that slashdotters and napster fans are just a bunch of penny pinchers ("Ooooh! I'll spend $2000 on a new computer, but $15 for a new CD? That's absurd!")
No offense intended to those who shouldn't be offended.
Well, it's a lot more outside the mainstream than most of america...
But back on topic... You're simply WAY off in thinking that bands recieve 7 cents per record sold... It's more around $1.00... Those dollars do add up pretty quickly.
I guess i have to post a link to this again in an effort to show the costs involved for a band to release a CD. Read through it and come back and tell me how much of that money could be averted by going to an MP3 based scheme? Not much, in the bigger picture... And yes, they are getting screwed over... we know that part already... But your bootlegging is NOT HELPING THEM IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Anyways... why don't you post some MP3's of those bands you like so much for me to download? I'm sure they won't mind, after all... Who knows, maybe I'll go to one of their shows and buy a T-shirt... That's where the bucks are, people around here say. Actually, it'd be nice if you'd email the names to me... It's near the end of my day and i'm feeling lazy!
advocating sending the artist(s) money directly?
How would the debate change if you sent the artist a check for a buck? Or the full $15? Would they cash it?
That's how the conversation started. That's why i brought up the idea of processing a million checks.
There's plenty of music out there that's worth my money. I've always told myself i'd rather lose my sight rather than hearing, because i think music is much more expresive than anything we can possibly see. I do spend my money, proudly, on CD's, because i want to see more become available.
Anyways... Here's my cd collection. You'll see that not much mainstream stuff has been "shoved down my throat". I do hold that not much good music has arrived this decade...
As far you go... in one sentence, you state you stopped buying any CD's... but you like these other bands... how are they to support themselves? Do you feverishly go to their websites and hit reload to earn them a few bucks from advertising banners?
Do you pay rent? Utilities? Anything? Checks are still needed in the world i live in! :)
I thought that art is something artist creates for himself and lets others enjoy it with him. I dont consider something that is made to please masses being art. Better call it a product. Now it is not so difficult to develop a way of selling this product.
And a hint: vinyl LP sounds much better than CD and is not so straightforward to rip, so why not go back to releasing albums on LPs?
Here's my take on the situation:
Existing Model
* Record Labels push songs out to radio stations to expose their artists to consumers.
* Consumers hear these songs and buy the CD for those they like.
** Everyone is happy except consumers, who lament over the lack of diversity on radio and the high cost of the CD (especially when the rest of the recording sucks).
New Tech Model
* Record Labels release songs in MP3 format on the Internet, as well as push songs out to radio stations.
* Consumers (1) hear songs on the radio, or (2) download songs from the Internet and buy the CD of those they like.
** Everyone is happy including the consumer, who now has a greater veriety of music available to them to hear - since they can checkout alternative(~) genres that local radio stations do not play. Although the price of CDs is still expensive, but with a potential reduction in advertising costs, since the website would be a major marketing tool, the price could be lowered.
I typically purchase the CD of artists I like, for the mere fact that computer storage for me is rather dynamic. I prefer having the CD in case my hard drive dies and the backup turns out unrestorable. I realize some folks just burn the MP3s they download to CD, but I doubt the number of consumers doing this would have that great an impact on CD sales. Besides, blank CD media already contains a surcharge paid to the RIAA specifically for this type of scenario.
(~) = The term alternative used here is as it's definition implies - outside the mainstream, not the "alternative" genre labelled by ignorant marketers.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
signed pgp?
Don't believe everything you read. Take the last Pink Floyd tour (a very media-visible event). They "lost money" on the tour if you look at ticket prices. They more than made up on merchandise sales. Then they released a live album which was nearly ALL profit. Fugazi has been doing shows exclusively under $10 their entire career. They exist on t-shirt sales.
Although you're profoundly mistaken, you've brought up an excellent example. Fugazi have never sold t-shirts in their 12-year history. The reason they are so successful with $5 and $6 ticket prices is that they are self-managed, and run their own record label. (Not nearly as difficult to be profitable when you get all the profit from a $10 CD.) I understand they've sold over a million records, too. Even with their label Dischord's subsidizing many, many unprofitable bands, and a policy of only playing benefit shows in their hometown, they seem to do quite well.
Granted, as the finest rock-and-roll band in America they're a special case, and relentless touring doesn't work for every band, but their example is certainly instructive.
While it is true that the artist has opted to do busness with a given label I do not wish to do the same. :)
.wav files...
.wav format?
To be fair that means I must not lissen to artists who do busness with labels I object to. To lissen to lables I object to would be theft as I am not buying the lables CDs.
The primary reason for having a CDrom drive in my computer is to play CDs. I know thats not true for most people but it's true for me.
However as long as CD makers fight mp3 format music I fight back by refusing to lissen to any CDs (or any music from CDs) this task of course being much easyer for me now that my radio dosn't work
In short the only music I am lissening to thies days is music originally made for mp3 distrobution and old CDs I have laying around.
The reality is the cat was leaving the bag a long time ago with standard audio file formats and digital sample sound cards. It was only a matter of time before a mp3 came out or bandwith was high enough to distribute high quality
Looking at the Linux archives at metalab.unc.edu in the sound applications you'll see early efforts to do "internet radio" one program was for sending a radio signal over a lan.
Napster allready existed under a diffrent name waiting for enough bandwith to work. If Moors law applyed to bandwith (it dosn't) we'd have had the bandwith for this Napster like system allready.
Instead we have Napster. A system requiring significantly less bandwith than the older software.
So? The point?
The missing element from existing software is compression. It is not a complex issue to write the inital software the only issue is adding realtime data compression. This also isn't a major issue. It dose mean you can not slap software together but it also means anyone 31337 enough to have the bandwith and run a server can write his own mp3 server.
After all Napster isn't even the first mp3 server out there. It's just the latest incarnation of the idea.
There will allways be a Napster... there will allways be digital sound files.. and there will allways be sound compression.
Who is going to be the first to tell Microsoft they have to remove sound compression from the
Who is the first to tell Sun the same thing?
Who is the frist to imbed this into the Linux sound drivers?
Who is the first to imbed it into the sound card?
Who has the balls to make any of this illegal...
I don't actually exist.
While the system may be "unfair", and while you're free to disagree with it, it does not make intellectual property null and void. It exists for a reason, you, as a consumer, have a simple choice: Accept conditions and buy it, or not.
Theft is a choice too. I am a free individual. I choose to steal my music, break the law, and give a big "Fuck you!" to the music distribution industry. I support those musicians who do the same and independently release their music on the internet. I still buy those CD's I really want to own, but I no longer will buy a CD with two good songs and 12 crap ones. Who loses? Why, the distributor, and the artists who can't produce enough good quality music to fill a CD.
Are my actions legal? No. Is it likely that I will be caught? No. Is there anything preventing me from performing these actions, from a practical standpoint? No. Do I give a shit about the artist or the industry? Hell, no. If the artist can't make a CD that I want to buy, fuck 'em. If they can, I'll buy it.
I'm rambling now, but I guess the point is that the majority of the public does not care if it's legal. The law doesn't prevent crime, and never has. The law gives an excuse to punish those who commit crime, and to do it fairly. You cannot prevent a crime when it's what a person really wants to do.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Here's what is happening, my friend down in nashville has built his own studio. He bought a G4, loaded it with CubaseVST, he has the experience, has the connections, has the talent. He says his setup cost less than a 4 day session at a studio in Nashville. He said the product is as good as what comes out of the big name studios. He is not the only artist that has gone the Mac based studio. Marathon is in Nashville and they are a Mac/rack mount solution. Fuck the studios, fuck corporate music, the indies are the way to go. He's freeing himself from the big boys, He will burn and distribute what he does.
My wife is part of his inner circle, and will be the first he produces. She can't get a deal because she can't be pigeon-holed. She's doesn't fit into any neat catagory. One wonk plays her demo in his car, and loves her music, but knows no label that would take the chance on her. her music is too "intelligent" he says most won't get it. She uses different musical genre as text illustration. Is she rock, is she jazz, is she country, they don't know so they can't market her. Jazz chords in a country song about metaphysics, yeah right.
This is what is wrong with the industry. Art takes a back seat to the bottom line. We need to support art, not commerce. If not, all we will get is what the bean counters approve, not what has artistic value. (top forty radio == windows 98)
MP3 is great, Napster is great, but we need to support the artist. don't be so tight-ass, buy the discs. If you don't, all there will be is Backstreet boys type shit out there. And is is shit, the lowest form of shit. Technology is fine, but people have to eat.
If we want justice for the artist, we have to free them from the tyranny of the big studios, and then we have to give of ourselves. Stop pirating the indies, buy their products. They are folks like us, don't shaft your brothers and sisters.
Nothing wrong with sending the money straight to the artist. Jonatha Brooke, a fine musician and writer, and has taken control of her music. she is not getting rich, but she is doing it. Support her music. Her lyrics cuts like a knife, and the melody supports the context. so fine.
photosMy Photostream
"Nobody wants to look the artist in the eye and say, 'Giving your music away for free is going to make you lots of money' -- not while keeping a straight face, anyway," suggests solo artist, and founding member of the Throwing Muses, Kristin Hersh.
I was reminded of a quote by Steve Ballmer or another MicorSerf who said that Open Source software doesn't/cannot exist because a programmer will not work for free.
And I am reminded by another quote by Erik Raymond that said that the truly great practitioners work for passion, not dollars.
(who works only for money up front? suits)
Can anyone look the principals at Red Hat, VA Linux, Slashdot/Andover, etc. in the eye and say "giving your software for free is going to bancrupt you?" -- not while keeping a straight face, anyway.
If artists are making so little, then their beef is with their employer, no different than ANY employee of a company. Its the reason trade unions started, to make the employee share their wealth with the ones creating it for them. Artists that blame Napster, or ANY protocol capable of distributing their songs, is completely misguided. Napster didnt force the artist to sign a record deal. These artists need to look in the mirror and ask themselves why they signed. Then, and only then, can see they see the blame lies not in Napster (or ftp, http, et al), but in the decisions they, or their lawyers, made for themselves.
Take responsibility for your actions, don't blame others for your own decisions.
"...The only way they can defend what they feel is their right to selling overpriced music will be to lobby for legislation..."
/. many times before, the new "corporatism" is screwing everybody over, except the stockholders. The consumer is getting shafted, the musician is getting shafted. All this whining by the RIAA about losing potential music sales (potential is a funny word, how can one REALLY forecast future sales of music, wasn't it mentioned here before that music sales are up since last year? So much for THAT argument) is enough to make one nauseous.
Lobby? Try buy. I agree with your assessment though. As has been mentioned on
Artists *should* get paid for their work -- they should receive compensation for every song they write, and every hour they spend in the studio or touring. It used to be that artists were seen as respected craftspeople; folks like Bach and Michelangelo were more likely to be seen as tradesmen than fussy primadonnas.
I have a problem with this whole "royalties" model. I code for a living, and get paid a fair wage for every program I write and every hour I spend at a client's site. I do it because I enjoy it, and don't need or expect the extra incentive of receiving a future kickback just because a piece of code I wrote helps make somebody lots of money.
Likewise, I'm a musician, and I make music because I REALLY REALLY enjoy doing so -- I'd still do it eagerly even if I was certain I'd never make another cent from doing so. I don't mind charging a small amount for selling a tape or CD, because that helps me recover the cost of equipment and media. But I'm more than happy to share MP3s of my music and to invite people to make as many copies of my recordings as they want; none of which requires a bit of time, money, or effort on my part. It's a win/win situation -- people get new music to listen to and I get more exposure, all for free. Woo woo!
I've been known to use Napster, but I'm not one of these people who gets on there and downloads entire albums. This is for several reasons; one is that I *do* want to support acts that I like, and I enjoy having a nice CD with cover art and liner notes to stick on my shelf (even if I *do* feel raped every time I spend $18 on something that cost less than a buck to produce). But Napster can also be annoyingly inconsistent -- I end up deleting a lot of songs after the first listen, either because its a crappy recording, or the end of the song is cut off, or someone has added a stupid voiceover. Clearly, Napster is NOT a good way for a serious music fan to build a collection. I'd rather go out and buy an album rather than spend the time downloading six different copies of a single song trying to find one that's listenable and complete.
Regarding the Salon article, I find it hard to take seriously anything portrayed in such unrealistic, dualistic terms. Like the artist claiming "If we can't sell more CDs, we'll have to go back to working at McDonalds". Umm, are those REALLY the only two options? If the band fails, couldn't one form another band, or get work as a session musician, or play in smaller clubs? Maybe that's not as satisfying to the ego, but there's still plenty of oppurtunities for a talented musician to earn a comfortable living. If the person cares about their music, they'll keep doing it anyway. If the only options are superstar or fry chef, that leads me to believe that perhaps there wasn't much talent there to begin with.
Here's something intersting about Napster. Lets say I want to use it _legally_ to download music that has ben freely released as mp3s. Wow, gee, look at that. I can't! Napster scanned my hard drive I found the mp3's I legally made from my CD's (so I dont have to carry them around everywhere). Now its sharing them on the net so others can download. Wait, thats not legal! I don't want this. Napster does not make these easy to change.
Then just don't export the directories you don't want to share... (i.e. create /mp3public and /mp3private -- export only /mp3public to Napster, and keep the rips of your own CD collection in /mp3private).
Like warez kiddies, many napster users are young people, without a lot of money, who would never have bought the official product anyway, so they aren't a loss to the artist.
That's pretty interesting. Do you have any data whatsoever to back this up?
I know that this is a glorified "me too", but I wish I hadn't already submitted to this article, so I could modify you up. :)
If you want market research data, you are going to have to pay for it yourself.
:)
If you look at the music available on napster, you can get an idea of the demographics of the users.
Search for "Miles Davis", "Frank Sinatra", "O Fortuna", and "Beatles". Keep in mind that you only see the first 100 hits, by default.
I wasn't meaning to slam on you, Detritus, but it bugs me to see someone's opinion put forth as fact, without some kind of qualifier.
I'm not saying this is the best solution in the MP3/Napster case, but it's an idea that has been around for a while.
Clearly, there's a lot of overhead in the music industry, and I think it's clear that consumers are interested in avoiding the costs associated with that overhead. Micropayments are one way for artists to get their music directly to listeners without the music industry middlemen.
This certainly puts the lie to all the 'intellectual property wants to be free' crap that's been circulating here and elsewhere. Everyone tells us how the artists are abused by the big, bad record companies..... now we hear what the artists have to say for themselves.
When Jon Katz publishes his next book on the web for free, maybe I'll change my mind. Somehow I don't think he paid the publishing, promotion and book tour costs for 'Geeks' out of his own pocket, do you??
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
Ok, an artist releases an album. A track or two become "popular", and get airplay on MTV and pop radio (not college radio...). People follow the leader and totally dig this artist. CDs are bought in droves. Some people decide to rip mp3s off of this CD and distribute them on Usenet, IRC, Napster, ad nauseum. This artist, feeling her/his oats off of good CD sales and excellent radio play, decides to tour. People at the tour stops buy shirts, CDs, etc. And she/he is *losing* money due to mp3s? Give me a fscking break. I grok that the artists worried about Napster, et al, are just worried that they won't become mega-millionaires like U2 or Rolling Stones. Screw them.
Dude, where's your record label? or your money-making band? "Screw them?" Did you even read the article? You're either a troll or a very ignorant person, because you're exactly the stereotypical freeloaders they described in the Salon article.
I think the answer is to make MP3s *more* legitimate rather than less no. If companies pushed them around more as a "taster" (eg low quality, or 'samplers' - I'd never advocate a pay-per-listen scheme!) then there wouldn't be that much thrill-factor in getting them "underground".
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
I'm from an online band called God Ate My Homework (http://www.gamh.cx).
As a band, we use Napster for two reasons.
1) To determine which of our songs is most popular. For instance, we see "Secret Asian Man" a lot, but hardly ever see "Target Audience".
2) To learn from other songs. For instance, Hobbes (fellow band member) downloaded Seven Days by Sting as an example of 5/4 time, after he heard it on his sister's CD.
And of course, we do get a lot of stuff off napster just 'cause we like it, including a lot of songs by Kristin Hersh (d'oh). Guess it's time to buy one of her CD's.
Anyways, it's refreshing to see a one-sided article about this situation that isn't total bullshit.
Hey, if you make the check out to the artist, you get a free autograph on the back of the check!
:) That's what Bart thought, but his check came back stamped, not hand-written.
This sounds like something the labels made artists say, in the neverending anti-MP3 PR.
Artists say they can't make money from t-shirts and touring, and if sales of their CD drop on the auto-indexer, the label says goodbye.
Nonsense! You can't tell me artists are making more money from the $1 they get per $15 CD than they do from their $25 T-shirts and $20-$50/ticket concerts. If anything, touring and T-shirts are where they're liable to make better money.
Who makes money from the CD's? That's right. The labels. Sure, the label makes some proceeds from the touring, but they make a bigger percentage off the albums.
Okay, maybe some studio-processed bands (boy bands, production acts, one-hit pop wonders, etc.) make the labels more money from touring and paraphernalia. It would certainly explain why we keep getting bombarded with those crappy bands (and then never hear from them again).
But a band that's not getting pushed by its label wants to tour all it can, because it isn't going to get much money from the CD's that the label isn't selling for them.
Besides, these bands might be better off without the big labels anyway. If they suck the ____ of the labels in order to make their money, they end up just like every other entity that's lived off the milk of a big company -- eventually they find themselves dead in the water. I don't care if you're a rock star on the Top 40 chart or an auto factory town in Michigan.
If they like the label putting together hackneyed artwork for them, and giving them nice limos on say five days out of the year; if that's what they really want is glamour and riches, they shoulda gone to B-school, not music school, and not speak any nonsense of their "artistic" goals.
MP3 might not be the saviour of bands, but neither is being a whore for Capitalist Records.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
http://linuxmall.com/news/feature s/000322zipspeak
God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ --1Thes5:9
Pardon me TWO hit-wonder. I stand corrected. BTW, I went to their official site to listen to some music, but those 1 minute Real streams didn't do the music much justice. Maybe I'll use Napster tonight and see if the are any good...
For a better list of artists who got pimped and shoved back on the street, visit here.
--
+&x
Studio, instruments, engineers, producers. Or did you think it grew on trees? Not mention the fact that if you want to get good, you have to practise, get lessons/coaching and spend a lot of time on it. Not things that coexist particularly well with a day job.
And for those who think that home studios are the answer, I have one word for you: 'acoustics'.
Cian
I can currently buy brand name cd's in stacks of 50 for $57.
-idealego
This system could also work for software or books. It allows authors to make money before releasing their work to the public domain.
Now, isn't it that a true free market model of music distribution?
buy your music on vinyl. it's way cooler that way anyway, and has better sound characteristics.
everyone should own tech 12's.
--
"and on the ninth day, god created turntables"
The Wu Master
The shareware concept - try before you buy - has had limited success in the software market. I wonder, maybe a similar concept in music distribution can be used as well. People will still copy music without paying the fee, but this will probably always happen (even in a fully digitized and encrypted world where the data is only decrypted once it reached the output device).
There is a lot of people who are willing to pay a reasonable price for the music they want to listen to, as long as it is clear that the revenues go to the artists instead of the usual suspects (the `fat guy in a Lexus' types who seem to populate the major labels). Total revenues would not be as large as they are now, but it would not be the artists who feel this in their pockets.
Comments? Would this work, or is it an Utopian view which will never come to pass because people prefer a free lunch?
--frank[at]unternet.org
I just love to watch people rationalize. Poster after poster makes claims about the state of the recording industry, where the profits are coming from and how much money is made off of this or that aspect, and what everyone's cut is. None of them, of course, work in the recording industry or have done a real study of it. No, such activity might provide facts which dispute their opinion on the matter and we can't have that.
One poster in particular was precious. In response to one artist's comment on her finances, his response was 'bullshit, that can't be true'. Why not? Because it contradicts what you decided was true and what supports your position? He isn't the only one. Everyone is having a grand old time discarding the information that doesn't agree with them using lame excuses about it being recording industry propoganda or just a few rich, successful artists whining.
I used to wonder why there was evil in the world. I don't anymore. You don't have to have evil people. You don't have to have psychos and mad dictators and supervillians. All you need are a bunch of ignorant people willing to rationalize.
Once truth is discarded, anything is possible.
Eric Christian Berg
I get a little irked by all these people complaining because they can't make money any more. Here's a hint: if you don't need to practice medicine; it you don't enjoy it so much that you'd do it for free, I don't want to have you treat me. It's "doctors" that are only in it for the money that gives us crappy service.
I realize that it costs money to practice medicine. Get a job! It's not that expensive...
Get the picture, yet? Just because a tailor produces something tangible and a musician produces something intangible does not invalidate that the two are asking for payment for the same thing: time and effort. Tailors don't just charge the price of the material, after all. Or do you think they should? Hell, I guess they shouldn't be a tailor if they don't love it.
God, I hate people with no grasp of economics or the meaning of money.
One quick comment before I rant and rave. Why is Aimee Mann complaining, sure she's one of the greatest female singers alive today, but if I had to pay for it i'd just shell out 15-20 bucks on the Magnolia DVD instead of the 9-12 dollars just for the CD. how much on average do arists get per CD? (excluding ani defranco or whatever her name is) I'm sure some people wouldn't mind shelling out 3 dollars for an entire album if it ment that you could download it from a secure fast site. So why not try to market directly to the consumer? I know if aimeemann.com had an option like that i'd definatly opt for it (and of course available .iso's for me to buy) by pass the major record labels and all ya! down with the RIAA and MPAA
One is an agreement, the other is violation of the implicit agreement, "Hey, if you want to listen to my music, pay me some money." ... I don't recall signing that one...
<P>
The *implicit agreement*
<P>
There's a lot og assumptions there, assumptions I don't necessarally agree with... some of them don't have basis in law, and some of them don't have basis in morallity. I guess the big issue is "my music." That implies that you own it, which simply isn't true. You are "granted a temporary monopoly." That's a big difference. Of course, the law has gotten so fucked around that it's not temporary anymore, but there's a supreme court case pending on that, so we'll see...
<P>
Perhaps we need an implicit agreement that doesn't suck. One where artists get paid more than 5 cents per CD, and where I get music for free. It's possible - we just need to work for it.<BR><BR>
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Im not sure what youre thinking here, the most lucrative outlets for a typical working musician are studio work, and touring with bands that are promoting a CD. Studio work is generally divided into advertising jingles and album work. The album work market disappears when you cant make money off the media anymore. Tours are paid for up front by record companies, so certainly putting them out of business is going to change the nature of tours, i.e. they will be much smaller scale and the hired musicians (and everyone else who is hired) will have to make far less money. I have known quite a few musicians who are able to pay their bills only because they are lucky enough to get a tour for 3 months out of the year that pays $3000 a week, then they live off of that money for the rest of the year, plus a few sessions and relatively low-paying club dates here and there.
Taking profits from CD sales out of the music industry altogether is shrinking the base of captial that all working musicians ultimately live off of...maybe thats how it has to be but lets not say it doesnt affect the artists.
Long after pirated music is on virtually every desktop and we have all spent months saying how any sort of restriction on copying artistic media sucks, suddenly Slashdot decides to post, "hey, you know what, I think musicians are losing money!"
Gee, ya think? I think if we were to come up with a model to spend months producing a record, paying engineers, musicians, producers, songwriters, equipment vendors, and then give the finished product away for free, and everyone gets to eat and pay their rent, Sony would pay us big bucks for that idea, man.
People will always be able to make their own MP3s from CD and the public are not going to stand for the CD format being junked or tampered with too much.
On-line ditribution still takes more time than most people are willing to wait - unless you're one of the lucky few with half a meg+ ADSL or Cable connections. When it's available to everyone then the piracy will dwindle a little - after all why put up with a possibly shonky copy when for a dollar/pound you could have access to the original?
The problem seems to stem from the people. Most people wont pirate media purposefully because they know it is wrong - but when the media is removed from a medium as MP3 is there is nothing tangible for people to feel guilty about. No one sees the traffic or feels the file when Napster is used to transfer the latest Brittany Spears track from one bedroom to another.
So is there a simple answer - I can't see one.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
Artists say they can't make money from t-shirts and touring, and if sales of their CD drop on the auto-indexer, the label says goodbye. Can anyone come up with a distribution model that will work with the new tech rather than being swamped by it?"
I think it's bullshit. I for one have gigs upon gigs of mp3s, and while i'd admit Napster has saved me from buying another CD from time to time, however if I like the album I downloaded i'll probably catch them in concert when they stop by. They must make money off concerts. While they do have to pay up to venues, why not use advertising to help out? I'm not talking about cutting in the middle of a song to say it's brought to you by M&M's or something like that, but banners and such should definitely help bring in some cash. T-shirts I usually pass on, because they usually don't come in my size. They should have XXL and XXXL - the other sizes shrink too fast. There's always ways to make money, and I think if artists start looking at concerts and touring more, they can tell the record labels to kiss their ass.
- Detritus
"I never really liked computers, but then the server went down on me"
You haven't mentioned the word "money". How do the artists get paid? Who by?
Yeah, it's a great statistical system, sure. But who pays, and how are they prevented from avoiding paying?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Going by ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.t xt ,that means you're bitching about the fact that the real retail cost of a CD has gone down by 37.5% (going by the January columns), or down to $8.76 in 1985 money.
You're also ignoring the fact that many outlets offer CDs as low as $11.99, which is equal to a whopping $7.50 in 1985 money.
And, most stunningly , you're ignoring the fact that CDs don't teleport from the factory into your hot little hands. They get shipped (which adds to the cost), they get distributed (and distributors don't do this for free), and they end up at retail stores (who don't don't do it for free, either).
The economic ignorance that abounds in a group of people like this who should have the education to know better is astounding.
No. The artists make the music. The labels handle the chores of production, distribution, and promotion of that music, at the very least. Very few successful artists have the know-how or inclination to handle all this themselves, which is why the labels exist in the first place.
If you don't like Kid Rock, don't buy his CDs. Pirating someone's music and defending it by saying he somehow doesn't deserve to benefit from the music you enjoyed enough to DL is the rankest hypocrisy.
If you're going to tell me that you have an MP3 library, and that it has no music produced by professionals contained in it, only recordings of your friends singing around the fire...
There's not a damn thing wrong with someone devoting their life to producing music, or expecting that people freely pay them for that music. There's plenty wrong with freeloaders who let other people pay for the music.
If you're going to tell me that you have an P3 library, and that it has no music produced by professionals contained in it, only recordings of your friends singing around the fire...
...I'm just going to laugh.
There's not a damn thing wrong with someone devoting their life to producing music, or expecting that people freely pay them for that music. There's plenty wrong with freeloaders who let other people pay for the music.
Fair enough.
Though, if musicians and their publishers don't deserve to get paid for their work, who pays for the cost of instruments, recording studio time, and all the costs of making songs?
Or are you going to tell me you're content to just listen to MP3s of bad recordings of garage bands with cheap instruments and horrible track mixing?
Face it, if you like your music lovingly produced and involving instruments more expensive than a pawnshop acoustic guitar, you're a parasite on the backs of people who pay for music. This is great for you, now, but when you get too many parasites like yourself relative to paying chumps, the whole thing will collapse.
And customers will do everything they can to get as much as they can for free. It is what they do.
It's called the free market, people, and it doesn't give you the moral high ground just because you want it.
So? I don't want a band that's "dedicated" to me or says it loves me; I want a band to make music I like to hear. Most people have that preference, as well.
Aside from some bands I actually bother to learn about, I know next to nothing about the people who made most of the music I own. Why? Because I paid for songs, not biographies or a pretended intimacy.
But yet, I don't assert that because X band has been lucky and struck it big or because they aren't "dedicated" to me that I can then enjoy their product without owing them recompense.
Get over the pretense! The underground MP3 trade has absolutely nothing to do with some revolution of "real, dedicated musicians" against "stupid manufactured pop music". The vast majority of MP3s traded are from the same CDs that are at the top of the charts (or were some time in the past). It's not about rejecting and hopefully destroying insipid, formulaic crap - it's about freeloading that very same insipid, formulaic crap! Further, if this ever really destroyed the Music Industry As We Know It, the MP3 trade would slowly taper off to a fragment of its former size as everyone collected the last few Christina Aguilera or New Kids on the Block tracks s/he didn't already have.
The rhetoric around MP3s is nothing but a defensive, self-serving sugar-coating of the simple truth - people want something for nothing, and this is an easy way to do it.
In simple terms: Musicians offer their work in exchange for pay. And you're welcome to disapprove of the channel they offer (money for CDs, in this case). However, if you disapprove , you should simply not subject yourself to their music...To then collect and enjoy their work without compensating them for the effort they went to in order to make that music is, franky, immoral and hypocritical.
In even simpler terms: Y'all essentially say, "I won't give you a dime for your stupid, bourgeois music! You won't survive in the New Music Industry because you make soul-less pop that only a record executive could love! Sorry, let me turn down that MP3 player looping your greatest hits CD in the background..."
Everyone just loves banner ads and such on web sites, now - they can only be MORE popular in your favorite songs! Oh, to be fair, this might work...until some misanthrope decides to code up an "MP3 ad-clipper" program to conserve bandwidth. Besides, MP3s already can encode at virtual CD quality...short of making the "artist's version" eight times slower to download, how are you going to make an improvement over that (to anyone but the most fetishistic audiophiles, who will get vinyl, anyway)?
The implicit agreement is the price tag on the CD. The artist and everyone associated with the artist offers that music to you if you freely give them your money. To make the facile argument that ripping a CD and placing its contents for free download is somehow different from stealing a CD is absurd. It does not matter whether it is a physical object...it only has value because it contains data. And to claim that stealing a CD is wrong because it denies someone else the data on it is nonsensical if you accept that it's fine to make the data on it universally available - because it eliminates that denial.
And, you're completely apart from all reality if you think there's any way to pay artists for CDs while anyone can download their music for free.
Popularity is useless to a band. Sales are the issue. Sure, it sounds nice to imagine your music on millions of hard drives...until you realize only one guy has your music in his CD rack.
Hold it right there. eBay is people agreeing to exchange money for goods and services. MP3 piracy is people distributing music against the wishes of the artist and publishing company. One is an agreement, the other is violation of the implicit agreement, "Hey, if you want to listen to my music, pay me some money."
Why doesn't the RIAA do this? Allow Napster to sell advertising space on the clients. Track just the number of downloads of each artist (with full privacy measures in place). Divide the advertising revenue among the artists whose songs were downloaded proportional to their download volume. Problem solved.
I would be lying if I said I felt sorry for anyone who was part of the corrupt entertainment industry. I do not, however, delude myself into thinking that MP3 ripping and trading is done for altruistic reasons.
If the entertainment industry were less anti-consumer, maybe consumers would be less willing to "pirate." However, the entertainment industry is so corrupt, and so obvious and unrepentant in their corruption that no one gives (or ought) to give a damn about them. If you are going to use the phrase "hurting the artists" to justify suppressing the fair use rights of consumers, expect people to become cynical about your moral authority.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Everyone just loves banner ads and such on web sites, now - they can only be MORE popular in your favorite songs! Oh, to be fair, this might work...until some misanthrope decides to code up an "MP3 ad-clipper" program to conserve bandwidth.
There are two technical versions for the ads: (1) attach an HTML file and change all the players to support the attachment or (2) just talk over part of the song.
You can keep people from removing type (1) by including cool stuff like lyrics, art, etc. allong with the ads and offers to sell them band CDs and T-shirts.. it's just a question of S/N ratio. The great thing about the HTML attachments is: the lissener only sees them when they click the view attachment button on their player.
People would want to strip (2), but the band can very the placment and things so that it can not be automatically stripped. Plus, they can be tactfull about it, i.e. "Comming at you from DJ Bumbfuck at bumblefuck.com thanks to K-Mart, Toy R Us, and Joe's sex supplies where house."
Besides, MP3s already can encode at virtual CD quality...short of making the "artist's version" eight times slower to download, how are you going to make an improvement over that
May people do a shitty job of ripping CDs, so the artists just needs to use a really nicely tunned encoder to have better then average quality. People may not notice the quality most of the time, but they will sometimes and it will inspire them to buy good mp3s of the shit they really like.. especially if they buy them via paying to join a fan club which gives them access to all sorts of other shit which the pirates were all too lazy to pirate.
The point is the bands can make money by providing the little things that the pirates can not provide. Also, remember it is pretty easy to sue the one or two pirates who try to provide the stability (i.e. the whole fan club archive). It's just an issue of moving the battle to a place where you can win.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I was to understand that CD sales we up (3% I think) last year. Some speculated that MP# distribution actually helped sales.
If there's a CD I'm looking to buy, I usually but it, regardless of weather or not I have the MP3, but maybe that's just me...
OK, so we all agree that the old way of distributing music (and movies and software and anything else that can be easily duplicated for that matter) is just not working. Telling people that it is illeagal to give their friend a copy of the CD they just purchased for ~$15 only serves to inspire disrespect for the law in general.
While some things (like operating systems) should be open source and freely modifiable (is that a word?), this doesn't apply to everything under the sun. The creators of software and music and other such ethereal entities deserve compensation for their work.
So, let's say we smart free software advocates put our heads together and come up with a free music license that says artists will distribute their music through any media they wish, only charging for the cost of the disc or nothing at all in the case of MP3 downloads. (Sort of like buying Linux distros from places like CheapBytes). They can have advertisers and all that usual jazz on their web site to offset that cost.
Now, here's where we make this interesting...
When a particular artist's music is gaining in popularity, a distribution company can purchase the rights to the music and distribute it online for free and on CDs (or whatever medium you like) for only the cost of the media. This distribution company will pay the artist directly a certain percentage based on sales and download volume. They will be able to do this because advertisers will be flocking to them! People love music, and advertisers love people.
Does this sound familiar yet? It should. It's more or less the way network television shows are distributed today.
Naturally, this won't make as much money as the screwed up system we have now, but it will put more of the profits into the hands of the actual artists and not some record company. You may be asking, "What's to stop these 'distribution companies' from becoming as corrupt as the record comapanies we have now?" Well, for one thing, competition. It will be much easier to enter this market than it currently is. Also, these distribution companies won't be like record labels in that a single artist could sell distribution rights to any number of different companies (certain restrictions to this might have to be worked into the license).
The most important part of this distribution model is that you and I, as individual consumers, can download or purchase on CD an album of music and then give it to as many of our friends as we like (for free, of course). The only people that would have to buy distribution rights would be those that profited from distributing the music (or perhaps place a community-enforced cap on the number of people to which you can distribute before requiring that you purchase the rights).
I believe this model can be applied to software and movies (once they are out on video) as well with equally beneficial results.
What do you guys think?
PS - Sorry for the length...
Seems like a money-losing proposition to me:
"fan buys CD/goes to tour/buys shirt" brings in more money than "fan downloads MP3/goes to tour/buys shirt".
I guess there's always the money lost from the "won't go to the tour and buy a shirt from this obscure band unless I miraculously happen across their MP3 first" crowd, but somehow that doesn't seem like a rent-paying portion of anybody's income.
But that just refers to obscure bands. For known bands, you can probably make your "go to tour/buy shirt" decisions based on airplay. Unless of course you want to hear the songs over and over again, in which case we're back to buying vs. downloading. The latter still seems like a money losing proposition to me.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for a pay-by-the-song distribution model. But that's a separate-but-related issue to "are artists losing money."
--
my lists
How does a different distribution mechanism affect t-shirt and concert sales? The only argument I can see is that people are distributing bootlegs of concerts. While this happens in some cases (I see a lot of Phish bootlegs) I have never known it to have any effect on concert attendance. Listening to a concert recording and being there are two completely different experiences, and I'm sure nobody is going to think that having an mp3 of the live performance is just as good as seeing them perform in person.
I think any artists that complain in this vein probably need to lay off the crack, and get a better booking agent.
Royalties going to artist: <$1
</Common knowledge>
Obvious Fact #1: Record Labels rip the Artist.
Obvious Fact #2: Record sales have been up.
Conclusion: Go bitch to the record company. They are jacking you. Don't blame the compression format. Don't blame piece of software XYZ. Don't base your opinion of where your money is coming from off some FUD the same people who are jacking you are feeding you.
Embrace the new technology -- use it to your advantage (TMBG comes to mind).
Fugazi have never sold t-shirts in their 12-year history.
;-)
Odd. I have three of them. All of them purchased at shows. Just because it SAYS "this is not a fugazi t-shirt" on it . . .
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
Yuck, I hate to blow my own horn, but this is exactly the thing I was trying to get across in the Katz article from yesterday (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/17/1662 37&cid=66).
A micropay per play model is the best thing I have come up with yet to allow people to freely distribute music files and guarantee payment to the musicians.Just selling MP3 singles doesn't do much good if the files are going to be widely copied and distributed.
I will be the first one to say that relying on a continual stream of micropayments is not perfect, and there are things about it that I strongly dislike. If anyone has come up with a better way of resolving this problem, I would really like to hear about it.
First of all I think many of the bands that are complaining about things such as Napster are the bands that are in it for the money and not necisarly making music. I know MANY people who use napster as simply a way to get to know and listen to bands and usally buy there albums at some later point in time. The MP3 format and Napster, as we all know, is a great way for indie muscians to get heard, think about it if the Radio played good music all the time wouldnt that just be a shock?? But then again who am I to say whats good and whats not? I guess thats the RIAA's place right?
What, will the human desire to communicate in the form of beats and prose dissipate all because of Napster? Sounds like these artists need to do some self-evaluation of why they are producing music in the first place. Why don't you ask a garage band how Napster affects their desire to make music, or a Native American's desire to pass on their history through song and dance? Do you think these genuine musicians will care about the free distribution of their music? No, those that care are those in the music industry that feel they are producing a sellable commodity. I say to hell with them. If the Napster community could filter out copyrighted songs and only trade un-copyrighted songs (as if there were such a thing these days) I believe that they would do it. People want to hear music in its most primitive form. Napster allows them to obtain it in a much cheaper form than the music industry. It's a no-brainer, really!
No, I am afraid it is not a useless proposition. When I first got to school and saw how easily I could get any music that I wanted, I said "Great! I will never have to pay for this shit again". Since then, I haven't payed for that shit. What has happened though, as I have begun listening more intelligently (throwing off mainstream music), is, all of a sudden, I realized that there is music good enough to be worth money. The mainstream stuff, is just that- shit. It is not really worth very much, and therefore, most people have no problem bootlegging it. I have decided, that I will never pay the RIAA another dime. I will however pay direct to the musicions.
"In the best case scenario, an artist sells a downloads and has to go to the bank to deposit one million checks?!? It's going to take them a couple of years just to sign and bundle all those checks. They'll probably have to hire a staff of workers to do it in a reasonable time. Guess what? Those'll cost them money... They'll probably lose 75% of their cash just to the overhead of employees sitting there stamping checks all day long."
This is an ignorant statement. First off, most internet payments are not done snail mail with checks. Second, the thought of purchasing an album at a time is not dated. Most of (IMHO) the best music should not be contained in a 5 minute bit. A REAL album should have album flow, and be made to be listened to as a complete work-- but then again, you seem to (again, IMHO) be quite content with the little 5 minute bits of mass feed that mainstream culture throws at you. Aside from that, even if they do get lots of checks, as my grandfather would say, "That is a happy problem". I don't think people are going to complain because they are recieving too many checks.
To reiterate my point though, if you listen to real (talented, professional) musicians, who actually understand how music works and how to compose it, then suddenly the music gains real value. Of course people aren't going to volunteer to pay for the mainstream stuff that they here- it isn't worth much anyway. Try some real music like Symphony X, Blind Guardian, Dream Theater, Savatage, Sonata Arctica, Vision Divine, Nightwish, Rhapsody, or Stratovarious, and maybe you will realize that real music is worth real money, and people are willing to pay for it.
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
Ok, looked at your cd collection, and yes, I would say that is a lot of mass feed. Some good, some bad (the masses aren't always fed bad music- they are never fed the best though). Ministry, Butthole Surfers, Beastie Boys, Blondie, Chemical Brothers, Blondie, Dead Kennedy's, Jane's Addiction, G'n'R, Iggy Pop, Motley Crew, Public Enemy, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Sonic Youth, Beatles, Breeders, Violent Femmes.....hmmm...looks like a lot of mass feed to me. Granted, I haven't heard of all the bands in your list, most of them (while it is true they may not be the most main stream at the moment) are simply the standard mass feed of yesteryear. I don't mean this to insult your taste at all. Butthole Surfers are quite original, as are Breeders. Jefferson Airplane and Doors are actually decent as musicians. But nothing on that list is, aside from those 2, from a basic musical understanding, very developed music. It is just culture shit. Like I said, try listening to some of the bands I listed, and you will know what I mean.
No, I do not buy albums anymore. I bootleg them, and when I think they are valuable, then I send their makers money. Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" is worth $100 to me, and their "Tales from a Twilight World" is worth $50. As soon as I am able to support myself (I am paying my way through school as it is, and don't have any disposable income), then I will send them the money, and encourage them to distribute the music themselves. On the other hand, you think you are paying the musicians so well for their music? Are you aware that the current (as 1 year ago) standard that an artist makes per album sale is??! 7.5 cents per album. That is next to nothing! Even if they sell a lot of albums, it barely covers their studio cost. So, is it the CD's and Booklets we are paying the high cost for? I think not, it is the RIAA getting fat. That is why I say boycotte the industry, and support the artists. I believe that once the industry goes away, and people are paying musicians to make good music, the quality of music will go back up (instead of making ultra rich, low talent stars).
Also, if you think there has been no good music made this past decade, then you are not looking in the right places. Again, try any of the bands I mentioned- you may not have a taste for it, but you cannot deny that it is absolute top notch music, and it puts Guns 'n' Roses to shame (and I really like Guns 'n' Roses), and there are hundreds of other bands as well.
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
Most concert tickets are now in the $50-$75 US range. When I get there, I would have to pay another $25-$30 for a t-shirt, $5 for a bumper sticker, and $20 for a baseball cap. Of course, this doubles for me when I take my lovely wife. Multiply this by 40,000 if it's a large arena, then by 30 for a multi-city tour, and it's hard for me to see how there's not any money in touring.
In addition to this, I must pay about $8-$10 per ticket to Ticketmaster in service and convenience charges, since there is no alternative source for tickets other than winning a radio station contest. The truly insulting thing is that you have to pay these charges even if you elect to pick up the tickets at the show (how the hell is that convenient?). So I'm basically paying Ticketmaster $10 to make a toll-free call. When I get to the show, I have to pony up $5-10 for parking, then walk half a mile to the arena. Once inside, a beer and soft pretzel will set me back another $10.
To summarize, if I want to see my favorite band in concert, chances are it's going to set me back $250-$300, all this after paying $15 for a CD that probably has 2 or 3 songs on it that I really like. But they aren't making any money. Yeah, right.
Some would say that the record company takes more than their fair share from record sales and touring revenues, but I would say that the band didn't sign a very good contract.
It would be nice if there was a revenue model for online distribution methods that bypassed the record companies altogether and paid the artist directly. Most, if not all bands currently under contract would be left out of this model and would probably fight it tooth and nail right along with the record companies, as Garth Brooks and company fought record stores that buy and sell used CDs and tapes. New acts must fight for clauses to be written into their contracts that allow for income from sources other than record sales sponsored by the record companies, or refuse to sign. If they need a reason not to sign, just have them take a look at all of the incredibly popular acts from the 50's and 60's that are broke and living in the gutter while the record company executives are shitting in gold-plated toilets.
The trouble that MP3s impose on an artist is really a two-part issue. The first problem is that people can play your songs without having to pay for them, so you won't receive any direct royalties whenever a consumer receives your song via digital media. The second is that because mp3 distribution isn't tracked (trackable?) the artists and labels can't get an accurate picture of a musician's popularity.
I have no idea how we could address the first issue, but it should be possible to track how popular an artist is at the Napster coordination/search servers. (...and for Gnutella, and via that CuteFTP Napster-clone thing.)
Dynamically accessible, publically searchable shared archives could form a sort of Neilson's rating that would likely be more accuarte (in a certain demographic) than the ridiculously old-school Billboard 100 listings in use now.
There would be significant privacy issues to overcome as well as technical issues in gathering the data, but it seems that if we can't gaurantee payment for a song, maybe we can at least say how popular an artist is. Look at the IPO market. It isn't how much money your company makes, it's how much it could make. From a labels point of view, if an artist is popular on the Internet, they should do well via traditional media as well.
Such a system would also allow the unknown bands a shot at getting a label. If an mp3.com band is trading well, it could be a good source of income to a label that is willing to pick them up. Such a system is similar in some ways to the Nasdaq Index, except that it wouldn't index value via money, it would index it via popularity.
This isn't a perfect solution, but maybe it would be an improvement over the current scheme. Unfortunately, such a system couldn't take into account IRC, ICQ, NNTP, FTP, and Web-based distribution. We'd have to make the assumption that traffic in those un-classifiable areas would be respective and in-line with the dynamic search facilities.
jb
I have not tried using it yet, but I know of other people that have. Napster is software that lets you share your own mp3 files with other people; as well as download their files. From what I understand, this has been expanded to other file formats. Since Napster does not get involved with the content, just the acting as a conduit; most people use it to share mp3's of copyrighted music, that is illegal to make clones of.
I read an article this morning that quotes various artists, saying that they don't like the effect that Napster has on their business. As if struggling with a record label was not bad enough, now artists may have to watch anonymous software like napster erode their hard-earned money. Money that is needed to support future projects and engagments, as well as aphrodesiacal elephant tusks.
I had a theory two years ago that the internet and digitization would erode the value of the 'recorded' commodity. In contrast to many hail-ye's citing a new market for music, the potential for piracy was obvious and I saw then how vulnerable the commercial empire that has arisen around the production and distribution of music; had become. Not to mention the crap it produces.
Before it was possible to 'record' music, performers were adored; and composers revered. Stepping further back, music had its beginnings in churches, during sacred rites or rituals that helped to reinforce the ties that bound a social unit.
The advent of recording technology allowed for the musical commodity as we now see it. And the factories that produce this commodity, and the labels that help the exchange of this commodity.
Before recording was commonplace, music not only was perceived and supported differently, it WAS different. It was better.
These days, musicians obsess over the recorded version of a performance. The minutia of sonic rendering and equalization; the categorization of their commodity on the exchange; and the economic potential. Not to mention how many elephant tusks they could buy if it goes big...
This obsession surely is a distraction from the charter of earlier musical spirits.
Perhaps the pendulum has passed its center position and is returning. Maybe the recorded commodity has seen its day.
Maybe its back to harmony, counterpoint and playing it live.
-Sleen
Well this only works because most people today still use their cd players to listen to music. Imagine the day when the stereo is networked to the computer/net, and there is no more need for burning cds. So it's not really a long-term solution.
Wow, since when does a band that sells millions of albums, and has had two albums at #1 on billboard, get classified as a one-hit wonder? (Creed) Where do you get your definitions from anyway?
I think you'll find that it's only the big commercial "artists" who are whingeing about Napster. The guys with day jobs aren't making enough money out of CDs to care.
So, because the little guys are too busy working, or just get ignored by the press, it's ok to screw them out of money?
And it's ok to screw the big names, because they have more money than you, and stealing from them is you god given right?
Quit making excuses. People who create something deserve the right to charge something for it if they choose to do so. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But don't steal it either.
No. I get paid to code. I get nothing extra if people use my program.
Perhaps in the future, radio stations and websites will pay musicians to play music, not giving anything extra for the use of it.
I get paid to code too. I don't directly get paid more if people use my programs, but it likely has some effect on me getting raises, or keeping my job.
Being able to make a living on something that others do for free is a privilege, not a right.
Being able to control the distribution of your copyrighted works, and therefore make money off them is a right in the US. There are laws that exhist to protect those rights. If some people choose to give away their creations, they can do that, but that doesn't take away the rights of those who chose to charge for them.
Perhaps in the future, radio stations and websites will pay musicians to play music, not giving anything extra for the use of it.
Then the artists will need to borrow money to record their music, pay people to advertise them to the radio stations and web sites, pay accountants to keep track of the money, and find a way to go after those web sites and stations that don't pay them.
Most artists would never be able to raise enough cash to handle the overhead. Sure a few would make money, just like there are some people who make a decent living off of shareware. One or two might even make it big. The music business is very high risk. It's a very small percentage of artists who ever make much money. I think that the recording industry has gotten too greedy, but I don't think you're being realistic to think that artists would be better off if they all had to fend for themselves. Most have little idea of how to run a business, or how to advertise thier music. They need someone to do that for them. Maybe the industry is currently screwing them over, but I don't think that a large percentage of the artists would be better off without them.
The Math, using your numbers:
:) ), but we're not deluded enough to think that a life as the head of your own little personality cult (think Fugazi, or Richard Stallman) is enough of a reward for eating ramen noodles. You should be able to play your guitar *in comfort* -- not underfed. Most of the time, that means quitting playing "professionally".
1000 CD's @ $6 = $6,000
10000 CD's @ $4 = $40,000
100000 CD's @ $0.50 = $50,000
Conclusion: major label signing is best.
Assumptions: You can actually sell 1000 by yourself, and that the same CD can actually be sold in the listed quantities (10,000, 100,000) by the small or major labels.
By the way, T-shirts cost too much to produce to be cost-effective to sell. Unless you do it in major-label quantities. CD's are better.
As a side-effect, no one else except the CD production people make money in the first case. The CD production people make less in the second case, and the small label makes a bit. In the third case, the major label (which includes the CD production people, the business creeps, the tour support/tour management, the merchandise folks, the radio payola/promotion/ad folks, etc.) makes most of the money. But you still get more as an artist than you would otherwise.
Why do you think the dream of all artists capable of using major labels to their fullest (that is, being hot/slutty/dumbed-down enough, or wearing cool enough shoes, to sell 100,000 copies if given the chance) is to get signed to a major as soon as possible? Being a rock star takes, and creates, more money from/for the artist. There's a bigger surplus from the larger pie, even when the slice is smaller proportionately.
If you make classical music, cool. You'll never sell more than 10,000 albums, but you'll be part of a long and rich heritage. Stay with a small label. If you, like me and my friends (one of whom used to *play* for LTJ), have a small little band, try to become cool as soon as possible, or else you'll end up sitting on those 1000 CD's you pressed, 'cause tours can suck all your money away. Congratulations, you've kept %100 of no earnings. We love our music (probably more than all the rest of you ever will
Doesn't work. Too many sellers, not enough buyers. Unless you're *really lucky* and *really good*, not enough important people ever hear your music to consider signing you. Hell, not enough "just plain folks" pay admission to watch you play...
The shareware model of recorded music performances suffers from the same problem. Too many sellers.
Don't say that "I support music! I download and pay-per-listen! I even support *local* music!" because you can't. Not enough, anyway. Any given Saturday night in a small town, there will be 10 live performances in places ranging from your daughter's school play to the umpteenth Creedence cover band at The Corner Pocket. You can't attend 'em all. You can't afford to spend the time *buying* their homebrew tapes & CD's. You sure as hell can't waste time goofing around with Napster, guessing whether or not a song is worth the download, after you pluck it out of the vast sea of contenders. The best way to support music is to open a great nightclub. At least then you'll be giving a "donation" of another place to play.
As musicians, hoping to get the big break is a waste of time. Instead, play music for your friends, and laugh about your near-brushes with stardom. That's the only way to have fun making music for the vast majority of musicians (even the good ones). It's probably also the only way that music was meant to be exchanged in the first place...
Why would anybody sit down and write a novel if it's going to be pirated for free the first day it's released?
Doesn't this idea sound familiar to anyone? For some reason I thought of RMS, Linus et al...
I would have thought a lot of people here contribute to open source projects (If you don't - why not? ;) so why do we do it? Because we're nice people surely? It's "pirated for free" in that we don't get money for it - yet it's just as much hard work as writing a novel or music.
So clearly there is some incentive for us to do it. Which makes me wonder, are musicians and writers actually different (are we special because we'll do stuff for free?), or are they only slowly catching up with the geek and hacker notion of contributing to a community?
In the future will perhaps more and more people be giving stuff away because it makes them feel good to do so?
I sure like to hope so.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
MP3, Napster et. al. are examples of technology that are clearly beneficial. They enable the widespread dissemination of information and culture. They empower people to take control over how they acqure and enjoy music. They also threaten the current economic model of distributing music, but that is all they do -- they don't prevent artists from making a good living off of producing art.
There are a lot of creative people in marketing and sales, and if, tomorrow, copyright were abolished and MP3s and Napster fully legitimized, they would get to work right away at figuring out ways to make money within the framework of the new economic reality. But until then, they will sit on their hands or even actively resist change because they're perfectly happy with things just the way they are. Necessity and opportunity are the parents of invention; legitimize the technology and we'll quickly have people making money off of it.
The cornerstone of any economy is the consumer. Economies exist to satisfy the need of consumers to consume, not that of producers to produce and sell. While it is true that in order for consumers to consume anything, there must be producers producing things, and so we must provide incentive for people to produce, at the same time, we need to remember that the ultimate goal is to better the lot of the consumer. Here, we have a technology that can genuinely benefit consumers, and there's no reason why producers can't adapt. To hold it back simply because the producers do not want to adapt is entirely the wrong thing to do.
But it still takes money.
Even with the availablity of cheap recording methods, like MP3 et al, who pays for my kit? I've been playing guitar for some time now, and I'm nearly at a professional rig.
£850 - guitar (heavily modified Jackson Pro)
£2000 - amp & speakers (There is only one Marshall)
£1500 - rack effects (there are many effects!)
That's quite a bit of cash there. And how can I afford it? I'm a well paid professional nerd.
Now, imagine your archetypal skint musician, a "Johnny B Goode" -"never really learned to read or write so well, but he could play his guitar just like ringing a bell" - where is this money going to come from?
And before you say "well
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
ROTFLMFAOTSDME!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Drop the radio format ... too old school to make money from. Here's what needs to happen.
... no account, no purchase (unless you hack the box which is a given at some point for a small percentage)
In the car (the only place I listen to the radio):
1. streaming audio appliance that plays something equivalent to an mp3spy stream.
2. a slider and two buttons (possibly on an lcd screen to be configurable). one button says "rate" one button says "rate and purchase" the slider indicates your rating with a minimum rating threshold if you purchase.
3. when you hit "purchase" the cached stream is saved off to an internal HD/flash card to be able to be played back later or downloaded via USB/card removal at your discretion. A sum of money is also deducted from your checking/credit account
This would require a wide area wireless digital network though. It plays right into the hands of the companies trying to get that always on wireless internet thing going.
It would also require an honor system to minimize pirating of songs. we know we would pirate but that's inevitable so combatting it too much is a waste of money (if the companies learn).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I never said that RIAA was evil. I was just saying that they aren't thinking it through properly. The only use they can see (or that they admit to seeing) for the software is MP3 distribution. Unfortunately, they failed to take action when the MP3 genie escaped, and it's too late for them to put the cork in.
I'm talking about the wider implications of Napster/Gnutella. I don't often get excited about the possibilities of software. But Gnutella, well, there's some definite possibilities for the future of the internet as a whole here, and everyone can benefit.
This does, however, include the Warez/MP3 crowd. Got to take the bad with the good.
The RIAA is being extremely short-sighted. They're attempting to stamp on Napster, Gnutella et al because they can be used to distribute MP3 files. Big deal, so can Sneakernet, which is more insidious because it can reach people without Internet access. But enough sarcasm for a moment. I'm certain that some of you at least have considered the possibilities that Napster and Gnutella provide. here's a couple off the top of my head. (Forgive me if these aren't possible due to technical considerations, but I'm an idea man. Also, I'm probably going to work more on Gnutella than Napster, because I haven't actually used Napster. Alst G is open source, so it'll be easier to play with.)
My first thought is that this is a great product for big business. This system can be applied to provide indexed file sharing over a corporate intranet without needing a central web server. With a bit of tinkering, it could even be adapted to a secure file indexing and transfer network for corporations with multiple sites (link it with PGP for encryption?). You'd probably want a client version of the software (but that shouldn't be too hard, right?).
Second, it is feasable that a Unix daemon could be made to allow the. Connect up to the network, and you suddenly have access to the major FTP sites as well, all searchable from your own system.
OK, so maybe I'm an idealist. But you have to admit, the possibilities are exciting.
Alright, I'm tired of hearing the same old arguement over and over again, so here's the reasons I use Napster now instead of buying CDs (I currently own several hundred CDs btw).
First, I'm into trance (a form of eletronic music) that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE (not even online). Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees (sorry for the nice ones, 25% maybe), limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more or less more of the same except you take out the salesperson and add phony reviews.
I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
OK, so they are important, but there are a lot of musical groups that have built a degree of freedom into their business models.
Phish, for example, allows people to bring DAT recorders to their concerts, record the show, and give it away to anyone who wants it. The only catch is that no one may take money for them. You have to either give them away, or trade for another concert. They do not collect copyright royalties on this stuff, but they've more than made up for it, because tape trading is probably what gave them such a rabid fan base.
There are many other bands that allow trading. The coolest place to go to get hooked up is http://www.etree.org.
This sounds bad, but maybe recorded music just won't be marketable in the future. The recording industry has tried for years to build copy protection into digital recording and playback gizmos, but people just don't buy them. I think the idea of being told what they can and can't do with the stuff they buy turns them off. That's why I've been afraid of investing in a DVD deck. The industry cannot control piracy without replacing the current technology (compact discs, MP3, etc) with copy protected technology. However, people won't buy something unless they can do all of the things they are accustomed to doing with their current systems.
Back in the 1950's and earlier, when recording quality sucked ass, musical groups made their money from touring, and recordings were viewed simply as a way to maintain boost ticket sales. I would like to see the industry swing that way again. There is nothing better, in my view, than going to hear a great live show in a club or small theater. And God knows how hard it is to find a good live show these days.
I think the overall quality of music will improve this way. If they can't build a loyal fanbase on the touring circuit, they will either evolve to the point where they can, or they will have to grow up and get day jobs.
Just think -- no more Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears.
These are just my thoughts, and I haven't thought too much about them. Let me know what you think.
Take care,
Steve
========
Why has no one who claims
The artists don't get paid
Record companies are vultures
(blah blah blah)
advocating sending the artist(s) money directly?
How would the debate change if you sent the artist a check for a buck? Or the full $15? Would they cash it?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Do you remember when all warez sites use to have disclaimers like: "All programs here are for you to try out, you must delete them in 24 hours, and go buy the full version if you like them." As we all know that never worked, except for in extreme cases. However for all types of music except for the main stream I believe this works currently.
Most CDs I buy now are because I heard one or two of their songs from Napster and got a few more, then liked it so much that I bought the CD. If it wasn't for Napster bands like Portishead, Faithless, Shonen Knife, would never get my money, not because their music is bad, but because I would have never heard of them. In my opinion the bands that are getting hurt are the Backstreet Boys, Puffy, Madonna, etc. In addition it's the bands that are one hit wonders, people listen to their other works and don't buy the CD. So who is getting hurt? It's the really big guys, who have lots of money, and the artists just in it for the money, who can continue to produce good material. I have no qualms with Napster, in fact I buy more CDs because of it.
One last point. All of the 'loses' claimed by the music industry is determined from downloaded songs, however of those songs downloaded, how many get listened to consistently. Also, how many people forgo buying a good CD because they have the MP3s? If 99% of the songs downloaded never would have been bought without MP3s being available, then the lose is only 1% of what is being claimed.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Rather than resisting the trend toward digital distribution, artists and the RIAA need to start embracing it and looking for ways to exploit it. In spite of the piracy, what they are going through isn't that vastly different from what the web has done to newspapers, magazines, television, retail, and maybe a few other large industries that were unprepared for the internet revolution; it just hits some harder than others, and it's calling all industries that are in the business of communication to adapt or die.
One possible solution is to create a new music format that has the owner's information embedded in it. Take the Digimark watermark system that Photoshop is using; the owner's registration is embedded in the image itself through a code of shades that changes the image almost imperceptibly; it's impossible to remove, and it can be read even after filters are applied or if the image is scanned in from a magazine. How about an audio watermark that similarly cannot be removed without completely distorting the music? The watermark would be embedded at the time of download, and to play the music would require that you either enter your into a digital player, or swipe an ID card, or something. Music wouldn't be sold on CD's anymore, but you could download music and burn it onto CD's for your personal collection.
Are there ways around such a system? Sure there are. But, the pirates will always be out there, you just have to create a barrier to entry for the common person ("Keeping honest people honest," as they say).
This argument about mp3 distribution is full of accusations being thrown around on both sides of moral corruption and evil and greed and possibly sloth and whatever other deadly sins you want to stick in there. The RIAA says that mp3s are going to destroy the music industry and cause the Apocalypse. Musicians hate the RIAA but hate those these programs that give people free copies of their songs even more. Many of todays youth talk about the vile decaying Nazi Big Record Labels and their attempts to control what everyone hears when music should obviously be free etc.
From a practical standpoint here, the argument is moot. Especially now with Gnutella and derivatives beginning to take hold in the minds of geeks, there's really no way to get rid of mp3 trading. Musicians can whine until they're blue in the face, and the Record Industry can try to sue all 250 million people in the United States, but the idea is not going to go away. Despite what zealous freedom maniacs say, mp3 distribution can be construed as stealing from the artists, and indeed most artists are construing it as such. So what. I still have around 3 gigs of mp3s, most of which I don't have legitimate claim to. I'm not about to go spend $500 on cds in order to get copies of songs that I get stuck in my head when I can find the specific ones I want for free. And though people talk of the nuisance that finding mp3s is, it takes less time for me to get what I want online that it does to go over to the music store. And when it doesn't I can just let the download go on while I play nethack or something.
The point I've been getting to in this rambling little comment is that this isn't a matter of who is right and who is wrong, it's a matter of a new technology available that everyone is pretty much damn well going to have to get used to. Once they do, I doubt it will take very long for our lovely capitalists to figure out how to make a huge profit in a new way in response.
Disclaimer: I am writing this while ill and under the influence of prescription sleeping pills that don't seem to have quite put me to sleep yet, so I am not responsible if you actually take anything I say seriously.
[insert witty quote here]
What does say about Linux or any of the other finer things in life?? That if it's free then we should be suspicious because it will die out soon??
Copeland was making reference to that when artists are unwillingly forced to have their music distributed freely that they will go extinct. Let's look at this a little closer and look at why people go to buy music from the store anyways. Music is without label or description except that it has had a great impact on the souls of mankind throughout history. When we purchase music it is definitely out of rights and respect for the artist.
But how did I hear about this artist? I usually purchase music because a friend let me listen to it and I liked it. Napster is just an natural extension of this. We hear the music and then we go buy the music. This should be a wake up call to bands that aren't talented! We no longer have to buy your stupid album to find out how bad it stinks.
The real fear that studio executives have is that they can't control it or monitor it or be there to hold Napster's hand. God knows they would love to do that. One day they will wake-up and realize that CD sales are still going up ( Eric failed to mention this in the article.) and good artists are still packing in the dough. Then the executive will go back to sleep and know that he didn't do a damn thing to help his client. We did.
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
Is there a natural right you should be able to make a living as a programmer? No, but you do have the right to demand a day's pay for a day's work.
If no one will pay for your music, perhaps you should get a day job?
Perhaps you should get a clue. Other than the few that get massive press (Backstreet Crap, Titney Spears), most artists work day jobs so they can do art at night and on weekends.
Perhaps it is possible to find a new way for artists to get paid, but what if it is not?
I think the greatest mistake people here make is in underestimating the willingness of government to fight this. Don't tempt it. Most people are sheep, and will cooperate with massive intrusions on their civil liberties, as they have with the war on drugs. I'm not saying this has any better chance of succeeding, but many people will get hurt in the process.
We understand the technology, we should try and come up with a solution.
-cwk -cwk.
> What about a Slashdot interview with John Perry Barlow or other members of Grateful Dead?
Yes to what he said.
The Salon piece was on the sensational side, IMO. Bottom line is the concept of intellectual property, patent, copyright, etc is going through complete upheaval, and it is far from over.
The big corporations will do everything they can to maximize their take. It is what they do.
I hate politics; it makes me want to VOMIT. There really isn't any alternative but to get more active, though.
Bukvich
This in my head would be an ideal music system. (keep in mind I haven't had sleep for 51 hrs) First off, I believe RIAA should have imbraced mpeg's from the start instead of tring to stop them. (look what happened when they tried to stop BBS's they moved to the Internet) Instead they should have helped invest in the technology. Imagine being able to go to your local music store and only have to take money and a flashcard. Once inside you could still buy CD's and even preview music but you would see everyone paying to flash music. Once you have paid for your music, you may flash it any time. At any store. (Implementing a global version of Mjucie / my.mp3.com etc.) Now people may ask why would the RIAA want people to be able to do that? Cause right now they are making NO money with mp3's (cept law suites) But even at say 4$ for a CD in flash format they could have made more money. (Just think no CD printing cost no shipping cost etc. etc.) But the reason I see the RIAA never wanting to do this (even though they seem to be becoming a large whining baby watching his house burn.) Is because using a global flash index would mean if your song got stole or your flash card broke you could get it back with out paying again (Yes a few people would probly abuse it but right now their are a lot more abusing it.) Like you have to pay for a new CD if it gets stolen or scratched. (Yawp CD's are a great non destructive media when properly stored in a nice jewel case and never used.) Looking though my Sunday paper I see everything from portable mp3's players to dvd / cdr mp3 players. RIAA just got greedy and thought they could stop everyone. (hey music is free go listen to the birds, it's a form of music and yes RIAA is looking for a way to make you pay to listen to them.) They could be riding a nice wave and helping a new technology but no they used the same tack as they did with DAT's (only I don't see mp3's fading into the background) Good luck to both. I look forward to the day I can go get music and not break the bank. (Thats why I don't buy CD's radio is much cheaper.) ..... Goatz
I think that if cable companies or someone started a track-on-demand service, like a giant jukebox, people would quickly quit downloading mp3's. It would need:
1. Billing by usage. Maybe costing more in peak time, more for more popular songs, and so forth.
2. An option to pay a giant wad per month and listen to unlimited music.
3. As high quality as it gets
4. Lots and lots of added "functionality", like the ability to say
- play me rock music today
- play me Metallica today
- never play me that song again
- Put this song on my XYZ Playlist
- Play this song more often
- Play me songs with notable bass guitar performances
- Play me music that's similar to the tracks I've said that I like
- Play me music that features next to the tracks I like on lots of other people's playlists.
This service is what the users pay for. No way do you get that with mp3's. No longer do people have to buy CD's by only 10 bands because they're the only bands they know they like. Ripping the music will be barely worth the effort, and the bands will get much _more_ money, because it's so easy to "network" from one song you heard on the radio to a dozen similar bands.
I'm all for letting popular music become unprofitable. Most of the bands I listen to do it because they like it (which is one reason the music comes out better). Try to find *their* MP3's on Napster. Once an "artist" reaches such critical mass that you can get their songs easily on Napster, they deserve to be pirated. They've made their buck. Napster and MP3 in general help keep the amount of money an artist can make to a (somewhat more) reasonable level.
First, IMHO, its the artists that should be paid for the music, not the RIAA. They're the ones who are doing all the work, no? Well, as has been mentioned in several posts, artists generally get less than $0.05/CD. And, AFAIK, a lot of the costs of producing the CD come out of the artist's share! So most of the price of a CD is pure profit for the RIAA.
That said, I'm not for illegally copying music. Yes, I can rip music into MP3 or write a legally-obtained MP3 to a CD for my own use. But ripping a song then distributing it, or selling a CD of legal MP3 songs... That's not right. However, I do believe that the internet (and MP3s) are a viable medium for the distribution of music, especially since it makes it easy for independant bands to get some recognition.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
No, the labels exist because once this was true. Good recording and editing equipment was very expensive and complex. Now, however, systems like BeOS (or products for Windows, even) make production easy. Distribution is what digital music transfer is for. Why are the labels still around? Because they've made it virtually impossible to get any kind of distribution without them. Kinda like Microsoft's strategies, only more repressive.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
Never go out to fight for freedom and justice wearing your best trousers.
There is an extraordinarly large archive of band's-that-do-this's mp3s at sugarmegs. Theyve even got copies of their communication with the band's lawyers on the entire legality of the situation. For a brief period of time, distributing grateful dead concerts over the internet was illegal. But it was soon found out that this was simply because the lawyers had not decided what to make of internet based distribution yet.
BTW Please spare us your hippie-music bashing.. grateful dead and phish have a number of excellent songs.. and a few horrible ones. (I don't know what phish was thinking when they wrote "bouncing 'round the room.) They were probably on some weird drug that I've never heard of.
Ah well, the phish concerts I have attended have been some of the most fun I've ever had.
no
The rates are:
$0.233 on blank tapes of 40 minutes or more
$0.052 on blank CD-R
$0.608 on minidisc, CD-RW, and CD-R Audio
For more info: click here
Say that 15,000,000 blank CD-Rs are sold in Canada this year (very rough estimate and probably not accurate). That's $780,000 Canadian or $530,681 USD (as of today). When split between all of the artists losing money because of IP theft, you can liken that to trying to make change for a penny.
And not all of that surtax goes to the music industry. Portions go to any industry which uses CDs to distribute digitized IP. So try and split it even further. [I've heard that the only portion that goes to the recording industry is the levy from the CDR-Audio, which is a joke because there's nothing preventing anyone from using the CD-R (regular) for recording music]
Furthermore, how many MP3s can you fit on a CD. Taken at roughly 5MB/file, and 650MB/CD, that's about 130 songs. How many songs does the average albumn contain? probably between 10 and 15 on average, which means you could get the entire MP3 library of an artist on a single CD, and that's assuming high bit rate conversion. So you don't need many CDs to have thousands of tunes.
Couple that with 40GB and larger HDs, and you can see that there really isn't any need for CDs and that the surtax amounts to a joke. This dosn't even take into account that storage media is growing ever larger and cheaper at a furious rate.
Taking copies of Intellectual Property that you have not purchased from the original source is theft. Denial is simply ridiculous.
-- kwashiorkor --
Pure speculation gets you nowhere.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
Copyright law does two very important things - it allows the creator to benefit economically and control the use of what they have created. The second issue is just as important, because having your personal love ballad used as the friends theme or a Star Wars trailer being shoddiy preverted into piece of political propogranda is a bad thing. The last quick point - Unlike patent law, we're not talking about an "idea" - we're talking about the specific work. There is a very large difference.
Right about the same was also writing a host of letters asserting the right to own (some) other humans as property. Not sure he's a great source to quote on the theory of property (besides, it sounds as if he was talking about the concept of patents). Having a problem with the music industry is independent of the notion of copyright. At least artists get a pittance of their CD's sales (if they are on a label, anyway, otherwise this isn't a problem). You pirating CDs isn't getting them anything.And if by some miracle some band does gain a huge wide audience without succumbinhg to a major label contract, will you buy their music from them? The answer for most people is: They don't give a crap whether this or that mp3 is under this or that contract. It's free, it's easy, WWF is on in 5 minutes, I don't care about this debate.
If you can provide a good model where free-trading of songs presents a musician with a similar opportunity to make money as they have now, I'm all for hearing it. I haven't heard one yet. Even if I did, I'd be just as for copyright law - I should have the freedom to choose how I share my work, and the manner in which you can use it. The world has changed. Figure out a way to live with it. "I'm stealing from you - figure out a way to live with it". Like the old addage - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. As you've said, you sure do hope someone figures out how to compensate musicians someday, but you'll continue to screw them yourself in the meantime. Congradulations.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements. No, the RIAA does not want to make listening to music illegal. They do not want people to steal it (and, as a side note, they'd like to maintain the current system's control, which is not so wonderful). However, for each blithering idiot argument they get in e-mail, the more they decide they're simply fighting a tide of moronic teenagers.
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.Anyway -- "supply" is irrelevant. Duplicating CDs is a trivial matter, and beyond a certain point, can cost no less. The price of CDs has nothing to do with supply, just as the price of books, art, software, or any other media has nothing to do with supply. The value is detemined by who's created it, or whoever they've signed control over to. As far as physical goods - supply of the materials needed to create is often a small factor in the price. Photoshop, which is apparently not okay to steal in your book, doesn't cost $400 (or whatever it is) because of "supply and demand". Economics is just a tad more complicated.
If you think overthrowing popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright! You're greatly oversimplying things, it won't do it (even if it were to happen - which it won't!). Referring to t-shirt sales and gains from touring? Alright, I'll give an answer.Small band: You can't tour in the first place - bars in distant lands will not book you period, much less to fit into your tour schedule. You'll only be able to play local shows, when the bars decide to give you one, with very little or no minimum. Your cut from the door will be a pittance. Local stores will likely put your CD in the aisles, but not your t-shirts or other wares. People will buy your CDs, but not your shirts (if you have shirts). At this point (assuming you're gaining an audience) CD/Tape sales will be the majority of your small income.
Medium sized band: You can tour and the minimums are higher, but still awful in some places. You may do pretty well on weekend nights in bigger towns or where you've got a good following, but your weekday shows will not draw enormous crowds. You try and stay at as many friends and "friendly bands" houses as you can, but it doesn't always work out. You soon realize sleeping in a van at rest areas, with 4 others, loaded with music equipment, for 2 months is not really an option -- particularly in extreme heat and cold. The gas, food (and laundromat, etc, etc)... and (when you need them) living accomodations begin to add up very quickly. If you're frugal and play nearly every single night, you will come out ahead, but once again it's all about the door and CD sales. CD sales FAR outnumber your t-shirt sales, and probably your cut of the door some nights, because people like your music - not your t-shirt (and hopefully people who heard about the show, heard from a friend at the show, etc, will go and buy a CD later). Anyway look in anyones closet and compare the number of band t-shirts vs their music collection sometime. When you get back home with whatever profit you've made, you notice you have 2 months of rent and other assorted bills accumulated without your 2 months of "day-job" paychecks waiting in the mail. Your door earnings and mechandising minus expenses may be enough to cover it, but you certainly didn't earn as much as you would've working minimum wage for 8-10 weeks.
Of course if you've made it this far, you've almost certainly spent a large chunk of change recording. Getting into a studio with a knowledgable engineer with good equipment costs a pretty penny per hour. No, you can't create a pro-sounding CD with an SBlive card, Cakewalk Pro, and a $50 mic at home. So you're still recouping this money as well.
If you're a large band, taking you to music halls and arenas, you're rolling in it right? Not quite. Now you're hauling an enormous amount of musical gear around requiring semis/tour busses, and this costs a small fortune (you and all those roadies need to sleep there, too!). Renting the PA/lighting gear that goes into the buses/trailers costs a small fortune. You will need a host of roadies to deal with setting this all up and tearing it down every night, not to mention lighting and soundguys who know how to run the stuff. It gets better - arena's/musichalls require you pay them anywhere between 10-40% of anything you've sold in their venue (they don't subtract "cost" either - this is why you find $20+ t-shirts at large concerts). Are we done? No! You'll need Ticketmaster to sell all those tickets now, which cuts badly into your profit from ticket sales. And finally, moving to the next show is now an event in itself. Tearing down, setting up, checking for problems, fixing the problems, checking again -- it's not just throwing a little gear in the van and hitting the road. Coupled with the fact that your tour is more spread out (and centered on major cities -- no place to play in Smallville, Texas anymore) means you can't play every night and keep income rolling -- unfortunately you can't stop your expenses. This is why you will find many uber-popular musicians touring behind the sponsorship of corporation X or with heavy promotion of local radio station Y - they can't afford to do it otherwise.
So there you go. That is why touring and mechandising are not cash cows.
If you'll notice my responses to you, nearly everything I'm responding to is quoted. Do you pay any attention to what you're saying, or are you simply too busy spouting comments out on webboards to pay attention?Anyway, CD sales are *by far and away* the "primary revenue stream" for the music industry and musicians in general. Cut that out without a replacement and you have a real problem. "Look, I'm just saying, you don't own your music and can't sell it -- but you can still do everything else" doesn't quite cut it. Note here - I'm talking about original music. Yes, you can make money playing cover tunes at Fat Tuesdays, weddings, frat parties, or write advertising jingles, but these things are a far different beast.
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew.Quite frankly, I'd love to see a popular artist who's done with their label contract opt to attempt self-distribution through mp3's/selling CDs via a website and whatever traditional store distribution channels will still take them... at a fraction of the current retail price CDs (which would still be a gain for them, supposing they would sell comparible numbers).
However they aren't going to do it when the mp3s they put up will immediately be pirated, and even better, folks like you will feel quite righteous in stealing them.
I've said many things otherwise, actually. Unlike you though, I think condoning pirated music works against smaller/unknown artists, not for them. More fundamentally, of course, I do believe I have the right to control the distribution and terms of what I create - whether that happens to be on duplicable media or not. Saying I can't removes individual freedom for a (supposed) greater good, but I'm not a big communitarian.On a related final note, I'll point out that it is my opinion most humans are fools. Humans are not inheriently evil, they are inheriently selfish. In the context of this dicussion, most people do NOT care about copyright, napster, patents, or anything one way or another beyond: 1) They way the were ... taught... was the "right" way 2) What they see as more beneficial, *personally*(or to those they decide to personally care about), in the long run. Pushing a tad further, must humans are followers. It made be sickening to me (and probably you) that Nsync sold 2.4 million copies of their latest CD in a week, shattering all records, but destroying copyright will not change this. A minority of people will ALWAYS control what a majority of others think about and "like" or "believe in". Destroying copyright will not do anything to change this.
Anyway, it's been fun, I'll leave you to get muddled down with the likes of "Emerson", who seems to have some well-thought through points without having mentioned the Nazi party.
talking about what to do to help the artist but I'm just too greedy!
- ----
Everyone else thinks the same. If the song is online for free or can be ripped off a borrowed CD then why not?
I know it's not right but I don't intend to pay for music again if I don't have to!
--------------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
I feel that it really hasn't impacted the artists very much. I still see people buying tons of cd's, going to concerts and purchasing shirts or memorabilia, and such. Most of my friends will happily brag about their collection of 30 or 40 cd's, and when asked what mp3's even are, many of them don't know what they or don't really know where to get them. Only a handful of people are really downloading mp3's off of napster. And although it may not be right to do so, it doesn't really hurt them. I still buy the cd because I want to hear songs on the cd that aren't played on the radio. Most of these songs aren't even found on napster! You have to buy the cd to get them! Also, I probably wouldn't buy any of the songs that I downloaded from Napster in the first place. So if only a small amount of the entire population regularily downloads mp3's, then why should we worry? It's not any different than when we copied our friends casette tapes 10 years ago and passed them around to everyone in school. It didn't really hurt them then, and it isn't going to hurt them now.
-=RR=-
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
And add to that that CDs have been at $14 for the last 15 years, far too long to reflect any real production costs but instead a cozy cartel.
Best of all, it works. I get the art I want, the artist gets paid by people who have more money than I do, the artist gets respect, the person who paid the artist gets respect, and I am left to oooh, ahhh, and save my pennies for an original piece by my favorite artist. Everybody wins.
The key, however, is respect. The entire system is built around respect, the artists earn it, the fans give it. I have very little respect for the present music industry and they appear bound and determined to make that zero respect. Perhaps the survivors in the comming shakeup will realise that the only thing you earn by holding your fanbase at gunpoint is resentment.
bend like the reed
Why exactly does it take money to make music? I would say just the opposite. This is one of the main differences between physical and virtual objects, physical objects require raw material and equipment to produce, while virtual objects do not, they only require time. The other main difference is that physical objects are expensive to replicate, while virtual objects are not, which is the base of this whole issue.
what percentage do the artist actually make per cd. i think it is usually rather low especially for the one who could get "droped." I think there needs to be a way to say pay 2 bucks to download the mp3's and burn them yourself on a cd and save so much money in production costs. What is the problem with that? The customers like it, the artist like it(give them like 75% of the sales), but the the money grubber record companies hate. we are taking away what they hold dear, their power over the artist and consumer.
You download MP3s for $9/album and they split the revenues 50/50 (with the artist, I think/hope)
Sounds like a sane businessmodel to a) have MP3s as a medium/format and b) make money off of it. Ivo
<grub> Reading
Im sorry mister artist, you have to get a real job now. Geez, As one of the wannabe musicians mentioned in the article who doesnt really think its worth it to join the record industry Id just like to say "Get a frickin job". I work in a normal job and I play in my spare time. My friends enjoy it, my family enjoys it, hell, Ive even made a few mp3s of stuff ive given to friends.
Im sick of this whineing. In reality most of these musicians can make plenty of money on tours. There just worried they can't have there 30 bedroom house. Well I personally work pretty damn hard 5 days a week and at least pretend to work on some weekends. Ive earned my house and they toys I have. If there that worried about the money then there in the wrong industry. Starving artists is a word that has been around since the begining of time.
What makes them think they deserve more then a Doctor, a Teacher, or a Network Engineer? Everyone puts in there input. Ive written alot of apps which Ive put out for download and expect nothing back. Ive been payed to speak on security on several occasions because im a specialist in the field. I dont try and record and sell the information. Ive had people with recorders in the room and I dont go ranting about how they are killing my profits.
On the whole ive found that most of the major bands, rock bands in paticular, are the largest group of whiners that ever existed. People who believe the world is owed to them on a silver platter. Its not, get over it, get a job if you cant handle touring for money.
If there really that concerned with making a profit put it on a website and sell a frickin banner. Thats what the rest of the world does.
bs.
Who ever came up with the idea of having Santana play with a bunch of kids is probably as deserving of an award(but in marking) as Santana. Also the industry looked around and said "We all love Santana and he's never won a Grammy, we should fix that." Ok that's just ranting.
but...
A reason for your perceived stagnation of modern pop music could be the fragmentation of genres. The suff that the industry is pushing is obviously geared, like that new Santana album, to attract as many listeners as possible. These are the titles that are most likely to show up on charts and award lists. With Chicago/thrill Jockey, DC emo, post punk this and that, lo fi, indy pop, Brit pop, electronica and its sub genres listeners are split into smaller purchasing blocks, the metric your idea of stagnation is based on (you may have other facts to back that up with though). If late 90's music is crap to you, then you may be just looking at the crap. I'm rather excited about the possibilities of music right now and am looking forward to releases with anticipation that I haven't felt for years.
Maybe what you are talking about is a time when the biggest sellers where also the greatest innovators. That is clearly gone and the largest market share is in the hands of throwback copycats. So the problem is not that there haven't been albums produced in the last 10 years that are worthy of you attention but that because of the industry those albums have not attracted you attention as you are not tripping over them at HMV records.
I think it is just the winds that are changing, and it is the big record labels which are becoming outdated. They may have some of the artists in their stables running scared, thinking they are going to get ripped off, but in the end the talent will win out. People will pay for new entertainment. It is the infrastructure which is getting passed by, which is why the A&R men are running scared.
The use of a record label to a consumer is that it acts like a sort of filter, sorting out innumerous crappy bands, and promoting a select few. It uses add campaigns to promote bands it thinks you (the consumer) will, and tries to bring your attention to them. However, the internet allows masses of people to actually decide what is good. /. is popular because of the moderation system, and things like this also exist on sites like mp3.com (although it is just be popularity of downloads in a given genre). If I have time and interest, I can go deep into the archives of the unpopular, or I can just see what is currently popular when looking for new music. This is the same as going into the CD store and looking at the rack in the front of "current hits" or whatever. This whole process leaves out a huge number of middle management. However, there is still room for add-execs (as always).
Now how is the starving artist to make money? Well, if mp3's are freely available on high speed, reliable servers, then everyone will use them, instead of slow "illegal" sites, even if they are covered with banner adds. Mp3 distribution companies can pay artists the rights to record their music and put is up on their sites (covered with adds for all kinds of merchandise like t-shirts, etc).
Touring, I know that for some artists it may be unprofitable, but that is just a matter of where ticket prices are set and how much venues charge. Since you really only need a field with a chainlink fence, some ticket collectors/bouncers and maybe a bigtop tent in case of rain, even at ticket prices of like $5 each, I think even a moderate crowd would make the show profitable. I think it might also be a matter of what artists think is profitable (oh gee, I only made $5000 for 4 hours work tonight). It may be that the product of recording artists is not quite so valuable as it used to be, but that is something that must be dealt with in all markets. The small time artists who make their money on touring can only benefit from widespread mp3 distribution of their work. The wealthy artists may have to work harder for less money, but I don't feel really bad about Mariah Carey having to only make a few thousand for each show she does.
"Politics is for the moment, an equation lasts eternity" -A. Einstein
Let's face it, the labels have had a monopoly on distribution long enough. The artists don't get much money from those CDs, and many artists aren't in it for the money, but rather the enjoyment of their art.
Now that the record labels don't have their monopoly on distribution, they had better start to compete. The ball is in their court now - they have to figure out what the distribution scheme that 'works' really is.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
You have a very good point, but how many mouse jockeys do you know that use Napster? Do a poll: Ask a Napster person anything about Usnet, IRC, FTP or any other good file transfer method. Most of the time you'll just get the Deer in the Headlights Look. Would people bitch as loud if they knew there were other ways to get their precious MP3s? If they find a way to cut most of the Napster traffic, the RIAA and the colleges will most likely lay off the MP3 issue because the other transfer methods have never been a problem for bandwidth or copyright infringement (yeah I know what you are thinking, but if noone knows about it, it's not a problem). They also can't really say much about them because the other file transfer methods have very legitimate uses. -- Luv BoB
Hrm... Wonder if shareware music is a true possibility... That's what your proposition ALMOST sounds like... "This music will expire in 30 days if not registered. After 30 days, you will retain a single track, and will not be able to listen to this disc in it's entireity until registered."
I'm getting started in music, trying to build a home studio, and right now I don't have the time to make music the right way... consequently my recordings are not at the level that I would like them. I'd sure like to spend the time it would take to get 'em right, but I have a day job that requires my attention.
I don't particularly expect to ever graduate from part-time status, but I know other artists who really should, and I'd like to see them get the chance.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
Honestly. You can rationalize it by saying "they're only getting less than 10% anyway," but the other alternitive is that they get NOTHING.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
While huge bands can get 10,000 t-shirts sold a night, small bands have small audiences, and those audiences don't necessarily have enough money to pay for the club entrance fee and and $10 to $18 t-shirt. Not necessarily. And if you're a small band, people just might not care enough about you yet to buy your t-shirt.
I remember when Dave Matthews was just a bar band in Charlottesville -- we got him to play a few shows in our college in Fredericksburg, VA... No one came to see them! Well, about 18 or 20 of us did. The thing is, people had better things to do with their time because he wasn't a "name". (He does the best cover of "All along the watchtower" I've ever heard, btw). And he was a relatively successful musician at that time -- he had a steady gig in Charlottesville playing at a bar called Tracks (Trax? Can't remember), I mean, it was a steady, paying gig, and he was pretty popular in Charlottesville. But elsewhere?
My point is, if people haven't heard about you, they often just don't care about you.
As to Napster, I think it's kind of neat. I can see how the artists are concerned, though. Any artist who is currently successful has to work his or her ass off... even the ones you don't like and don't think have any talent. Artists are so used to being screwed over by labels and management and other artists that they find it difficult to imagine there being any other way. At the same time, I hope you'll understand if they're not to keen on things getting worse... and one scenario they see is that their entire careers will depend on whether or not people buy stuff at their live shows.
It's already like that, you say? Well, in a way almost, but not quite.
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
In fact, artists care more -- and it's because they make so little per CD sold. Every cent counts, every purchase counts. The Labels still make billions, the artists -- if they are very lucky, will make tens or hundreds of thousands.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
Napster allows access to all sorts of music for free.
The music on Napster isn't free music. This is analogous to saying that stolen merchandice from a convenience store is free. People who steal music on Napster aren't getting it for free, they're stealing it for free.
The point with everything that can be turned and reprinted as a digital data - software, books, songs etc. is that when you have to pay for it to get it, the author doesn't need to produce anymore than he/she already did. This is main reason of huge earnings by SW companies, Movies, singers etc.
But the age of easily reprinted and distributed digital data should force that source of income to fail.
1) Software - well, we all know that the software should be free, and the software companies should not charge for bytes.
2) Books - already are being reprinted all over the internet and this may really cause a crisis of writers' incomes. Then, there're still are people - like me, that prefer reading a real book and not even a paper print. Also this will probably cause the writers to reach out more frequently to the readers and make such meetings payable (oh, a LIVE appearance of the writer) and live from it.
3) Singers - LIVE performances and meetings should become the source of income, also remember the advertisments they take part in etc.
4....) Video, Paintings, Magazines - will be bound to have a new fate as well.
-- "If you had fallen into a shit pit during a battle, lick yourself off and move on." - Jaroslav Hasek
Ok, to the point, they're rich and just wanting to be richer. You can't stop mp3s, it started undergound, if it gets beaten down enough it will go back to underground, but it will live on, even if it's me and one guy left, and that guy likes John Tesh, and ONLY John Tesh, I'll trade with him to keep it alive.
It's resistence. "You've got to learn to resist, because the profit system follows the path of least resistence and following that path of least resistence is what makes ariver crooked" (Utah Phillips)
Big companies come and go but resistence (mp3s i this case) are forever. Me stop fighting? Fat chance.
Everybody denies I am a genius--but nobody ever called me one!
Think about it- you have to have:
1- A computer
2- a net connection
3- something to play them on
If the music industry offers an affordable replacement for this stuff, I think I'd buy it. As I've proposed before- a cell-phone/MP3 player would cost "$0" up front, but they would make money based on service charges the same way calling plans work. . .there could be
Flat rates for unlimited D/L
Rates for x songs d/l each month
Rates for just some types of music ($9/month for Heavy Metal, $1/month for the Backdoor boys)
To summarize, the advantages would be:
Low up-front cost
Portable
Easier than Napster
These are very approximate figures (Canadian $ based on recent purchases), but I believe they illustrate the point:
PlayStation/PC Games (eg Final Fantasy VII)
- Duration: 60+ hours of gameplay
- Cost: $60
- Cost per hour: $1.00
Movie ticket or rental:
- Duration: 2 hours
- Cost: $2 to $6
- Cost per hour: $1 to $3
DVD purchase:
- Duration: 2 hours
- Cost: $28 (Canadian prices, remember)
- Cost per hour: $14
CD:
- Duration: 10 minutes average
- Cost: $20
- Cost per hour: $120.
Replay/re-view/re-listen value not included.
Now be a ggod boy and listen to whatever happens to be #1 in the official charts this week. Geez, have you no herd mentality at all?
If I could replicate unlimited diamonds, at fraction of the normal price, then I get the feeling that the diamond corporations would do anything to stop me.
Or possibly the diamond corporations would just shut up shop and concede that it was a good deal while it lasted.
Stop making groundless accusations.
Currently all the songs on my hard disk I also have on legal purchased Compact Disc, bought in a High Street Store.
If you're going to Troll, do it properly. Make sure that your arguments are going to stand up to at least a few volleys before you have to start making things up.
The really stinky thing is that ameteur artists also have to pay this tax, even if they wouldn't have considered pirating music, yet the chances of the money going back to them is virtually non-existent.
I don't know all the technical details...but would it be possible to add something to the music CD itself that would render the mp3 encoding useless? I'm guessing that 99.9% of all mp3's out there originated from someone's CD somewhere. If an audio signal that doesn't effect normal playback yet totally wrecks the encoding process could be inserted, say every 10-20 seconds, in the music, I think that would stop things for a while until a new encoding mechanism defeats it.
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
So where's my RadIo from philips? :-) ... TiVo made it possible to watch prerecorded televisions shows without being able to view the commercials. And funny ... I bet FOX didn't loose any money because of it. People who like music don't want to waste gobs of harddrive space in order to hear a song over and over and over and over again. It's the kids who hear a song on the radio with all thos annoying ads that make napster flourish.
So who's the victim? Not that it really matters, but it's not the music industry. No matter how much the RIAA loses NEGATIVE dollars or how many extremely horrible teeny popper bands go into the pages of "Have beens" the music industry will still make money because people want to listen to the CD and not some CD-R thing with sharpie marker over the top of it.
So some advice. hey Music Industry and RIAA ... shut up get back into your expensive cars and your expensive suits and leave the computer world alone because the "digital vandal age" is what got you that nice car and new suit. I'll sit here in my t-shirt with a collection of CD's.
Evils of mp3's ... sheesh...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Right now we are exploring the limits of that philosophy. For years, the music business (and the movie business) has been screwing the consumer with incredibly high prices. A lot of people feel that they are simply "getting even". This hurts the artist who only sees a fraction of the money the corporations make. Especially the small artist that is living on the razor's edge of a small budget. Yet a lot of people say, "Screw the artists! How many houses do they need? How many fast cars?"
In our culture, the new royalty is the high-paid entertainer. When we see actors getting 20 million dollars a movie, we don't exactly feel their pain when we pirate their movie. We of course forget about the lighting technician who only earns $15 an hour. Or the secretaries, or the gophers.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, we need to reach a point where these less-visible workers are hurt on a large scale before the pendulum can swing back. As human beings, we seem to learn best from a bloody face and a slightly dented wall.
Eventually a compromise will evolve where the small-time artist is not hurt, yet the customer doesn't feel screwed over. It has to. Everyone has too much to lose to go too far in either direction.
I'd like to apologize in advance for any person I may hurt in my ride on this pendulum. I promise to abide by the compromise that will eventually evolve, and I hope the swing will slow down and reverse course soon.
Actually, Fugazi doesn't sell shirts or stickers. They released one shirt throughout their carreer that said on the front simply "This is not a Fugazi shirt" and they are almost impossible to find. They made a couple of stickers, but those are rare, too. They make the bulk of their money touring and on CD sales. For $8 per ticket and CD's running for about the same price, they are not rich. But I don't think they want to be. IMHO, the biggest problem with popular music is that the "Musicians" are more about buisiness than music. It is an Industry after all, not art.
--iceburn
Ok, I'm done bitching...now back to your regularly scheduled life.
A sphincter says what?
The artist gets paid the same way Slashdot gets paid - via that banner at the top of the page you just saw.
You count the click-throughs, but - just as with letters to the editor - every click-through represents so many thousand viewings of the banner. The sponsor is paying for the clicks, at some pre-determined CPM rate, knowing that everytime they pay 2.5 cents for a click, another 1000 or so also saw their sponsorship banner.
This isn't a lot different than bigmultinational!.com sponsoring the artist's tour in order to share in the attention that tour generates.
Of course, smart sponsors will put something really interesting and worth coming back to at the end of that link, not just another hi-I'm-a-sponsor page.
I started to read about 8 lines into this article and quit because of what the first artist had to say "its a time honored tradition to be paid" (or sumtin like that, for their music)... No, This is your greedy speaking for your mouth, its a typical response of a person who feels cheated or abused, whatever makes them feel good inside, they will say.... Remember there was a time, not so long ago, when a Dean Martin or Sinatra would release a song and EVERYBODY would be singing it (and no royalties to the original artist, just the credit.) .. Ya, You dont believe me, go back and read your history, You will be Humbled you self centered egotistical ME GENERATION
You clearly see yourself as somehow morally superior to the record industry executives who get fat off the artists. Get this - you're not!
You guys are *worse* than those people. Like the article says, they may screw the artists over, but at least they give *something* in return. You Napster users give nothing in return and then have the gall to claim this as your God-given right.
You *are* an immoral pirate. *Everyone* loves music. Not everyone steals it. And not everyone justifies their "right" to steal it.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Since using Napster for 6 weeks or so I've bought more CD's than in the past 2 years. This is because the MP3 format isn't yet ubiquitous enough that I can play them on my home stereo, my walkman, my car stereo, my friends stereo, etc -- so I WANT to go out buy the CD (not everyone has a CD burner).
Through Napster's 'Hot List' feature I've discovered all kinds of bands that I'd never heard of before...then I went out and bought their CD's.
I dunno - the distribution model from that perspective seems to work just fine.
. . . have the mp3s be assocated with a particular artists (they already are, I believe), then have a field in the mp3 downloads (along with name, download speed, bit rate, etc.) that points to the artist's homepage.
That should be simple enough to do. The artists can sell whatever they want on the webpage. So everyones happy, except the RIAA, which nobody likes anyway. All that should be needed is an add on to the program and a file that can be automaticly updated from a server that links an artist with a webpage.
----------
Not a typewriter
Well atleast their only trading the mp3's of the albums. Picture all these college kids trading jpeg images of T-shirts and getting iron-on transfers and 'pirating' tshirts :)
------- What exactly is real?
What happens when we switch to purely digital radio broadcasts? Presumably then each song will be broadcast with additional information like, artist, genre, publication date, etc. It would seem pretty straight forward to have a either a radio tuner add-in card that simply scans for music you want that is being broadcast over the air in a digotal form.
Obviously we are not at that stage yet, but it is only a matter of time.
Another thought . . .
I know there are a lot of people who rush out and purchase the latest and greatest CDs as soon as they are released, but I would guess much more people are like me and only buy their favorite artists newest albums. I don't have 20 bucks to waste everytime a new group gets to number one on the charts. So Napster has not changed my CD Purchasing habits in the least. Therefore no artists or record companies have been harmed.
Does anybody have numbers on CD sales for the last year or so? Has there been a big decline in CD sales? Since Napster has been unbeilevably popular in one of the record industries biggest demographics (college students) it would follow that a noticible drop would occur.
If that drop hasn't occured it would support my theory that people are like me, and download "new stuff" or stuff they normally wouldn't buy. But they still purchase their favorites on CD.
-MS2K
* I wish I coud think of something creative to put on a signature *
If the RIAA put aside $0.05 of every CD, how many full time /. trolls could they hire?
The Greatful Dead made squat off of album sales, and many millions off of touring. Bands are going to have to learn to play their instruments, instead of being a clown act that a producer sets the music to.
love is just extroverted narcissism
That's like saying "Slaves need some some way to eat. Even if their master only gives them a piece of bread a day, it's better than nothing. By freeing slaves, you're doing nothing to help them eat. While the system may be 'unfair', that does not make the concept of owning slaves null and void. It exists for a reason, so just accept it."
Please. The reason why intellectual property exists in the form it does today is because of the corporations ability to buy Congressmen. Nobody gives a crap about the artists. Maybe a couple hundred years ago someone did.
Besides, what kind of a band can't make money by selling touring and selling merchandise? The reason you can't make money by touring, Creed, is because you suck, not because of the 2% of Americans who use Napster.
If someone doesn't stop this evil Napster, the bank is going to reposess my Porsche! Get a real job.
A choice of masters is not freedom
I would think that the people who are downloading the MP3's are people who would have never gone out to purchase the album in the first place! If anything, the opportunity to download free music can only help an artist.
When I enjoy the "popular" song (and a few random tunes from him/her) that I have downloaded, chances are I will go out and buy an album. Should I not buy the album, no loss to the artist... I would have never paid for the album (or song) in the first place!
-Peter
1) The recording industry has missed the boat. If they would have had a decent distribution method for the internet 2 years ago, this probably wouldn't have happened. There has been demand for online music for YEARS. MP3's have been the enabler for online music sales, but the recording industries greed stopped them from using the internet as a market. Why charge 10 bucks for an online CD when you can charge 20 bucks in a store? I still believe an online store would be successful, and nearly eliminate the use of Napster. How many times have you been cut off in the middle of a transfer? Or had it too slow to wait for it to finish? or the quality is terrible? This list can go on and on.
:)
2) I have a hard time believing artists don't make money on concerts. Some of these bums are charging 40 bucks a ticket. With 10,000 fans, that adds up to almost half a million. I know a lot of people dip into that bucket, but then multiply this by the number of shows, the number of cities, etc. Some of the more pompous bands charge even more. Add in the sales of soda/beer/food/t-shirts/parking/programs and the fans are paying more than their share. Maby the bands should complain to the indie about their cut of the other sales.
3) I don't know about anyone else, but most of what I download I would never buy. The radio stations only play the same 200 songs. I just want variety. If I like a band, yeah, I will get the CD. Its a lot more durable, comes in a nifty case and all that. Plus, I get tracks I never would have downloaaded. Sometimes they are even good
It may be illegal, it may be immoral, but THERE IS NO GOOD ALTERNATIVE! Napster or nothing.
Music Industry: take a hint, put up a store already! What are you worried about, copying? People are already doing it. You want your money, then make it already.
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
Yes, it's true that artists will no longer be able to make lots of money from the distribution of their music, but the claim that there are no other sufficient revenue sources is excessive.
b ps-using-an-analog-input-source.
... programmers? ;)
Live concerts, posters, t-shirts, TV & movie cameos... These are all substantial sources of revenue for an artist.
Of course we hear complaints from established artists, because they fear (and rightly so) that they won't be able to maintain their lavish, superstar, multi-millionaire status without those record sales revenues.
Maybe it's about damned time that musicians get paid down-to-earth salaries like the rest of us, and do their work because they love it, not because it has the potential to make them filthy-rich.
Furthermore, there is still a revenue model in distribution:
If you charge a MODEST fee, for example $0.25 per song download, a lot of people would rather get the artists-approved mp3 of their favorite song instead of the Napster-ripped-by-some-amateur-who-sampled-at-12k
So the problem here is not that artist's can't make money--it's that their crying about not making a shitload of money.
Well, too bad for them!
It's a shame that this world has become to a place where we think "stars" deserve more money than cancer researchers, or teachers, or
It's obvious that the problem is a little broader than just music. The whole concept of publishing as we know it is going to be obsolete VERY soon.
In the past, the spread of information was tied to having the resources to distribute it. The power was all in the hands of the people with enough money to press a million newspapers, distribute records or cds, print magazines or whatever. Now since the information is getting easier and easier to spread it is not about the money and resources but the information itself!
The publishing industry as a whole needs to take a good look around at whats going on and rethink their entire business model. You don't NEED tons of cash to move the information anymore so in essence you don't NEED publishers! What's happening to the music industry should be a wakeup call to anyone else in the publishing industry and they need to take action now.
I'm not talking about any kind of ethics here. This is what is happening/going to happen. People need to get over it already and adapt.
Seems to me that the future is going to be in marketing this information instead of printing it.
A huge chunk of our economy is going to get turned up on its end, perhaps its time for a flat "information tax" based on your bandwidth capabilities and split this money up between the content generators based on how many people access this.
Imagine... a sixth grade student writes an amazing piece of fiction, pgp signs it and sticks it up on his website and starts pulling in a small income. Whatever the solution something needs to be done NOW or things are just going to get worse.
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
I'm just not going to support a business model where you write a song decently good based on the agency's parameters for sellable material, or even if it's really your own invention, and then you seat back and relax while the millions pour in...
money is hard earned and it should stay that way. even $10M a year sports heroes get to work almost every day and very hard too. if touring and brand selling doesn't pay your bills then you're the problem!! I just don't see how a concert a week with 10,000 people paying $10 a head won't pay the bills..
you want a model that works? write a good original artistic song, distribute it for free on the net, build a solid fan base (if you're smart you'll be on the radio in no time) and start touring and selling t-shirts!!! what? you won't be a millionair in 30 days? ohhhh that's too bad cause neither am i (yet) and sure as hell work at least as hard as most artists do (unless they work more than 20 hours a day)
just imagine how "in" it'll sound when the local radio station starts airing that new song everyone's talking about that's free on the net and the guys have no record label. if that happens where i live everyone would start downloading the thing from their site (which will be loaded with bills paying banners BTW) and if the song's good it'll spread like HIV. all of a sudden the radio starts announcing your first tour (which you financed with VC money) and EVERYBODY will wanna know who the kids behind the mp3 are. sure as hell sounds cooler than the regular dying method of going to super sony and have them take care of you...
bottom line, be creative, aggresive, competitive, just like everything else on the net or else be amazoned.
oh, sorry, all of the above is IMHO.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Let's see: I think most of us agree that the current way of doing business in the music world screws both the artists and the consumers, and the labels make out like the bandits that they are.
Seems to me that there is an obvious and necessary first step to creating a new, better system: We have to get the artists to realize that their interests, and our interests (as consumers) are aligned.
I can think of one way that the average joe-geek-consumer can work towards that end: If you download a bunch of music, and keep it, pay the artist for it. Directly. Send him/her/them a money order (better keep it annoymous). If lots of artists start getting $5 & $10 chunks of cash coming it, they're going to see the light.
I want to do this. The problem is, I don't know where to send something like that so that it will get into the hands of the artists, and not some label or PR flack.
Does anyone out there have any ideas or information to make it easier to get the money directly to the bands?
The other thing I would point out is that, before we will ever have the artists' widespread support for a new business model, they have to get out from under their contracts with the record companies. I don't know how that's going to happen.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
The thing to do here, is to be absolutely positive that you support (pay) the artists that you like. Pick and choose, if they're on warner bros & you don't like warner, don't pay. if they put out their own stuff, and you like it, pay them. The thing is, just to be sure you _DO_ actually buy the records if you like the artist. Any other option is a big loss, MP3's & Napster have really opened up the music world, it'd be a shame to lose that.
The Street Performer Protocol has potential to be an excellent distribution model. If you haven't read it before, Joe Bob says check it out.
(my take on the situation)
The music industry is very alarmed about "Napster," a new internet music-sharing device which allows people to copy popular songs into an electronic "MP3" format and share them with anyone who wants to hear them. Labels and artists are angry about the lost revenue that this will cost them.
They don't know the half of it.
My research has uncovered the fact that there is an electronic piracy scandal of unprecedented proportions going on right under the record company's noses.
There are several components.
First, there are devices called "cassette recorders" which allow people to make duplicates of existing music and give them to their friends, without the record company or the hard-working artists accruing any revenue whatsoever. Many lawless "hackers" even create what are called "Mixer Tapes" containing songs stolen from many different artists, with no regards to their intellectual property rights -- and they give these "Mixer Tapes" away to friends at no cost whatsoever! The reproduction method, like mp3s, is "lossy," but these diabolical "Cassette Recorders" are able to duplicate sound at a level of quality suitable for everyday listening, parties, and even dances.
The existence of "cassette recorders" means that the second fact I am going to reveal should be even more shocking to anyone who cares about artists' intellectual property rights.
The second element of the scandal is called the "Frequency Modulation Radio Station." A Radio Station will receive CDs from record companies at no cost (obviously there is some kind of payola going on here) and then, using a new "hacking" technology called "Frequency Modulation," will broadcast the songs for FREE to anyone who owns an inexpensive "FM Radio" receiver unit. Popular songs are even re-broadcast many times per day! The Frequency Modulation signal, like mp3s and cassette tapes, is lossy, but is very high quality. This results in millions and millions of people listening to artists' music without paying them a dime. Obviously this is a huge threat to the music industry as we know it, and massive lawsuits are in order.
Now, many hackers have put together devices which *combine* these two technologies, that is, "FM Radios" with a "Cassette Recorder" built right in! This allows a hacker to tune in to an "FM Radio Station" and record the music onto a "Cassette" for later play or even trading with other people! If this sort of thing is allowed to proliferate, anyone will be able to listen to a popular artist's music any time, and they will be able to make their own copies so they can listen to whatever songs they want whenever they want, without paying the artist a dime! All of our most beloved pop icons will be in the poorhouse within months.
But I've saved the greatest scandal for last. This is a piece of technology called the "Speaker." It takes the intellectual property of an artist (whether on a legitimately paid for CD, or a pirated "Cassette" or "FM Radio" signal), and broadcasts it THROUGH THE AIR so that anyone with ears can listen to it! Whether they paid for it or not! Anyone who has a system with speakers can broadcast music at a range of hundreds or even thousands of feet (for a very powerful speaker) and people all around can hear the music without paying the artists one red cent.
Our beloved pop icons are being stolen from on a daily basis, and I for one thing massive legislation is called for before this technology runs completely out of control.
Ed Heil
What if the artist just start pushing selling recording for themselves instead paying some fat cat that takes all the profit to do the can lower the cost and maxiamize the profits to them and why not sell the cds plus let you buy just the songs you want and download hey just a thought
Let's face it. Most recording artists are in the business to make money. Lots of money. If I enjoy listening to music then I should support those artists that I like by buying their music rather than ripping it off. The prevailing attitude today however is that we deserve everything and we should get it as soon as we want it. Napster works into that quite well. Soon enough, the only way you will be able to hear new music is by attending live performances that you had to pay an arm and a leg to get into. There is something to be said for delayed gratification afterall.
I can forsee two different possibilities...
First: Each artists takes control of their own destiny, as far as the distribution of their music goes. They sell it in digital, CD, or whatever format directly from their web site, and perhaps a commercial site, and take almost 100% of the profit. They can give each song a price, discout it for buying a compilation of songs in a compressed or zipped format, and then collect it directly. Instead of getting a few dollars from the royalties of a CD sale in a store, they could get two to three times that from on-line sales minus the distribution costs (internet services and development). This way, they would only need to sell 1/2 to 1/3 of the albums or songs to make the same profit. Seeing that they take on more of the distribution and marketing costs, the break-even point would be greater, but they could cover that ground faster with 2-3 times more profit per unit. Perhaps it would all balance out in the end, but the point is that it would work.
Second: A standard CD can hold approximately 680 MB of data, which translates into about 150 songs give or take. A DVD can hold approximately 8.5 GB using dual layer (http://www.sel.sony.com/S EL/consumer/dvd/about_specs.html) which is 1,875 songs. 3,750 double sided. Can you name 3,000 songs?? It gets better. Regular CD's use infrared lasers to read, DVD's use red lasers, at a smaller wavelength and therefor better compression of the tracks and more data, a blue laser is even smaller, I can't find the link, but they claim 16 GB of data per side. That would be well over 7,000 songs. 14,000 songs double sided. Enter, molecular circutry and nanotechnology and you can see that it is feasable that in the not to distant future it will be possible to have every piece of music ever recorded on a single device that would fit onto your hip in about the size of a disc man or smaller. A company, which I'll call "MUSIC" will go around and gather all the new recordings that comes out and you would have a subscription that would allow you to download the updates (all the new songs since the last update) to your device, kind of like anti-virus updates. Just like everyone pays for cable, cell phones, and ISP's, people will have a subcription to MUSIC. Of course, they will still be able to hear the new stuff right when it comes out on the Radio and MTV (do they still play music videos???).
If the record companies are smart and insightful, they'll work toward the second model, but it will take some time. Meanwhile, the individual aritist can use the first.
I agree that major-label record contracts are exploitation in the extreme. This is precisely why I don't care for napster-style piracy. Provided that I ever get a big-league contract (not likely), I will want to retain every scrap of rights and revenue I can. Music is a business, as poorly as that fits with the artistic nature it has at the core. I WANT those mechanical royalties, I want the checks rolling in.
Right now I can't afford to buy a bed, so it may just me feeling the keen itch of poverty that makes me react like this to massive downloading of music, but I really think it's just that I have an ego and some greed. If I did it, I want the credit and the ducats.
But that's just IMHO.
---
(maybe a proposed ban on CD burners or a music tax on them for all the music that will get stolen is in the works). ------- Canada now has a tax on blank audio tapes and CD-R's. To "compensate" for the loss of revenue to home recording and such. Which as far as I can see, accomplishes two things: People with "legitimate" use for a CD-R (such as backing up the ol' hard drive, or making a copy of a Linux distribution for someone) now pay more for the CD-R. And those who do pirate musical materials, well, "Now I'm paying the tax on it so I guess I have a right to do so." (I, personally, do not have any MP3's at all. But I still pay the tax every time I purchase a CD-R, so I guess I'm paying for the next guy's record collection.)
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Nope, sorry. The gate's allready open. The horses are long gone. Even if the RIAA wins against Napster there's still a bunch of open-source look-alikes out there.
For any protection scheme we come up with, there are hundreds of smart people in the world who will find a way to circumvent it.
-Eric
If so, then it seems like one solution is for the recording companies to develop lower-cost distribution and promotion systems for less-popular bands. Mp3s seem like an ideal approach - the record company, or the band, sets up an official website for the band, where users can download mp3s of their latest songs, with links for purchasing "hard-media" copies of the music, when those become available. (If you're recording specifically for mp3 distribution, would you need as expensive a studio setup?) As the band becomes more popular, the record company could shift to higher-powered, old-fashioned methods of distribution and promoting, with a much higher chance of commercial return.
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
Good point. If you look, you'll notice that 99% of the stuff on Napster is by artists who are already quite successful.
Seems to me that the capitalist distribution model for several forms of art (movies, music & books) is dying. The reason everyone is running around screaming is because NOBODY has ANY IDEA how a post-capitalistic system will work, but we all seem to feel that it is inevitable. We've read about and discussed many alternatives, and they all seem to be lacking. So far there is not one single economic model that would be as successful at encouraging art as the current system (which is not to say that the current system is flawless. Far from it, in fact).
So, yes, it's going to happen.
Yes, the big media companies are going to lose.
Yes, the artists, too are going to lose, which means:
WE are going to lose also, because you can't devote yourself to producing good art when you're flipping burgers to pay the rent, so there won't be as much good art.
BUT... all of this will only be temporary. We need art and artists, and, as a whole, the human race will not tolerate a lack of good art for any length of time. So, somethng will have to change.
Again, the fear is based on the fact that we have no idea WHAT will change, or how, and we haven't come up with anything viable yet. But we will. We have to, because we need our art.
It will be ugly for awhile. There will be casualties. But in the end I'm convinced that we'll figure something out that is far superior to the previous model, and it is pretty short-sighted to try to stop this change just because it might be awkward for a few years. It's like refusing to move into a new house because you can't stand the thought of being without cable for a couple of weeks.
The sad fact is that most MTV'ized bands out there simply suck live. I've seen it all too often. Fortunately there are plenty of extremely good live bands, and most of them allow recording and free trading of tapes & CDs of live shows. Bands like Phish, moe., String Cheese Incident, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Widespread Panic, etc. make most of their money from touring. They can do this because they are good enough live to draw a crowd (and because they all have something that few bands have these days: artistic integrity). These bands are rarely on the radio and just about never on MTV, but they still manage to make ends meet by touring and having a tight knit group of fans.
I'm not trying to advocate piracy of music. In fact I am strongly against it. I just wanted to point out that the statement that bands can't make money touring is patently false. That is all.
-
Why aren't they complaining about the sales of used CDs? Almost every store I walk into has a used section. Isn't that kinda the same thing? Someone else is selling their digital media and they aren't seeing a penny of it. What's the difference between getting songs from the Internet (Napster) or from a used CD shoppe? I mean from their perspective. Both ways they don't make any profits yet one is acceptable and the other is not. Hell, most of the CDs in these stores are promotional copies anyway. The record companies are just giving the CDs away. And these people are taking them to their local store and selling them. Then the store makes a profit from them. I think they're barking up the wrong tree. Who's the real criminal here?
I'm the great, cynic, I'm the indifferent gaze
I'm the great, cynic, I'm the indifferent gaze
Mendacity, betrayal, this is not a phase.
Since this is all about the Big Bucks, the Green stuff, How is The Nap making ANY money, are they data mining the users already and selling the information back to the very ones taking 'em to court?
Suppose that your Napster engine has a built-in micropayments client. Not a "You must pay or we won't let you use this music" - no, that just invites piracy and totally screws things up. No, just something where a PGP-signed payment URL is encoded with the document.
Then your client displays a button which says "pay this artist" and you click it, select the amount, and the money is transferred.
As for the how, you would need either a digital currency, e-gold or a balance held on-line by the company, probably funded with a credit card interface.
Why not?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
definitely. look at the music clubs who sell 12 cds for a penny (introductory of course.. actual money they get probably comes to about 3,4 bucks a cd).. they still make a profit, even with all those people who use more than one name and steal cds. if cds were cheaper (even 5 bucks), and most money went to artists, people would buy cds and artists would be plenty funded. Where does that extra seven bucks go, you say? Well, record companies, yes, but the majority goes into promotions. So if we can't spend it on promotions, how can we promote the band? GIVE AWAY FREE MP3S ON NAPSTER! IT COSTS NOTHING!
The fact is that artists rarely make money from the sale of recorded albums. If they're *lucky* they'll get $1.00 - $1.25 per $15 cd sold, only after the record company, the producer, manager, agent, caterer, etc. have all been paid for their "expenses". An album for the artist traditionally is the way to promote said artist. Overpriced t-shirts and touring are how most musicians make money (t-shirts in particular). The person quoted in the article is flat-out wrong.
In some cases, artists contracts have actually been structured (%#@! lawyers) so the more albums they sell, the more in debt to the record company they become.
Furthermore, a lot of this anti-napster/mp3 campaign reeks heavily of being a music industry pr-push. In various articles (like the salon one) you'll *almost always* see an agent/record company hack saying "I showed [Artist X] this technology and s/he was shocked/horrified that s/he (the artist) was being ripped off." A transparent attempt to gain sympathy through the artist.
My guess is that most artists could care less about napster/mp3 trading as record album sales barely trickle down to them and, instead, they appreciate the increased exposure.
The musicians that do seem to be speaking about MP3s/Napster are most likely being pushed by record label/industry pr people, which is why so many of them say the same damn things in every article. And why a lot of them will remain quiet.
Honestly why they worry so much about the whole cd is beyond me. Granted Napster might bring back the whole cd to you for download. But given the fact that most people don't have broadband access keeps them from downloading the whole cd. Should broadband access become a very real concept in everyhome there will be more then the record companies complaining. Usually you download the hit tracks off the cd and pass over the rest. Or you download a hit off a cd you can't find in your area. This is getting the band exposer, at the cost of them not getting paid for the tune. Much the same way someone hearing a tune on the radio or tv and recording it does. Maybe the record company should embrace the mp3 and start selling mp3 cds. Course what would u play them on? The CD it's self could have a lock file on it for you to copy to a computer to allow the play of the MP3's on it. Still no matter HOW you look at it, there WILL be someone getting the music for free somehow.
Shhh, it's just the noizes in your head.
Maybe, but on the other hand:
The new technology lets almost anyone be a distributor (including the artist), but it doesn't let the distributor make a whole lot of money. Bad news for distributors, but not for anyone else.
RyanS
Everyone profits from information through one form or another, be it technology, software, music, movies, books....
Then why not compensate artists/authors through taxes? Information is a need of society, arguably as important as roads or army or anything else. So let's encourage it!
The entire general public would have access to any information they wanted, and open source would seem an inevitable conclusion.
It would also be extremely fair because tax brackets allow everyone to pay according to their ablity to do so.
We could compensate creators according to quantity of labour and its quality (in the case of music quality = # of downloads?)
Companies could also contribute to the fund and could even compensate specific authors in terms of demand.
In any case, regardless of how the system would be inplemented exaclty, doesn't it seem logical for society as a whole to encourage the creation and exchange of ideas and art.
I don't see how government funding would prevent free speech...All we are doing is submitting the statistics about how many people downloaded britney spears or whatever and then the government pays her a representative amount.
The fact is it is not mp3's that are the "problem", it is CD's. As long as this insecure music format exists it will be possible to rip a CD track and share it over the internet.
If record companies start losing money (which they are still a long way away from doing with all the CD players out there), then they will just come out with some audio-DVD format which will likely put a temporary end to mp3 piracy for new music. When that format is cracked and they lose money again, they will just come up with some new encryption algorithm. It is an vicious cycle that can only end with artists becoming entirely independent and ditching the record labels.
But in any case this is not an overnight end to the RIAA. They will be around for a long time and they have made so much money in the past, they could lose money 10 years in a row and still not die.
Here's something intersting about Napster. Lets say I want to use it _legally_ to download music that has ben freely released as mp3s.
Wow, gee, look at that. I can't! Napster scanned my hard drive I found the mp3's I legally made from my CD's (so I dont have to carry them around everywhere). Now its sharing them on the net so others can download. Wait, thats not legal! I don't want this. Napster does not make these easy to change.
Let's face the facts. In ten years time anything that can be digitized will be presented free over the Internet. The only people who will be creating new music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be those doing it for the love of the art, and for the fame that comes with it. We will get our entertainment from the artist without it being filtered through megacorps. This can only improve the quality of the art available to us all, and it should be embraced.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Whoa you know I read that article this morning and I really don't see that the artists and the producers have much of a chance to put the genie back into the bottle. They're basically screwed if they let this technology kind of happen to them.
I suppose the ICrave case is one case where the Man won and the little Canadian guy got stomped, but there's a big difference between going after a major server site downloading video streams and millions of students swapping MP3 files. You can't subpoena the Earth afterall, at least not inexpensively. Furthermore,there are more private internets being created where anonymity will reign. What happens when you don't even know who to sue? Not much probably.
I would suggest, as a possible answer, is that artists take a look at what's happening and try to create a business model for the future. My humble suggestion would be creating a MTV like portal that would allow micropayment or telephone bill payment for something like a buck a song. And to offer a better user experience than anybody else is.
It's not fair. You would think learning an alternate chord progression would be enough. But the truth is the artist has to either adapt to the new media or go the way of 8 tracks and Beta.
So Ska, Reggae, Acid Jazz, are done only by white People?
Really.
I don't like techno/dance/garage mostly because I can't dance, and have no real knowledge of what is going on in that style of music.
So let me get this right....You think Punk and other non-popular musical styles are dead. AND you think that Reggae, Ska & Jazz are done ONLY by white people. (Dead White people no doubt!).
Shure...I'll buy that, but first you scoot down to Jamaica with a couple of cans of Bleach...Let me know what happens eh?.
Cheers
S.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
For some people, MP3's are more like a rental system. They download the song, listen to it for a few days, then dump it like a bad habit. Most of my MP3s are CD's I have anyway. So not ALL applications of the MP3 format are bad, just the RIAA perceives it that way.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. - Initial
what they mean is, they can't make 3,000,000 dollars with tee shirts and touring alone
"The only source of knowledge is experience" -A. Einstein
Instead of trying to make users pay for downloaded songs why not have Napster pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC performance royalties ala radio?
It should work like this:
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC take a sampling of songs of users of Napster x performance royalty rate = performance royalties Napster owes ASCAP/BMI/SESAC
---then---
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC pay artists rates similar to radio performance
This would put Napster in a position similar to that of a radio station: they would have to pay performance royalties for songs registered to performing rights organizations (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) being transferred over their system.
Don't wait to be hunted to hide. - SB
made it illegal in the first place?!! Artists from years gone by just wanted to play and sing and perform for people. To make a decent living at it was a really nice bonus. Now, people come out with their music and expect to make money on it for the rest of their lives! Money-grubbin' bastards...if I made my honest living off of my work and music and then years later I became bankrupt, then it was my own fault for poor money management. I would have to go back out on the road and tour for more money or put out another album...simple isn't it? The RIAA and all the others need to get a life and keep out of the progression of mankinds expression of himself called MUSIC.
I know that making music for the love of music has somehow gotten way out of hand. People used to make beautiful music and just want people to listen to it and feel it and be happy (or depressed depending on what genre music you're listening to), now all I frickin' hear is how much they're gonna make or not make in their ever-money-grubbin' wallets. Make the music FOR the LOVE of the music and the money will appear...make music for the MONEY and easy come, easy go baby! I hope to have an adequate amount of money someday where I won't have to worry about it, and I hope I can achieve it through my love of music and for people.
Good Lord! I just had a flashback to when I was taking economics in college! I don't think I could have said it any better...WTG Darth! I'm going to copy that Darth...if I use it anywhere I'll be sure and give ya the credit. :-)
or the latest medium for making music portable. And as for the music that is shared on Napster...most of the songs I share are from cd's that I purchased and converted into MP3's using Audio Catalyst. I guess if people ever do stop buying cd's the corporate execs might have to actually get off their asses and find a real job besides exploiting the artists. And the artists will have to go and actually perform for their career and make an honest living. I'm not saying that they should not be compensated for their music that is out on the latest technological medium...but the love and want for money is what is corrupting everything in our society and world. Just look at the idiots on the TV show Friends...They want $120,000.00 an episode for the season?!!!!!! that's fuckin' ridiculous! Our football players make more than some small towns do! Our famous actors make between 2 million and 15 million per film! Good Lord! Money, money, money AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Dear Lord have mercy on us all!!!
It just kills me to know that I have to be 'hooked' in with the right fucking people to ever be discovered blah, blah, blah...that's bullshit! I have a natural talent for singing and I LOVE to sing and see the expressions on the peoples faces when a good performance is carried out...why should my life and talent with music be dictated by some idiots who are living in mansions and own limos, yachts, rolex's, etc. etc. I thank God that the internet came along and is allowing little people like me to enjoy spreading our talents without the help of multi-millionaires. Long live MP3's!!!
The Government sucks! They already have their grubby little fingers in every aspect of your life and now you want them wrapped up in our free speech? You need some good realization on life. What the American people need is to tear down all the crap in our governement and go back to the basics. Big governement has done nothing in the past and is gonna do nothing but cause pain and hardships in the future...abolish BIG government!!! The American people need to take back our constitutional rights and tell the government to go to hell!
And just how much student fees and tuition is paid at this college? Brown Univ. in Providence RI has blocked access to Napster through their server. I think the college should realize that the information age is upon us and they should get a faster server (or more) and more bandwidth. They always find a way to pay for their 'necessities' why isn't a kick-ass internet connection NOT a necessity? http://www.holistix.net/ebiz/headlines/2000/02/02/ Uwire/harvest_Uwire949558044089142.html
- Jeremy Fuller
I think what we are seeing right now is an opportunity for a fundamental shift in the music industry's business model. The recording companies would like things to stay the same as they are now. And why not? The current model ($18 for a CD that only has one song that doesn't suck) is very profitable for them. How about a different model completely. Throw out everything about the current model and start fresh with the online world in mind. * Distribution and promotion entirely online. For one thing this creates a level playing field for the 'small' guy working out of his garage studio. See mp3.com or garageband.com. * Forget the whole album concept. Why put out 12 songs if you really only have 3 good ones right now. If I want a good CD, I'll make it myself or pay cdnow.com to build one for me. I have owned very few albums that were solid tracks end to end. * Online payment/subscription. I can think of two ways to make money on this (these are not necessarily my own original thoughts I'm just gleaning from others' comments): Shareware model (I'm a starving artist, please send me a buck). FYI: Don't send the artist a check for $1, but some central clearinghouse who can efficiently/economically distribute those "royalties". Subscription model (I like this kind of music, send me/let me download nn tracks every week and I'll pay $9.95 a month). I'd probably pay for this kind of convenience. * On touring, I find it hard to believe that everyone loses money on tours. What about all the corporate sponsors (Budweiser presents ...)? What about the facility itself (Concessions alone after a Dead show!)? For the "little guy" trying to break into the business, touring must suck. But online (see point number one) everyone has the same chance for exposure. If the music is good, people will buy it. Right? Brittany and Ricky can do the stadiums but for most artists, I doubt that touring really adds to their bank accounts. * Don't try to enforce copyright. Whatever goofball encryption scheme you come up with to prevent distribution, the masses will crack it. The harder you try, the more people will enjoy breaking it. Why spend all that money for nothing? There will always be pirates but that doesn't mean that everyone will become one (Raise your hands if you have a 'registered' copy of WinZip!). Me thinks I write too much. Cheers, JR
Now my boys are musicians just getting started in the music business, which they hope to get rich in. I have been mass producing their new single and giving it out for free, even have it as an offer on Napster and MP3.com. Now I am getting from the kids the same mentality as those that want to get rich off of their music....Hey Mom don't give it away then nobody will want to buy it. Well given they are fairly new to the music world nobody would even hear much of their music if I didn't give it away either, so that I see as a two sided blade.
Back to my orginal rant.....I introduced my parents to Napster a few weeks ago. My parents have subscriptions to RCA and some other monthly pay for cd/tapes clubs. They have been getting the leaflets of artists to choose from and running out of cd's to choose from by artist name alone. With Napster they have been exposed to other artists that they have not heard before which has opened the market for them to purchase cd's from their club that they would not have previously considered because they hadn't been exposed to the groups music.
Napster is great for exposure and expanding musical preferrences, I myself download mp3's of artists I have never heard of to expand my personal taste in all the variety that is offered without having the added expense. But in turn I will buy the cd of the ones I like. MP3's are great but nothing replaces having the cd with the inserts and artist information as keepsakes.
Napster is like so many other things in life...a double sided blade and I'm affraid just like so many other double sided blades in life it will take the open minded individual to see it.
But thats just my 2 cents.
STFU... GTFO... & RTFM
How could I possibly boycott the music industry. Can I live without music? No! It's like breathing or drinking! The music I want to listen to is so closely connected to my soul that I can't even think of living without it! I mean: if the city you live has polluted air do you hold your breath? I have gnapster, I use it and every day I discover a new artist or a new genre I didn't know. Of course I don't go out and buy a pile of CDs every week but sometimes it does happen and guess what: it takes weeks for the CD to arrive because it's not on the shelves. The guys in the store have to ORDER IT abroad from some small specialized label because it's not in the maistream music industry!
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
It's funny that all of the artists were blaming Napster, as if Napster invented the MP3 format and that no piracy was occuring on the internet before Napster. Fact is, piracy is already a booming trend on the internet, and Napster is just a logical outgrowth of that. If Napster hadn't come along, someone else would have done it.
Pandora's box has definitely been opened...the question the RIAA and artists need to ask is, "How do we survive in an MP3 world?" Maybe the answer is that music distribution is handled by artists or their managers.
Every artist was talking about this being the end of their careers, but it's not. Maybe if people were only swapping your MP3's, your record sales would go down, and you'd be fired. But this is an industry-wide problem, and perhaps even a society-wide problem as the human race comes to grips with the computer age.
Regardless, music will survive. A new generation of artists will make music, and adapt to the internet distribution model.
It's unfortunate that the RIAA chose to fight this every step of the way instead of saying, "Ok, MP3's are here and we need to radically adjust our business model." I think the outcome now is the dissolution of a top-heavy industry.
Ok, so maybe musicians won't be living the fantasy lifestyle of the rich and famous anymore...maybe they'll be real people with budgets and station wagons and mortgages.
Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.
Sorry about that, but you didn't really pick the best example. Are you sure the Arvo Part or Harry Partch masters still exist? I _think_ that no Charlie Parker master tapes have ever been destroyed to save a huge record corporation a buck- yet. Give 'em another 20 years and they'll be destroying Miles Davis masters to save costs on storing the tapes. I'm sorry- this is already underway and you cannot save the tapes and the labels will not give up the masters they are destroying- you'd better believe people tried- it's gone on for _years_, there was an expose on this practice in The Absolute Sound v17 issue 80 (published in 1992).
This is _not_ the argument to use to argue that record companies are not inherently evil.
"Why would anybody sit down and write a novel if it's going to be pirated for free the first day it's released?"
Ye gods. You'd better ask Emily Dickinson that, my friend. In fact, you don't have to (she's dead and still more lastingly popular than you could hope to be)- you can ask me. I have written a novel and put it up on the net to be 'pirated for free'. Ask _me_.
I'll tell you why: the story needed to be told. As it grew I eventually realised I was telling a story, also, about how the world seemed to me at the time- without intending it, the fiction and invention became a kind of communication. It became a means of self expression- and also an exercise in the joy of sheer craftmanship. I once told somebody I met in a bookstore about how I wrote the ending to Kings Of Rainmoor, and how through a series of twist endings and unexpected but inevitable surprises I ended it in a very artistic and appropriate way- and she was most impressed, and got some of the sense of _rightness_ I feel about that ending. And that sense is what writing the book was _for_... I created something that has power and beauty to me (and to other people, too.)
It's the same with my MP3 songs and MP3 instrumentals. Let's look at the latter for a second. I'm in the process of doing an album on animal themes, and I had some music in my head that gave a very romantic sense of what a Horse is (we're talking teenage girl obsessiveness levels of romanticism ;) ). I could hear it, could feel it wanting to exist- and through a lot of work and the application of skills I've spent a lot of years learning, I got it on tape- it's at the 'MP3 instrumentals' link above, named "Horse", naturally. I ran about trying to tell people it was there, too, because it's one of the finest bits of art I've ever done. I ran across a person on a MUCK who was a big horse lover (or, rather, a unicorn fancier) and he listened to it- and was blown away! And that validated all the effort I'd put in- because in part musical art is the fiction of imagining stuff and playing it, but it is also communication, and I was able to communicate to another person the almost mystical romanticism I was trying to express in pure _sound_. That's fscking magic, to be able to do that. It's addictive. Who the hell needs to get money to justify being able to wreak magic? I wonder if these 'artists' who don't understand this are even able to come up with even scant milliamps of magic. That seems simply pathetic to me- I know what I want and we're not even speaking the same language, it seems. When I get things set up right, work really hard, maybe bleed or get a few blisters from strenuous playing or drumming, and find the right listener (because there's always a right listener), I get to produce whole _amps_ of magic, I get to every now and then hit people with a charge of music like a lightning bolt and _stun_ them with art. I hardly exaggerate to say that I live for that- certainly I know musicians who can stun _me_ in turn. The Pixies, Captain Beefheart, Tom Waits have all managed to stun me one way or another with music (Beefheart is the man who said, "I'd like to give my music away because where I got it, you didn't have to pay for it"!). From the slush piles of mp3.com I've also found the same charge- there's this band Creeper Lagoon- most of their stuff didn't hit me so hard but this one song, "Drop Your Head" stunned me. And there it is- it's the visceral response to art, to music.
Reading Puff Daddy's take on the matter is even more ludicrous than reading the pop music hacks' take on it. Are we or are we not talking about a rapper who takes complete works of music by somebody else, grabs some loops out of the song, basically using those MUSICIANS' best notes for nothing, _talks_ over them (shouts? rants?) and thinks _he_ is guaranteed income from this? That's fscking ludicrous. Look, I have that MP3 instrumentals area. Some of it, particularly the albumlength workout 'Extended Play' (which has been compared to 'really good Yes, or King Crimson') is absolutely _begging_ to have bits of it looped and used as a more rock-derived rap backing, a more snarling distorted driving beat. It's wide-range, it's fierce, it's just waiting to be sampled. I'd like to see Puff Daddy go raid _my_ music, grab notes that I sweated over and got blisters over, do some rap over them and then claim _he_ is entitled to money for it. How much time does he spend compared to how much time and effort I spend on the source for those 'fair use' loops?
And yet I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be able to do that- I'm arguing that he doesn't have special rights to money on that basis. If he finds people who want to watch him rap in person to my music as a backing loop, I for one will not bitch. If people want to buy physical media from him on that basis, I'll let it pass and will cheerfully allow him to not give me a dime for it. If he thinks he's _entitled_ to payment just for having done this, then I would have to ask whether I was _entitled_ to payment in turn for supplying those theoretical loops.
The logical conclusion is this: these frustrated pop business majors are _obligated_ to stop attempting to record music, because they can't guarantee that they are paid for every playing of a note (many use session men so they are trying to guarantee that they are paid for the playing of _someone_ _else's_ note). For the rap artists who feel this way, they are obligated to try and be paid for every word. Since rap is music of the streets and is taken from life and performed by people who live what they rap, the rap artists are logically obligated to try and be paid for every word they ever utter, and need to walk about with a big sack (and, presumably, a gun) speaking to people and taking money from them in payment for their rap performances. Since this is certifiably insane behavior, they will then get locked up and the rest of us can go on with our lives :)
Including me, finishing this post and signing it with the URLs where I give my art to my listeners:
http://www.mp3.com/RFW (radio-type songs)
http://www.mp3.com/ChrisJ (instrumentals)
No, thieves steal things. Pirates forcibly board ships, murder the crew, and then steal the cargo. Referring to illegal copying as piracy, even if you believe that the law is a right and moral law, is absurd.
If I were a pirate, I would be offended at people describing contract violations as piracy. That would belittle my entire career!
No, that's not theft, that's a contract violation. They are different things.
To steal something is to take it away by force or without permission. But if on monday, you are in posession of something, and on wednesday, you are still in posession of that thing, how can it have been stolen on tuesday? Many people believe that information cannot be a subject of property, as it has no physical reality. The nature of property is tied up in the fact that objects can only be in one place at a time. Information doesn't work that way.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron.
All that said, I would like to live in a world where artists get compensated for their work, so that there is more incentive for artists to produce art. However, I don't think we live in that world today: the people getting compensated are, by and large, not the artists, but their lawyers.
I hope someone can figure out a way for artists to truly get compensated. But trying to put the Napster toothpaste back in the tube just isn't going to work.
The world has changed. Figure out a way to live with it.
we know that for a fact, because the vast majority of musicians do this today.
The minority of musicians who can live of royalty from CD sales would be affected. They would be in a good position to make money from sponsoring, live performances and merchandise, but it might not make of for the loss in royalties. I certainly don't see Michael Jackson being as rich as he is today. Being ordinarily rich instead of outrageously rich aren't that bad, though.
It amuses me when people like Puff Daddy refer to themselves as "artists", and state that they "deserve" to get paid for their work.
The majority of great art is *not* rewarded by great fortunes: the streotype of the starving artist is not so far removed from the truth.
Great music is a labour of love -- and it isn't that expensive to make (especially nowadays, when most people could build a modest home studio if they scrimp and save for a while). Napster and MP3 provide an excellent means to get your work hear: which if it's really "art" ought to be a reward in itself. For money, get a proper job.
You used to need a record label to get your art heard: pressing and distributing records/CDs/whatever cost money. Now the record companies have too much of an influence over other media. Radio playlists are directly influenced by record company pushers.
I heard somewhere that record sales are a fraction of the money artists make: the real money is from broadcast royalties. In time, I hope to see broadcasters dipping into the massive resource that is available only on MP3 - artists with no record company. We really don't need record labels.
--
The answer, of course, is for artists to ditch the label first and then ALL the money from their tours/t-shirts go directly to the artists, instead of 99% of the revenue ending up in some record boss' pocket.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent (fans will pay for original copies with proper artwork providing the price is low enough).
Not that I'm saying record companies operate a pricing cartel or anything, of course :-) In the UK we pay $20-$25 for a CD album. Often it is cheaper to buy British bands' albums from the USA and have them imported. Go figure.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
I dreamt about some kind of GPL-virus-like license that would allow to build on the art of somebody else as long as you put your work under the same license. Something like "You can use this song for your video if I can use your video for my installation", "You can make a novel off her short story if I can make a manga in Japanese from it". After all, from an obscure Danish chronicle to Shakespeare's "Hamlet" to Kenneth Branagh's films, that's how our culture is done. Or take the Finnish Kalevala, Tibetan Gesar of Ling, Odissey, Arthur's cycle. They all build on sombody else's work and improve it (well not always, freedom's dangerous).
I'd like to see a body of GPLish content to emerge to be enjoyed.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
The record companies don't give a running jump what music is most popular. If they did, Elvis and that lot would probably still be topping the charts. What they care about is units sold - in other words ranking the music by how profitable it is. If music rises in that chart, it's making the more money because they're selling more of it. If it falls, it's making a loss and they have to show the artist the door.
This of course also has the neat feature of forcing the listings to churn, as the market for each piece saturates and another pushes ahead of it in the rankings.
You've pretty much nailed the reason I don't like buying CD's anymore. I want to support the artist but I don't want to support the record company.
Going one step further - I don't even want the CD's. I like MP3's much more than CD's. I have to store CD's in some kludgy rack beside my computer desk here. I don't have to with MP3's. Not only that, I can store a lot more MP3's on a CD (should I decide to burn them) than regular old Red Book Audio. Plus, I can get the ones I want on the CD.
I don't download lots of MP3's. I trade some with my friends, but it usually stops there. Most of the time, I end up listening to the stuff once then delete it (hmmm... a lot like warez...). For the stuff I do really like, I would buy the CD, but like I said - I don't want it and I don't want to give the record company money.
So, there's the dilemma. The only solution I see is somehow getting money directly to the artist. That would be nice. Problem is, the record company does all the promotion and distribution of the artist at the moment. Morally, I suppose, I'm obligated to give them something. Well, I guess I can live with that on my conscience since the general concensus is that record companies are just assholes.
Maybe I'll try to track down some artists who have internet fan sites, etc., and see what the implications of me sending them a cheque directly are.
Support the artists you like. Don't just give away something they've worked hard at to create. Ah, screw the sermon. You've heard it before. Those of you who are disrespectful asses know who you are.
Woz
gzw@home.com
And, of course, the quotes seem to be practically right out of the RIAA prewritten suggested quotes for artists playbook, very fishy.
The -- deliberate -- problem with all these quotes is that, with all their foamy blather about "theft" and "artists' rights" and "property," they totally obscure the fact that copyright is not some God-given basic right, but rather a convenient, pragmatic, and somewhat unintuitive legal fiction that was created relatively recently to serve a particular purpose -- the purpose of funding the creation of art and knowledge.
Before copyright was invented, art and knowledge were created just fine, funded in many other ways such as by private patrons, governments, sales of performance tickets, and the tuition of students. Shakespeare had some problems with bootleggers, but he still made a living and created prolifically with zero copyright protection. Even today, there are many other models for funding creation: fine arts are mostly supported by the government and private charity; most basic science (and much open source software development) takes place in universities funded by government grants, private donations and the tuition of students. Even the blank-media taxes in the US and Canada (flawed though they are) represent a shift to a different payment model, one in which copyright is irrelevant but consumers pay indirectly into a common pot which is redistributed to artists. The point is not whether these models are better -- though they're all at least workable, unlike copyright. The point is that "intellectual property" rhetoric obscures the only real issue, which is how can society fund artists. And the answer need not automatically be the same way we do today.
Aha. Actually the quotes do come via the RIAA: More than a week ago they posted a FAQ on their lawsuit against napster, containing some of the same quotes from the same people.
I have a fantastic idea. You obviously have a business plan whereby you can get those CDs to the market for say $15- and give the artists twice as much royalties, otherwise you wouldn't be whining about how much CDs cost ( unless you're blowing smoke which I'll assume you're not )
So I'll tell you what -- why don't you go to town with this business plan, sign up all the artists ( who'll gladly accept your better royalty arrangements ) and at the same time, put the "greedy record companies" out of business ?
Good luck
This is not really true. The record companies obviously have to compete with each other on price, to get both the consumers, and the artist's contracts. However, it's definitely true that there is a certain amount of latency in this model, which in some sense is "suboptimal".
It would be cool if someone did come up with and succesfuly exploit such a model. You say the best price is "free" -- well that's not going to make anyone any money. But if someone can profit by making a system as slick and responsive as say the stock exchange, then all the more power to them.
The problem is that all we've seen from the napster advocates is a lot of pro-freeloading or freeloading-sympathizer talk.
'Screw the record companies, man!'
Problem is, you can't screw up the record companies without screwing up the artists, too.
There is a HUGE assumption in all this free downloading; that is, the record companies will eventually go out of business and all the recording artists will sit at home with their digital recording eqipment, record great songs and upload them for free to the 'net. Problem? YES! These artists are only, really, going to be able to turn out good stuff if they can work on it full time; that's the goal of just about any artist in any medium I've ever known/heard of. They can only do it full time if they've got money coming in from someplace else - record royalties, advances, etc.
All that goes away as soon as the record companies get out of business. Sure, Napster will still be there, but the content will start getting a little stale.
I don't want to support the big labels either, and since I listen to pretty non-mainstream music anyway, the solution I've found is to buy almost exclusively from small labels (like Cuneiform, not to name them) where you know that they are "good guys" too (working their asses off to make it possible for non-mainstream music to be heard). I like CDs a lot; I have about 400 of them, and I keep buying them, because I *like* things (it's not a moral choice or anything like that). As much as I like to check things out via mp3s (and download rarities or off-album tracks, like Adrian Belew's new song), for me at least, an mp3 played on a computer can't even being to replace playing a CD in a proper stereo, and having the package, the liner notes, etc.
people who download executables and run them without a thought about the possible consequences and about the respectability of the place they're getting them from, deserve everything they get and more. if wrapster, or whatever it's called, will cause a mass infection, I won't be sorry for anyone.
Drop the price of a CD to $1.50 and put 55% of that straight into the pocket of the artists. This model works. At that price I'd buy a CD 9 time out of 10 instead of downloading it, finding space for it and/or buring a CD at probably even higher cost.
Everybody wins here except the RIA (sob sob, weep weep)
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
If you look at the music available on napster, you can get an idea of the demographics of the users.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You're missing my point. Yes, you can break the law, I really don't care to discuss the ethics here at this point. What I will say, however, is that the industry can effectively stiffle the ability of the average Joe (and even more skilled users, to a lesser degree) to get whatever song they want, quickly, cheaply, and without wasting a great deal of time. By changing a few variables (e.g., time it takes to find a given song, download speed, social stigma, etc.) which the industry has some influence over they can stop the vast majority of users most of the time. Legally pursing all of these highly effective indexing services (e.g., napster) themselves is one way. Another is to prevent broadband ISPs (including college campuses) from unwittingly hosting such services.
While it does depend somewhat on the person, everyone has their time/value treshhold. For example, if I valued my time at no less than 30 dollars an hour, I would most likely not participate in mp3 trading if it only returns 1 CD (which I would otherwise purchase) for every hour I invest in it. Thus shutting down napster and clones would stop me from downloading with any regularity (as opposed to opportunistic/scavenger mode). While it may be considerably lower for others, anyone who values their time at a mere dollar an hour (just about what it must be for the average IRC-mp3 trader) truely isn't likely to purchase a great number of CDs anyways, nor is the industry apt to give these types of traders much in the way of chase.
The person with whom I was discussing did not dispute the validity of IP itself. He simply had an inconsistent view, in that he effectively claimed to be concerned about the property rights of the artist, but failed to recognize artist's right to sell it, or the purchaser's right to price it however they please. Because reducing the right to transfer property reduces the rights to property itself, it is inconsistent with arguing for the artist property rights. I called him on this. End of story.
It is not necessary for me to attempt to "prove" undisputed facts. What you are asking of me would be equivalent to my demanding that you "prove" the morality of ownership, when, in fact, you are only debating someone else about how you should be allowed to transfer it.
You, at once, manage to over- and under-simply matters. Just as the notion of property interferes with the right of any man to do as he pleases, whenever he pleases, so do all human laws. However, it is highly myopic to think the only area of differentiation is the degree in which they interfere with the exercise of free will. The most important, though far from the only, distinction is in fact their morality--not the degree to which it retrains free will.
To quote MLK Jr:
Proceeding by this definition, slavery is clearly unjust, by pitting the majority against the minority it undebatably detracts from society as a whole. Contrast this with the utilitarian ends attained by the legal recognition of property. Though far from perfectly equitable, it furthers the greater good. One need look no further than the now defunct USSR (amongst others) to see what the results of the alternative is. Because the legal institution of property (in a general sense, not every instance of property) furthers the greater good, it 'uplifts the human personality', and thus is moral.
If you accept that the artist would not have produced that work at all were it not for IP, it is hard to assert that IP is hurting you in this instance. Simply put, you would never have an exact digital copy (read: mp3) like that, if the artist had not created it; the odds of someone recreating an exact copy on their own (read: without the artist writing/singing etc) are astronomically low, which is, in fact, the topic here.
This is a typical ploy of extremists (though some, apparently, legitimately lack the ability to make such basic distinctions), put words in the person's mouth or make absurd comparisons. It is more of a scare tactic than anything else. Not only that, but you are comparing apples to oranges. As I've already mentioned, intellectual property, unlike slavery, is moral, and it is law (not to mention very positive effects on the aggregate), thus it should be obeyed.
The grateful dead had, and the phish has, a huge drug scene involved in their shows...Lots of people go to the shows with the sole intention of getting fucked up beyond belief... Yes there are some fans there... but if you pulled out all the wannabes' you'd probably see them lose 1/2 their audience... And remember, those two bands are exceptions on a few counts... for one, they WANT to be live bands... And they're HUGE... Not every band can legitimately hope that they'll one day be as large as teh dead were.
As for your $18 dollar CD:
Record store: $6
Distributor: $3
Pressing: $1
Printing: $.10
Studio time $.50 (it gets amortized across the number of CD's sold, though)
Manager: $.50
Producer: $1
The list goes on... It's not like the band sees $1 and the label gets $16.50... Think about it some... there's a LOT of costs involved with making a CD and getting it out.... A lot of those costs wouldn't occur with MP3's, but a lot more of them would never be able to be paid without the money made from records and CD's... No ones going to pay $9 for a download only version of a CD... That's a LOT of money for something that's not at all tangible... IF your hard drive crashes, your're toast.
Let me first say that I'm sure to get whipped for this unconventional point of view but...
Napster has nothing to do with it. Napster is the UZI and the AK-45 when compared to the front-loaded musket of cassette tapes. The whole concept of copy-able music is wrong, and it all hurts artists who are looking to make money on economies of scale.
There are two types of art: Static and Dynamic.
Static art is a painting or a sculpture or an architectural work. It is something people have to go to see, and something they're willing to pay admission for. It is something that can not effectively be copied, because even though everyone can have a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta in their back yard, there is only ONE ORIGINAL.
Dynamic art is fleeting and temporal. It is a performance. It is ACTUALLY BEING THERE when Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear. Everyone has, by now, been able to see a replay, but seeing it live - or AS IT HAPPENED is where the value is.
Selling copies of reruns of sterile performance is somehow abhorent to me. I don't have Napster, I only have a couple of MP3 files (of my girlfriend's brother's music - he's pretty good) and I have bought, or received as gifts, all my CDs. But when an artist whines and complains about being hurt by piracy, I feel no pity.
It's like selling software, really. If you write it once, and perform it once, and it can be copied ad-nauseum without you ever again lifting a finger... Why should you keep getting royalties??
These 'artists' need to take a lesson from the Grateful Dead. I'm ambivalent towards their music, but I respect their attitude about it.
Music should be free. It is a result of a persons point of view on reality, and their willingness/need to share that view with the world. Having people give you money for your opinions, or perspectives on the Universe, is a compliment, not a right.
Everyone has bills to pay, and everyone needs to eat. But how much MORE than that? Perform. Make it a unique experience each time, and people will flock to see what you will do next time. They will gladly compliment your work, and compensate you for your time.
But if all that had to happen to buy you that gold chain or that phat sports car, was that some recording engineer monkey pushed REC, and the machine spit out a thousand copies... What have you don't for me LATELY?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make. How much does an artist get from that 18$ anyway?
Excellent point.
Remember Apartheid in South Africa? Remember Bishop Tutu's pleas to the West from his cell?
Tutu asked for sanctions to be imposed, severe economic sanctions. The S. African government said that this would hurt the population, which was already starving.
Tutu rebutted that the poor black majority never see any humanitarian aid money since it's all embezzeled (sp?), so imposing sanctions would only hurt those few who are in control of segreggation and repression.
How's this on-topic? Well, how much of that $18 dollars goes to the starving artists? Pennies! The rest goes to the RIAA execs, LAWYERS, paper pushers and agents, managers.
We see musicians in fast cars, LearJets, penthouses... These are mostly Recording Studio property, given to the artists for use while under contract.
Blah, blah, blah... Vent, vent, fume... Done.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
But I see it as being like fansubbed anime...some people see it just as a temporary alternative until they can find a commercial version or learn to speak Japanese, but others see it as a nice way to build up a free tape library without having to pay quasi-exorbitant prices. The artists should be paid for their work. (And I admit I'm guilty in this respect...) Will this happen? I doubt it--not until there's some sort of a workable micropayment system in place that will let, say, a penny or some fraction thereupon be charged for each MP3, and directed to the right place. And even then people who don't like that will find backdoor sources...
The genie is out of the bottle. I think the next few years will be fairly turbulent on both sides before things settle out.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Let artists sign up to Napster (or Gnutella, etc..) and register their songs.
Upon downloading a song that is registered by an artist, you have the option of donating some money to that artist for your download. You can choose to pay nothing if you wish, for those who just want to check out the song, or see if they like the artist.
As a user if Napster (Gnutella, etc...) you can also donate money to the service, which will divide the money between the various artists that you have downloaded.
As an incentive to donate, those who do donate money can be put into a competition each week, which draws prizes such as signed t-shirts and cd's by various artists who contribute to the prize pool. Large corporations could donate money to put advertising upon logins. (I know alot of people will dislike this idea, but I can't figure out a better way of attracting the corporate dolloar). Those who don't pay a cent will be issued with guilt tripping notices, (perhaps more advertising, reminded of the other alternative to this service - that being of having to purchase CD's).
If people were aware of how the service worked, I'm sure many people would donate money to the service. I would. What about you?
Ian.
Hmmm....is it really your decision on who gets the money?
It may surprise you, but yes, it's my decision. It's my money, after all.
The Artist signed the contract with the Label. This is a decision between the artist and those he chose to go into business with, not your and your moral conciousness.
You are confused. I choose to give my money to whoever I want. They can choose to do whatever they want with that money, but I still get to choose to whom I would give the money in the first place.
That is part of the discussion here: a lot of people feel that by buying a CD you are giving money to the record company, which then would give some (very small) percentage of it to the artist. People want to give money to the artist, who then can (depending on his contracts, etc.) give some of this money to a record company. It's all about the balance of power between an artist and a publisher.
[record labels] it is a viable method of distribution
Looks like it used to be a viable method of distribution, no? That's what all the uproar is about.
if you are realy that concerned, start a label yourself
You don't understand. I'm not concerned -- it's the record industry that's concerned.
The basic problem is that I don't want to pay $15 for a CD with one good song on it. I'm perfectly willing to pay a couple of bucks for a single song as an unencumbered digital file. Given that this seems to be a widespread wish, I believe that the market will adjust itself to serve this need. Those who can't adjust will... remember those huge scaly mountains of walking meat?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Why should they? we know that the big-name artists aren't the victims in Salon's article. We know that MP3 leeching (as of now) doesn't put a dent in big-selling name artists. Why do we need Britney Spears to tell us that she doesn't like Napster? She has better money-making things to do with her time.
It's the less popular artists that are getting screwed - the ones that are praying on the sales figure of their next record so they won't lose the next contract. The ones that won't have a big enough audience to do a country-wide tour, and having mp3 eating into their profits.
I'm appalled at how many bigotted comments there are in this thread, those who think this is more of RIAA propaganda, even when they have a plethora of artists telling you how much they hate Napster. Even more appalled is how many of these bigotted comments are getting moderated up. so much for "insightful."
I get a little irked by all these people complaining because they can't make money any more. Here's a hint: if you don't need to sing or play; if you don't enjoy it so much that you'd do it for free, I don't want to listen to your music. It's "musicians" that are only in it for the money that gives us crap like the Spice Girls.
I realize that it costs money to record music. Get a job! It's not that expensive. There's lots of jobs out there, and why should you be exempted from being a productive member of society?
It costs even more money to tour. But if you're good enough to be able to play outside your home town, you should be able to charge enough for tickets to cover your costs. Tour during your vacation. If you're making money touring, take some unpaid time off work from your real job.
Basically, what I'm saying is that these people have chosen to become musicians. Now they're bitching to me because they can't make any money at what they've chosen to do. Hint #2: the good musicians are making a living. So are some of the bad ones, but when recorded music is freely available, that will stop.
Score: -1, Incoherent Ranting
--
E_NOSIG
Music is not property. Okay, it is property according to the law, and most of us have an intuitive moral recognition of the rights of its creators. But unlike physical property, you can't defend music or protect it yourself. If you have a book and somebody tries to take it from you, you smash the guy in the face. If you have a house, and somebody tries to come in, and you whack him over the head with a 2x4. Sure, it's more civilized and more efficient to call the police. But while there are ways you can defend physical property, the *only* way to protect intellectual property is to call upon the government.
More to the point, how do you stop technology? It's easy to bad-mouth Napster, maybe easy to put them out of business. So what? Does anybody really think this will stop people from trading MP3's online? Is anybody naive enough to think that if Napster disappeared then copying would stop? There is always another technology around the corner, ready to fill in where Napster falls short.
It's easy to sit around and lament that artists aren't paid what they're worth. Hell, they never have been. But what can be done about it? How do you stop people from sharing music with their friends? The only way to do it is to police the people or to police the technology. Policing the companies that sell the technology won't do it, because... well the companies aren't the important part of the equation, the technology is. And technology is increasingly in the hands of individuals. That's not something anybody planned, it's just part of evolution.
The whole point to Phish's music is that they stand for freewill and the freedom to enjoy life.
Embodied in the song "Free" or "Prince Caspian" or any other number of songs.
BTW, if anyone wants to check out some tunes from their marathon 7-1/2 midnight to dawn New Year's set here's a mirror, (and I should have another up on my site this weekend), BTW 75,000+ people paid $150-$175 to see this show, so keeping your phans happy can pay off. And while I'm at it, if you want official Phish merchandise, try here
--
+&x
You Napster users give nothing in return and then have the gall to claim this as your God-given right
So providing MY OWN resources to help promote their music is nothing? All that money I paid for concert tickets this last year is nothing? All those CD's I buy are nothing?
All those artists back on the street after a fun two year ride with NOTHING to show for it but some of their own concert t-shirts, that's what record companies give back to the artist, walking papers when their product doesn't move as fast as the next one. Oh, and by the way, "you can't play your song anymore, we own it!"
Define steal for me. Then define intellectual property. Then define right. I'll be here waiting. And my "God-given" rights as you say, go a lot further than you think. It's those "Man-taken" ones that seem to cause the problems.
and while we're at it
but this post is just a thinly-veiled justification for theft.
I suggest you go read a Sony recording contract. And do a little studying up on the concept of a "protection racket" (the mob kind, not the IP one).
--
+&x
Breaking the terms under which someone releases them to you is stealing, whether it happens to be easily copiable or not.
:))
We can debate the definition of stealing in the digital realm all day long. I don't think what I'm doing is wrong. I consider it the equivelent of listening to the radio. Luckily, since I have the 'Net, I get to pick my own programming. The 'Net empowers people, as I'm sure you're aware. Now on to the examples.
I suppose if you copy photoshop and use it and give it to whoever you wish, as long as you don't sell it, that's okay
I don't consider Photoshop to be the same thing as an MP3. One it is a tool used to create content, rather than the content itself. Photoshop is not somethig you can turn on the radio and hear. Photoshop is not a cornerstone of our culture, music is.
What if you simply photocopy all the Tim O'Reilly books rather than buy them?
Why would I do that? I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live. Why take the hours to copy something when I could spend those same hours making the money to buy it? MP3's make my listening efficient. Besides if you wanted to, you could just go here and print them out page by page.
I've seen numerous "examples" in various debates on this issue, and have yet to find one that fits or makes any discernable point by fitting.
You seem to have the very confused idea that stealing equals "Selling what I took".
That is a response to the whining of the RIAA that "pirating" costs them potential sales. Well, heart disease does the same thing. The only way they would lose "sales" is if someone spends the money somewhere else to obtain the same product. Of course, online MP3's might seriously undermine the demand for CDs (the physical media), but I have yet to see evidence for that position. In my own life, it has proved the opposite. The RIAA is working very hard to keep the supply of it's product limited, which goes against both the ideals of music as an art form and the current nature of the product (given the Internet).
I see - so I suppose you send off checks to the artists you're "listening to" currently? Do you pick an arbitrary amount, or do you ask the artist.
Hell no. At least not under the current environment. But do I think that's a possibility in the future, yes. You've seen street musicians, no? Play a bit, ask for hand-outs. Move that to the web, set-up up a micropayment system, and such a model might be possible. Given the right artists who works hard to continually provide high quality service to their fans. Given a possible audience of 6,000,000,000 most talented musicians could find a niche to get comfy in. Couple this with selling cd's and touring (which is how many musicians have made a living since time was recorded), and I think it would be possible to build a music career. There are numerous other suggestions around, if you are an artist and wish to go this route, I think creativity might be a dang good quality to posess.
So we just need to do is indoctrinate society to do the right thing, and viola, problem solved!
Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you. To put it bluntly, I think this society (U.S) is severely fscked up when it comes to things like art and beauty, how to deal with them, and what they mean. I think it's a side effect of a number of influences, not the least of which is a media that focuses on appealing to the lowest common denominator and repetition, repetition, repetition. By convincing you so deeply that sharing is stealing, they've built a nice nest egg with which to sue.
Why? Many reasons, but I'll stick to one - almost no one is willing to pay for these mp3s you self distribute.
no, but many, including me, are willing to pay both for the CDs from which they came, and the gate/door fees for the places that they (the artists) are playing.
That makes it real hard to make a pro sounding CD, support a tour, or cut back on the dayjob a little to make more music. So as bad as the tradional model is, artists are forced to it simply because it is the only way they can hope to make any money.
And I think that is exactly the kind of attitude the RIAA will continue to enforce, through repetition, repetition, repetition. YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WITHOUT US. But, I don't think that's true any more. When the Net is as common as TV (which should be about 5 years now if trends continue to accelerate as they have been), I think the only thing that will keep it from working is artists thinking it won't. It will take an example to kick start the thing, but it will happen.
I'm still lost on your plan to protect the rights of artists.
I tell how I don't think the right way is to do it, the DMCA, and UCITA. I don't think taking rights (fair use, an origianl check vs. copyright) away from others is the best way to protect artists right to profit.
Complaining about the current model is easy. Coming up with a good solution is not.
True, it is easy to smell shit from a mile away, if it's a really big pile. But, what you are proposing we do is stick with the evil we know rather than face the one you fear.
I think popular culture in this country is very sick. I think it's part of the disease that leads to so much hate and violence here. I would like to see it change, and working from the ground up is a good way to do it. Yes, I'm a revolutionary, or perhaps evolutionary would be a better term. I see the potential for people to take back our culture from the 20 people who have been able to control it. People who have put aside ideals, or any notion of public responsibility, for a fat profit margin. I could go on and on about this, it's one of my passions, as I'm sure you've noticed, but that should suffice for now, you know where I stand and why I stand there.
(I never thought I would be arguing the ills of rampant capitalism with someone called "Commie", welcome to the 21st century (next year, ya nitpickers
--
+&x
O.k. since you didn't catch it all last time, I'll repeat it, again. (oh, and you might want to re-read the thread again, you've already lost context on a number of my arguments)
However, we already have defintions for these things.
We didn't until the DMCA of 1998. And do you think that is a good law?
What happens when someone takes that mp3 as begins sampling it or putting it as the background to their adbertosement (IE - Using it to create new content)?
Most likely they'd get sued, stealing the work for personal gain, not personal use. If you'll reread the whole argument, I AM TOTALLY FOR PROTECTING AN ARTIST'S RIGHT TO PROFIT. But not for draconian control of media. There is a line to walk between control and chaos.
>I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live?
And your point is?
I DO pay to go see bands play. Quite often as a matter of fact. This was to illustrate the difference between playing music for a living and writing for a living.
I don't know if you've seen a modern photocopying machine lately, but it's a very simple, automated process to copy hundreds of pages at a time -- and certainly far cheaper than say, a O'Reilly book would cost new.
Hullo, go take that book, photocopy it 1,000 times and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Put an MP3 on the Net, let 1000 people DL and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Are these things similar, NO! That's my point.
Examples of? Fitting "what"?
Analogies, metaphors. Like your O'Reilly Books, or Photoshop, or (as many people have tried to argue) Cars. None of these "examples" can be used to argue that you shouldn't freely exchange music files. They don't "fit" the same model.
This is a stupid analogy. Uhh -- murders cause people to die, but so does heart disease! Guess it's the same thing.
Yep, and both of them could be argued to decrease music sales in the same way as MP3s, they attack "potential" sales. This loss of potential is one of the RIAA's cornerstones on why they want to make the everyday and convenient tasks of listening to music, illegal.
Supply has nothing to do with anything.
This is where I realized you were an idiot. Go check up on some fundamental economics and tell me how supply has nothing to do with price or value.
>Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you
This is great, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
again, this IS the issue.
I'd go into much greater detail on this for you, but this post is long enough.
Then just use that as the reply.
Right - you have no plan other than vague allusion to a micropayment scheme
That and every other revenue stream that already exists. Do you even read posts before you reply, seriously?
I do propose copyright law stays intact. I'd like nothing more than to see the music industry as we know it disappear,
So you'd like to see major changes....without making major changes, riiiight.
It's doing zippo to expand culture.
This is where you're dead-on wrong. I've been exposed to many, many bands in only the last year because of their availability on MP3. If they had been on the radio I would have heard them there, but they weren't. If you think the media companies in this country are doing a good job and have a positive effect, fine, stick with them. I don't and I see it as the single biggest threat to the future of a free country. You control what people are exposed to and you can control, to some degree, what they think, but you can control, to a great degree, what they think about. "I like girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch"!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
+&x
This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again.
/. before and it usually comes out with a bit of prodding. That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.
That's exactly what I wanted to address first. This word you keep using, "stealing". Everywhere you put that I would probably use sharing. I am not stealing songs from Napster, I'm sharing them. This is a big part of my argument. Not stealing, sharing. (to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)
Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time. Like right now, there are 609,193 pieces of music that I could be listening to in less than 5 minutes. Many of them are duplicates, but that's why the RIAA has to go after Napster and not the individuals. That, of course, is a moot point already, as folks have taken the idea of distributed file storage networks, and run with it. THAT is the reality of the situation. Our laws need to reflect that reality rather than try and dictate a different one.
NOW, given that, you still need to be able to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This Right is what needs better defining. The wrong people are writing the laws.
But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio(the *worst* industry at moving to the Net, worse than newspapers.)) is those 609,084 songs. The Choice destroys their control. The availability destroys their marketing. And the digital transfer and reproduction destroys their usefulness.
You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position. I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work, if not, be patient, wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website (~10 years). Where / (v3.2), Shoutcast, and G27, are plug and play. Nanomedia, it's coming.
If you think overthrowing corporate popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright!
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew
Yep, and they know it. Wouldn't that make you nervous and hostile? But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that). I think we need them to stick with the Constitution, but I don't think they are even close now.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years. Laughing all the way to the bank, as it were.
I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.
Read that story, read that part of the Constitution, and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet. We'll go from there.
--
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.
Two things about this. In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website (no other promotional effort on my part). The "weak personal attacks", are exactly that, jabs, just to see who I'm talking to. I've argued with fools on
--
+&x
However, simply because the RIAA in very general terms supports copyright, does not mean copyright is bad. I'm sure the Nazi party had/has a few ideas I'd very generally support too, despite their overall evil.
If you're not familar with it.
Sorry, those are the rules.
--
I'll point out that it is my opinion most humans are fools. Humans are not inheriently evil, they are inheriently selfish.
Here we disagree. Not only are most people not fools, but there's a good bet that half of them are smarter than you, in one way or another. Are five year-olds inherently selfish, or is it perhaps a learned behaviour? Two-year olds? Who needs to be selfish when you never want for food? Does that make evolutionary sense? Or is it economoic logic?
--
+&x
Most gigs lose money, or break even. Or did that bit of the article pass you by?
And most of the musicians cited in the article aren't millionares, but people who get paid a lot less than "over paid software geeks". Musicians do badly enough as it is, without you taking their main source of income away.
Cian
Musicians hate Napster because it lets people pirate their music? Shouldn't they really be saying, "I hate people that don't pay for my music"? Music was being pirated long before napster showed up, and if it goes away, people will still pirate music. They might as well say "I hate MP3s" or "I hate CDs". It's silly to think that if Napster disappeared, music piracy on the internet would go away. However, Napster is a great way for mainstream people to steal music -- no effort involved.
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
With Wrapster (see article) allowing quasi-anonymous distribution of anything, how long before viruses, DDOS zombies, BO2K and other trojans start invading... ? After an hour spent on OpenNap's chat channels, people have no clue of the implications. Some will gladly download EXEs and just run them, boom, like that.
AS long as people stick to transferring media documents (JPG,ASF,RM) we're relatively safe. But mark my words, the first Wrapster-related massive infection will happen in the next weeks, if not days. This is like a huge clusterfuck where everyone's wearing masks but no rubbers.
---
Why exactly does it take money to make music? I would say just the opposite. This is one of the main differences between physical and virtual objects, physical objects require raw material and equipment to produce, while virtual objects do not, they only require time.
Not to be cliche, but time is money. Everyone who works is being paid for their time and effort. People tend to brush this off, though, because it is intangible. That's why intellectual property is such a sticky issue. Normally fairly ethical people can rationalize stealing something like a song or a program when they wouldn't think of stealing a car or a wallet, because the product and the cost behind it are both ephemeral.
The other main difference is that physical objects are expensive to replicate, while virtual objects are not, which is the base of this whole issue.
Indeed. When a person labors for an hour to make a lamp and you steal it, it is very obvious the cost: the materials and one hour of the person's time and effort. When someone labors for an hour to write a song and you steal it, the costs are much harder to quantify. There are no materials to the song itself and they can still sing it, so what harm have you really done? Similarly, once you've heard the song, it is in your head. Are you stealing it if you hum it while you are working?
However, I think it is faulty to look at it purely as a matter of harm (and harm is done), but one of recognition. That was part of the point of the article, that nobody in this debate is giving the artists any recognition. They aren't interested in their opinions, they aren't even asking them permission out of courtesy.
Paying for a piece of intellectual property is recognition of the time and effort put into it. If you don't recognize this, you are stealing, regardless of how cheap the cost of transfer is or how infinitely replicable the product is, because you are not recognizing the status and attendant rights of the creator.
Eric Christian Berg
Isn't it just the /popular/ artists complaining about this stuff? The ones actually /making/ money from the record companies? How about those that are getting ripped off, not making any money? How about all those that are extinguished because record companies don't think they're "hip" or want to give them a chance? MP3 normalizes the field. It means both popular and unpopular artists have equal access and distribution to the populace. Of course those who are raking it in see this as a threat.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The article was pretty much bullshit. The music can not be produced without the artist, so the artists will continue to make a living from ANY internet distribution system.
:)
Example: The artists can always flood the pirate sites with music that is slightly highwer quality then your average rip, but has advertisments in the song (or in an attached HTML file), i.e. use the pirates for promotion and corn-fuse the pirate community enough to make people just DL the music from the official web site. Now people may not pay for individual songs, but they will pay $20 for a year of "fan club access" which lets you DL songs without advertisments. Assuming the band releases a lot of songs this is a really good deal for both the band and the fan.. and unlike the current buisness model it would be stable because the pirate community would be spammed.
Anyway, those people are morons if they think the artists can not make money.. the question is how? Also, (1) do the artists become rich? (2) do the record companies become rich? (3) do the consumers need to spend a lot on money? Clearly, the good answers would be (1) yes, (2) no, (3) no, but we really have no idea what will happen.
Napster's real threat to the artists is: Napster could become a monopoly over promotion, i.e. give us $10,000 per year per song and we will put the version with the advertisments first in the search list when someone searches for the song. Clearly, it would be a lot cheaper for artists to spam Gnutella, IRC, and the FTP sites then pay off Napster. It might be a good thing for Napster to lose the law suit because then Gnutella could take over.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Oh yeah? Well, I'm even more snobby than you are! I disdain such low-brow pursuits as recorded (it pains me merely to think the word) music. Ugh. I pity anyone who finds the artificial screeching of recorded media pleasurable. No, true lovers of music, like myself, have acoustically perfect theatres in our basements, and if we want to listen to Dave Matthews*, then, by god, we call up Dave and have him come to our house and perform live. When we want to hear Rimsky-Korsakov, we fly in the Kiev Symphony Orchestra and have them play for us. We have our own house bands to play for us when we merely desire background noise.
Or not. Maybe I'm just trying to point out how silly the post I'm replying to is. No one cares how much your sound system costs. Really. Trust me. Additionally, it's not your duty to provide salvation to the masses of mp3 listeners. If people prefer to have their music stored in mp3 format, that's fine. If they prefer magnetic tapes which have been recorded over a dozen times, that's fine too. If they prefer vinyl or compact disk, more power to them. But claiming personal superiority because of your choice of music media adds absolutely nothing to the conversation besides evidence of your own feelings of inadequacy. (moderators: feel free to mark this -1, flame, and the message it's in response to -1, flamebait)
If this is all you have to contribute, I suggest you go back to your collection of "perfect" cd's and leave everyone to discuss their personal preferences in peace. Thank you, and have a nice day.
*disclaimer: the author of this post does not condone listening to Dave Matthews.
Acutually, it seems rare that you see EVERY song for a given album in MP3 format, so an internet-based distribution model could work, especially if the RIAA would develop a Napster-type program that charged you for each download. I'd be very interested in that. In fact, I'd buy a ton more CD's if they didn't cost so doggone much.
.mp3 music files out there, and I mean legally free. Napster could still be used to spread them around like they currently are. This would allow artists to become known, maybe give away a freebie, etc.
Why a Napster-type program? I think if Napster worked with the artists, they could both benefit.
Here's what I was thinking. Napster could serve a dual purpose. There will always be free
Then it would have some sort of protocol for the commercial stuff. Say you're allowed to listen to a song 2 or 3 times to determine if you like it, and then you have to buy it if you want to keep listening. And these songs could be distributed in some sort of protected format until they're bought. And of course, Napster would have some sort of system in place to make sure nobody's distributing unlocked versions of the songs.
It's not foolproof, by any means. But it would take advantage of Napster's popularity and systems to distribute artists' songs to paying customers. Both Napster and the artist could possibly benefit from this.
I know there are plenty of technological problems that would have to be worked out, of course... but it's just the idea.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
So how much did the RIAA pay Salon to get that load of tripe published? Or for that matter, how much did the "artists" in question whore themselves out for to lie like that?
What about the artists who tell the truth?
What about the artists who are NOT luddites, and who are NOT afraid of technology?
What about the artists who ENCOURAGE distribution of their music MP3's?
What about the artists who have been SUED BY THEIR OWN LABELS for making their songs available in MP3 format?!?!?
Wanna see a good example of a major band that "gets it"? Go to:
www.lessthanjake.com
Under their "sounds" link, they host realaudio of many of their own songs. AND they provide links to other sites that host MP3s. For example, the "The Skankin' LTJ MP3 page" has MP3s from most of LTJ's major label releases. AND LTJ provides a board for fans to trade bootlegs and collectibles!!!
That "we don't make money on tours" line is pure BS, plain and simple. I have quite a few friend in local punk and ska bands, one of which TURNED DOWN an offer to sign with a label.
Once, I asked one of these guys about it, and he told me the economics of a CD break down in three ways:
1)
Small band that sell their own CDs. CDs are produced in runs of 500-1000 @ about $2 per. Band sells said CDs at their own shows and sometimes on consignment at local indie stores for $8-10. Profit to the band == $6-8. CDs CAN provide a reasonable income in this instance.
2)
Band signs with small label. CDs are produced in runs of 5000-10000 for about $1 per. CDs now sell in indie stores, at the shows, and at mall stores in the band's home town for $10-12 with the label taking about half the profit. Net gain to the band from a sale == $3-5 per. At this point the CD provides a smaller percentage of income and the band throws more out at the crowd free at their shows. (Anyone who's been following LTJ since their Asain Man days knows this trait well).
3)
Band sells out to a major label. CDs are run in lots of 100K+ at a cost to the label of about $.10 per. CDs now sell in mall stores for $18. Of that $18, the band is *LUCKY* to see $.50 !!! (and that's if it's a BIG band with GREAT managemant). The rest of the $17.40 goes into the pockets of the record label, so that the CEO of Time Warner can buy an extra Porche for his daughter to use on weekends when that Land Cruiser is just too much car.
When a band signs to a major label, they get JACK SH*T from their CD sales!!! They are being raped. The only reason to sell CDs really, is to promote the tour. Bands then are MUCH more willing and able to throw out free CDs at their shows now (go to a Reel Big Fish show to see a good example of a hazardous number of free CDs being thrown at the audience).
Solution? I would not, and do not, distribute MP3s or CD-R copies of bands in situations 1 or 2 except under extraordinary circumstance (only recent time is when a friend lost his Operation Ivy CD. I KNEW for a FACT that he had boughtand paid for it, so I didn't feel bad about burning a CD-R copy)...
But in the case of instance 3? I have no sympathy for the record label whatsoever. They are absolutely RAPING the bands that sign with them. I feel no guilt whatsoever about depriving Sony records of an extra $17.40 (assuming it's a band that can GET a whole $.50 per CD).
Depriving the band of $.50? Mabye a touch of guilt at first. But that guilt goes away immediately when I go to the show and buy a T-shirt, providing the band with more profit than if I had bought their CD twenty times over.
Sick thing is tho, that, if it's a good band, I usually wind up buying CDs anyway. I travel a lot, and need CDs for my car stereo.
john
Imagine all the people...
- selling "distributions" of their work with value-added features (CDs with nice covers, autographed, first-to-market, etc.)
- teaching music
- being hired by other artists
- creating custom studio pieces for others' art projects (film soundtracks, theater, tv, websites, etc.)
- working in expert capacities for stores that sell instruments and sound gear, or for websites that give advice, etc.
These can all be noble professions, and are actually the way that most musicians do make their money when they make it from music (plus playing live).The fact that current copyright has the potential to help some deserving people is no reason to not abolish it, or to not live as if it were abolished. Good artists will always figure out ways to do their art, and with hope, ways that their art will make them money. They don't need no stinking copyrights.
As copyright dies, we concerned-ones will continue to fret over the fate of creators. But I see a rosy vision ahead. Artsists freely stealing from one another, acting to make works evolve as they pass through many hands. The distinction between "artist" and "regular person" slowly vanishing, as it becomes easier to create works.
I always liked the term "release" when describing art, like "Jamie released his latest film" or "The new release from JD & RPM."
That's what you have to do if you're an artist--RELEASE the shit. Take the risk. Don't hide it behind violently-enforced rules. Take it public.
Artists say they can't make money from teeshirts and touring,
;-) Seriously, I fail to see how this inhibits successful tours. If anything, a broadened fanbase promotes higher attendance at shows. I'm speaking from experience here; if people know who you are, then when you come to town they're more likely to see you than if they didn't. And if the artist is concerned about getting kicked off the label, learn the business end and start your own fscking label. It doesn't take much, and it's about 400% more profitable for the artist.
right. So thier last tour bombed, and they decide to blame it on napster instead of the fact that they SUCK
If these crap-ass alterna-rock bands can't live without the major label perks and freebies, then maybe they shouldn't have been so quick to quit their day jobs, eh?
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I agree with people's right to like the Backstreet Boys, N' Sync, or whoever. However, I also believe that making laws against sharing is generally a bad thing.
The reason Phish, The Grateful Dead, and many similar bands allow their fans to share their live music has more to do with just a financial model. It has a lot more to do with what they believe in as people. The whole point to Phish's music is that they stand for freewill and the freedom to enjoy life. This comes through in their music, as much as it does how they live the rest of their lives. The same was true of The Grateful Dead. One of the reasons their music is so powerful, to the people that relate to it, is because they really believe the things they are saying, and they aren't just out there for the money.
Also, I buy more CD's when I am able to access music on the internet, not less. It's because I'm thinking more about music in general, so I'm more likely to be interested in seeking it out. Now, I may not buy the music from the bands I was listening to on the Internet, but I probably wouldn't have bought that music anyway.
Everytime a new technology comes around that allows for people to distribute music, the industry freaks out and goes into a tizzy fit. They did it with cassettes, they basically kept DAT from existing in its true form, and they definitely aren't fond of CD burners. But when it comes down to it, CD's are still better quality than MP3's (even if many people haven't noticed yet), and you don't get all the cool stuff with them you do with the real CD. If artists really want to make a living selling music, all they need to do is provide their fans with quality music, and a quality product to back it up.
Another point I have to make is that in much of "Eastern" society, such as Taiwan, thought and expression are considered to be public domain by default, and there are still great movies and music in their society.
In conclusion, if I like music enough, I WILL buy it. But not because I couldn't get it elsewhere, and not because I will ever feel the slightest bit guilty about freedom of expression, even if that expression originated from someone else. It's because I want the best possible quality, and that usually comes from the most direct source. If at any time it doesn't, the only way that musicians are going to make money selling music is to improve their quality. If this means distributing music at 96Khz/24bit on a DVD, or including cool holograms in the box with the CD, or giving discounts on concert tickets to loyal fans, they are going to have to do it to survive. They can spend the same money on lawyers, but the best of them would be violating what they believe in by doing so.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Slashdot could have posted the article that I submitted last night, when it was current, but I'm sure they'll post it in 2-3 days by someone else as they always do. The REAL story is that Napster announced yesterday that it'll pander to colleges in order to gain their favor and get it un-blocked. They've changed Napster so that it will search through the "Internet 2" network before it searches the Internet itself. In future versions they will enable it to search within the univerisites intranet before even going out to the I2. Indiana University is trying it out now and other universities are watching to see how is handles the bandwidth. The RIAA, not surprisingly, are not loving this news. Perhaps Slashdot is taking recommendations from them on what to post now, who knows?
Esperandi
I'd give you a link, but I gave it to Slashdot and they wouldn't post it for you. I'm sure they know best.
face it. The only reason people are so excited by Napster et al is that they can get stuff for free.
:-)
So why is anyone surprised that artists get upset about it? Sure, the labels are over charging for CDs, sure they're nasty evil megacorps, sure they wouldn't piss on the artists head if their hair was on fire.
But just as MP3 offers the chance for artists to bypass the label, Napster just allows us to get stuff for free - and that is no use to the important person, the artist themselves.
MP3 - or at least a secure version - may be a good idea (in that it frees the artist and makes for cheaper music).
Napster, however, is just theft.
still, I do like free music
Blank CD-Rs, the same material used in commercial CDs, sell for less than 50 cents each in bulk quantities of 500 or more. I think the RIAA would probably manage to get bulk rates that are even lower, wouldn't you?
Actually, CD-R disks are not the same material used in commercial CD's, the recordable material in a blank CD-R disk is considerably more expensive than the material used to press a commercial bulk pre-recorded disk.
The media costs for commercial music disks are next to nothing. There is a huge investment in pressing plants and technology that needs to be recovered, but they've long since paid for that.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
See, thats what *really* worries the music industry, methinks: The fact that masses will start seeing music as something you *make* rather than something you *buy*. They'll all be out of their cushy jobs.
It's not like flying planes as Copeland suggests. Its not just a job. Music is in everybody, its only in the last 60 years or so that there has been this subtle shift to the idea that music must be made, at great expense and only by extremely talented people. Thats a myth. Long before the recording industry came along, people sat around the piano or guitar around the fire or just sang sea chanties or whatever. If anything the music industry has *deprived* us of music.
Okay, I'll admit the music may be better if we pay the best people to keep producing it (though even then I wonder: Is a Fleetwood Mac album that cost $ 1mil to make *really* 1000 times better than a Ramones one that cost $1000??? But I digreess), but if the ecomonics dictate that no one is going top make phat money out of it, then its going to go back to the people who 'll make music *only* for the sheer joy of making it. They may make it after their day jobs, but they'd still make it. Not to say that would be better music, but it sure would wash out all the people who are making it only for the money.
I'm sorry, but no one is stopping Kirtsen Hersh from making music. If she wants to stay home and make music, fine. But I'm not supporting her and I don't appreciate people tellling me what software I can or *can't* use on my computer based on their *percieved* losses.
Either you want to pay fairly or you don't get the music.
The problem with the morality approach is that it's not mirrored anywhere else on the net. Why is eBay such a success? Dynamic pricing. It's happening everywhere.
The net allows consumers to be more involved with the pricing and bundling of products. The old-world model you're talking about doesn't allow consumers to be involved in determining what they think is a fair price for your product. No wonder then that they'll go elsewhere - not just to get a better deal, but to be involved in price setting.
As other posters have indicated, the major labels make their money from selling low-involvement products to youth markets. It's no different to packaged goods like Oreos. How many online packaged goods successes have you seen? Uh-huh. Online, low-involvement products basically have to compete on price. And the best price is free. No amount of moralising about artist rights is going to change that. And yes, I have spent some of my life making my living off my music.
Look, the horse has bolted on online music. There was probably a point where a solid move by the labels could have maintained the status quo, but that time is passed. Music is highly commoditized, and just like every other content form there's a global oversupply, and the price is tending toward zero. I don't have a lot of time for the "artists rights" whingers. The fsking New York Times can't charge for its product online, and you think your musical masterwork should rake in $$ every time someone plays it? Puh-leeze.
There's nothing special about music. It's just content. Because the web is primarily a text medium, the business models are a lot more worked out for writing than anything else. Why not look there for innovative ways of pricing your work?
Danny
> Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the
> bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and
> do not have and never will have as large a
> faitfull following.
Very true. I am not much of a dead fan myself,
I have exactly 3 CDs of theirs. I don't listen to
it much, its not what I "usually listen to" but
they do have some powerful music.
I ripped the entire 3 cds at 192 kbps (like I did
with my whol emusic collection) so I could throw
it all on a big playlist and listen while I
work.
Some of the dead songs I could NOT leave in the
playlist because the music evoked such a
powerful emotional resonse that I couldn't work!
(and one of these is an instrumental)
Lets see N-SYNC or the Spice Girls do that.
(which happen to be perfect examples of what
horrid crap gets produced under the current
system)
Personally...I like the MP3.com distribution
model. The artists do some work...have some
CDs made. MP3.com distributes mp3s and sells
CDs...I love to be able to listen to the music
before I buy (I could listen for music on the
radio...but that would require hearing the
same "top 40" shit all the time...so I leave my
radio on a classic rock station).
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Although you may not like N-Sync or Backstreet
> Boys or whoever
Yes I realize that...however I assert my right
to call their music shitty cookie cutter music.
> Hardly a reason to pirate what you do like.
I never said it was. However I object to the
term "Pirate". I prefer "share" or "Copy" as
neither of them associate with murder and theft
on the high seas.
I have no moral objection whatsoever with
downloading mp3s. I have done it in the past...
I don't have time or the will to do it now.
Generally...I do buy the CDs of music I like
As much to support the artist as so I can listen
in my CD player and rip with a better bitrate.
Like I said, I love MP3.com...most of the music
sucks (bu tthats true for major production music
too), but I have bought a few mp3.com cds and they
are great.
I hope more artists go that route.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The RIAA wants to maximize profits from the music, not the music itself.
Given the choice of:
a) A hundred artists selling a million records each
b)A million artists selling a thousand records each.
The RIAA would choose a) any day even if b) means ten times more music sold.
Hey, they would probably prefer one single group selling ten million records!
Shaping the market by access control is a risky business, and now it is falling apart.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Commissioning/sponsor money is probably the only solution. Just like for athletes, actors, graphic artists and so on.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I *do* question their divine right to make a profit from that property.
Suppose I own some piece of land. Nice old property. It does not give me any income by itself. If I want to make any money I must find a way to make others pay me to use my property.
Lets say I build a scenic route along my property. I make a living by charging people for driving along that road enjoying the view.
Now someone gets the idea of flying a helicopter along the same route. He gets the same view as those who go by car. He might even charge people for flying with him. Am I entitled to a cut of his income? He does profit from *my* work and from *my* property after all.
I could lobby my government for a law stating that the helicopter is trespassing (even if it would have vast implications on the helicopter business, and would only make the pilot switch to high flying planes). I could find a way to get the people in the helicopter to pay me anyway.
Or I could realize that my business model is outdated, and that there are no money in the land based scenic tour business anymore.
I still have my property.
I still have the same right to it.
The only change is that I can no longer control access to it.
Maybe the same goes for these artists:
They still have their property. They just don't have the same means for making a profit from it by selling exclusive access.
We are back to the situation before the means of recording. Artist were paid for playing and composing, not for selling records.
Just like most hackers are paid for coding, not for selling software.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Record companies provide artists with three services: Studio time, advertising and distribution.
Studio time (and additional musicians) costs the same with or without the web
Advertising is supposed to pay for itself
Leaving distribution. Charging for distribution becomes more and more obsolete, when bandwith goes up. However, until now Record companies has charged consumers extra for distribution to cover for other costs. That model is just not possible to enforce anymore.
Perhaps it is possible to find a new way for artists to get paid, but what if it is not?
Is there a natural right that you should be able to make a living as an artist?
If no one will pay for your music, perhaps you should get a day job?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Yes. It's called "give us a way to pay for individual songs, and download them in the format of our choice." I know a lot of people who have said that they'd gladly pay a reasonable price, if they could go to a music publishers website and download them, instead of hunting around for the right song, and hoping the quality doesn't suck.
Ok, an artist releases an album. A track or two become "popular", and get airplay on MTV and pop radio (not college radio...). People follow the leader and totally dig this artist. CDs are bought in droves. Some people decide to rip mp3s off of this CD and distribute them on Usenet, IRC, Napster, ad nauseum. This artist, feeling her/his oats off of good CD sales and excellent radio play, decides to tour. People at the tour stops buy shirts, CDs, etc. And she/he is *losing* money due to mp3s? Give me a fscking break. I grok that the artists worried about Napster, et al, are just worried that they won't become mega-millionaires like U2 or Rolling Stones. Screw them.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
Napster is the largest music distribution method? I would figure that radio would be a little bigger, myself. The radio is a lower-tech version of napster. I can still record whatever I hear on the radio if I want, I just don't have the option of picking out batches of what I want 10 at a time. The music industry is a fat bloated pig, it wants to squeeze every last dime out of joe dickhead. I've checked Napster, it seems like the most popular songs are by immensely popular artists. Do you really think those artists need more money? Should some highschool kid help Kid Rock and Puff Daddy buy another mercedes? Do you think RCA & Sony need more money? Even if it is theft, you're thieving from the correct people. Greed controls everything.
Actually, yes. I've purchased tracks from Liquid Audio, and I never will again. I am a devoted fan of an extremely talented and under-appreciated band out of Colorado, and as such a fan I like to have all the material that they have recorded. So last fall they decide to release a live album, but only through Liquid Audio. I had never purchased an MP3 (or propritary version thereof), but I thought I'd give it a try anyway.
OK, there were about 17-18 tracks as I recall, and they wanted about $1.50 each for them, with the price increasing as a factor of the track length. That adds up quickly, already more than I'd be willing to pay in a store, but I'm a fan, damnit!
After downloading their player, and days of downloading the tracks on my 56k connection, I went to listen to them but the .exe for the player (Win and Mac only) got corrupted somehow so I had to download it again. This time it installed fine and played the songs, but it wouldn't allow me to burn the tracks to CD (the player software supports CD burners for one burn per track), my intention from the beginning! Liquid Audio support replied to my query that the program has to be installed and run before you download tracks so it can verify that you bought them, blah, blah. I explained about having to re-install and they gave me a line about how this was unfortunate and they would credit my charge card and let me buy the tracks again. No thanks, what a bunch of SDMI crap!
My solution was to download a utility to record the stream off of the sound card while the liquid audio tracks played. This worked nicely, and I got a CD, which I burned and the made real MP3s to keep on the harddrive. Counting the media, the process of simply getting new music from a band I like cost me almost $30 and a huge amount of time. Even if this band released somehting like this again, I don't think I'd do it. I feel ripped-off and I respect the band less now for being part of such a lame marketing move (even if it was their managers, not they, who made the decision to do it.) If I have freaking purchased an album or track or whatever, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, even burn two copies!
Um, checks already need to be cashed in order for you to get a CD, but its done elsewhere in the distribution chain. If you pay someone with a check, somewhere it needs to be cashed. Even if it took 75%, they would still make more per album then the 10-50 cents they make now.
$10/hour, five seconds to stamp a check = 12 checks/minute = 720 checks an hour. if each check was $10, that would be $7,200 processed an hour per employee. $10 is exactly 0.13%. That is, much less then 75. Your brain dead estimation, in my mind disqualifies anything else you might have said. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should try to think about it before you do.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
Instead of trying to make users pay for downloaded songs why not have Napster pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC performance royalties ala radio? It should work like this: ASCAP/BMI/SESAC take a sampling of songs of users of Napster x performance royalty rate = performance royalties Napster owes ASCAP/BMI/SESAC ---then--- ASCAP/BMI/SESAC pay artists rates similar to radio performance This would put Napster in a position similar to that of a radio station: they would have to pay performance royalties for songs registered to performing rights organizations (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) being transferred over their system.
Don't wait to be hunted to hide. - SB
I don't know about overall, but I can say that I have bought more CD's in the recent past because I came across an MP3 from an artist I'd never heard of, or was given an MP3 by a friend that was by an artist I probably wouldn't have thought to check out otherwise.
Nobody wants to blow $18 on a CD that they think they might like. I sure as hell don't. And sure, the 10 second teasers that CDNow supplies (Sometimes) are okay, but not enough for me to make an educated decision on.
At the risk of repeating what's already been said, MP3's simply don't cut it all of the time. I have to have that physical media in my hand that I can carry around and have a case for.
The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I couldn't recognize a Grateful Dead myself but I know that they allowed people to tape their concerts.
And John Perry Barlow, who wrote some of their texts, was a founder of EFF, wasn't he?
What about a Slashdot interview with John Perry Barlow or other members of Grateful Dead? I think their view on this issue (and other Slashdotic things) would be very insightful.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Although Napster is the largest distribution method, it certainly isn't the only one. It would be impossible for any artist to control their commercialized music on Usenet, IRC, FTP, HTTP, and others. Hell, someone had to buy their CD if the music is being distributed in the first place (I'm sure that if an artist only sold a single CD their label wouldn't be terribly impressed mind you).
I'm personally willing to support artists by purchasing individual songs online, but the question still remains of why I would buy water when I can get it free from my tap. Less than 10% of the price of a CD goes to the artists anyhow, and I'm just not willing to support the industry anymore (though I really do like quality music and would like the artists to continue making good music, unlike the garbage at mp3.com).
It's a catch 22. There's no winning for anyone here, including the consumer.
EraseMe
If they'd said that if their record sales fell off the record company wouldn't subsidize the tour, I could believe that.
But I've met and spoken with some of my favorite full time musicians, people who have been playing their music for their livelihood for over a decade. And what they told me wasn't different from what I'd heard about all but the most popular recording artists.
If it weren't for the touring and live shows, they'd go hungry. Literally, if it wasn't for their cut of the door, and the tshirt sales, and the poster sales, and the substantially thicker margins of CDs sold at the show, they would not have money for food.
Just as i have to get up in the morning and go be an admin, they have to get up in the afternoon and go please the fans on stage.
Nobody hates the record company more than the average recording artist. You pay, what, $15 for that cd. The band gets less than a dollar of that. And the cost of manufacturing the cd comes out of the band's cut. When i's all said and done, they're getting a piddling sum of money for it. They'd probably make twice as much money paying for duplication up front and selling them direct for $1 each.
But they can't. There's a little problem of contract law, and only the record company has the right to distribute the albums. Yes, believe it or not, most of your favorite songs will probably be making the RIAA money until 70 years after the artist dies. This is what they call "standard industry practice"
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Like warez kiddies, many napster users are young people, without a lot of money, who would never have bought the official product anyway, so they aren't a loss to the artist.
Many people buy the CD after they hear MP3s from the CD and decide they like the artist's music. They have money to spend, but they aren't going to walk into a music store and spend money on a bunch of random CDs from unknown artists.
Radio used to be an important medium for exposing the public to an artist's music. Today, it is difficult to find a radio station that plays a wide variety of music. Most have rigid and short playlists based on some consultant's version of "make money fast in radio". There is a lot of excellent music that never gets airplay.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
No, it is nothing like slavery. Slaves do not have a choice in the matter. All artists do have a choice, even if they sign stupid contracts, sell the rights, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that artists still choose to sign with the top labels of their own freewill, despite the presence of "indy" this and "indy" that. They still find it more advantageous to get "raped" (as you would put it) by industry, then go it alone. Put simly, this means that the labels are offering the artist something of greater value (e.g., promotion, marketing, distribution, mixing, etc.), even if you personally (as a consumer) don't appreciate or benefit from it.
The word is 'intellectual property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to sell it. If you don't recognize the right of the artist to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the artists' rights.
> Bands such as Phish and the Grateful Dead have always made a substantial amount of their income from touring and live performance, rather than selling studio material.
Indeed, until the music business hit escape velocity sometime around 1971, virtually every musician in history made his/her living by staying on the road to play, play, play. I suspect Elvis and a few others were early exceptions, but even some of the "rich" rock bands from the late '60s burned themselves out by living in buses and playing seven nights a week.
Even today (or the day before Napster was invented) the overwhelming majority of musicians make ends meet by playing as often as possible and selling their tapes/CDs on a table out front. Assuming they did make ends meet: most I have ever known actually had to work a day job.
I do happen to believe in the concept of intellectual property as applied to music and literature (as opposed to patents), but unfortunately for musicians, being a millionare at 20 isn't an entitlement, and never was. So though I encourage consumers not to steal, I also encourage artists to come up with a new business plan. The old one only ever worked for the tiniest fraction of all musicians, and those not necessarily the most talented; and even that limping system doesn't look like it's going to work anymore.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The music industry had a decade or more in which they knew this was coming. Hell, in the 80's people started handing around hand-tooled MIDI files on BBSs. And, what did they do? The industry has spent millions of dollars on opposing any sort of on-line music, and the only overtures that they made treated every consumer like a suspect in the worlds largest petty theft.
If they had really pushed since the founding of the Internet, they could have molded online music into a massive profit center, but they stuck their fingers in their ears and tried real hard to believe that the Internet fad would pass.
Well, now they get to lie in that bed, and to quote far too many people, a little revolution can be a good thing. In 20 years, we will likely not recognize the music industry on planet earth. I suspect that the real product will be bandwidth, and songs will not be sold without video. "Pirating" is already the new radio, and as music companies realize this, they may seek to find ways to advertize through the distribution channels of "pirated" music. This will mean a consolidation and commercialization of those services and technologies.
Actually, it sounds like a damn good time to be getting into the online music industry. But, you have to choose your competitors carefully. Companies like MP3.com seem very avant garde to the music industry, but may not be radical enough to end up on top. Remember the early days of the net when first FTP software and then Netscape seemed poised to take the most advantage of software sales to consumer use of the Internet?
There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from artists because they are used to the status quo. Ignore the fact that the status quo has lead to one of the most abusive producer/distributor/consumer relationships in history. The artists feel that they have stability. So, as instability sets in, the ones that do this because they think they can make the system work for them will say that they are being hurt by the "pirates".
The artists and small publishers who push the envelope and take a risk will profit. It may come in the form of creating a new music format that includes graphical or textual information about tour dates. I just don't know what will happen, but I know that artistic creativity will always be a valuable commodity, and artists may not be able to profit as much from the music industry, but they will certainly have the public's ear and thus a door do their wallets for a long time to come.
The problem with Napster is not Napster. Too many people, corporations, and governments get tied up on the tools of Internet copyright abuse and lose sight of the fundamental shift in the way information and ideas are represented. In the past, the media that the idea was contained on (paper, CD, airwave, etc) was as valuable as the idea itself since the media is what made the idea tangible and controllable. Suddenly, with the advent of Napster type tools and the coming onset of faster computers and faster connections, ideas are set free from the constrains of their associated media and can be anywhere on demand.
It is wholly unimportant in the long run what profit model is chosen to represent audio, video, or any other information idea that we have traditionally paid for. Unless the tools are outlawed, it is only a matter of time before anyone will be able to duplicate and transfer any idea to anyone, anytime. The media industries will lose money and (whether they deserve it or not) will take losses. Eventually this will lead to a degradation of quality of information being created. (if you don't feed the hand that is feeding you, you will not get fed!)
Economics would suggest that the benefit of free ideas would eventually be outweighed by the cost of the worthless ideas created from the free idea model. As demand for quality media rises, eventually society will reach a critical juncture -- continue the current morality (acceptance of costless information duplication and transfer) or adopt some new morality that allows for the creation of quality media.
In "short" run, there is no way that I see a profitable future for certain information based industries -- music especially, since it's products are so completely pre-packaged prevalent in our lives. Sound quality will improve with better algorithms, distribution and accessibility issues will cease to be a problem as faster networks and the wireless convergence occurs, copyright controls will either be hacked or worked around, and prevalence will increase rapidly as the technology to duplicate and transfer information becomes easier to use for the common man and more widespreadly available. Until we reach that critical juncture, I don't think that either the label nor the artist has much going for them.
As far as the piracy issue goes, the bottom line is that anywhere copyrights are acknowledged, pirated music is illegal. And in case anyone thinks I'm dancing around the issue, it is immoral as well. As far as I'm concerned, copyrighted performances of music are the intellectual property of the performer, to be sold or given away as the performer desires.
Napster is being used heavily, and probably primarily, as a tool to facilitate music piracy. And there are factions that want it banned. But it is the piracy that is wrong, not the tool. There are people using it legitimately, or who will soon. MP3's can serve as a promotional tool for new bands. They can be a way to put a recording of a school concert on the web for proud parents when pressing CDs would be too expensive. I could sit here dreaming up uses for them.
And if Napster is banned, if the MP3 format is banned, piracy will go deeper underground, but it will not go away. That bottle has spilled its genie. It will have two other effects. The people with legitimate uses for the technology will be denied access to it. And it will set another precedent of banning software, a worse one than DeCSS.
Richard Stallman wrote a cautionary story about some possible consequences of this road once we start down it entitled The Right to Read. I don't think it will get as bad as he described, but imagine the consequences of some of the measures that he mentioned. Imagine programmers only having access to debuggers and other programming tools if they are licensed and bonded. Free software would not be what it is today.
I have seen in various places comments that locks and contracts show us the history of the struggle between people trying to secure their property and thieves trying to take it. Rather than seeking a new technological advance or a new model for marketting music, the recording industry and many musicians are clinging to the model they have. The law is with them, and they are in the right (in general, I'm not discussing detailed cases here) morally. That won't save them without a draconian police state.
They do not have the right to impose additional obligations on me in situations that do not involve their intellectual property. Whether they like it or not the technological tide will roll in. Institutions that do not change become obsolete.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and do not have and never will have as large a faitfull following.
The Grateful Dead certainly earned that following. They toured constantly and really gave their fans a lot more than just some CD's and a couple videos on MTV. Honestly though, I think the recording industry, in its current state, prefers bands that they can sell in a box. I don't think we'll see any more bands like the Dead coming from members of the RIAA. When I say "like the Dead" I'm refering to their consistant dedication to their music and fans, not the type of music.
The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.
In effect this is what's been happening. Most people only get to hear what the record companies feel like paying for. And they only feel like paying for what will make them more money than they spend. Of course, this is not the "only music" now, nor was it then.
The artists that 'survive in the new media' will be a lot more like the Dead and a lot less than the crap the music cartel is pushing on us today.
numb
Bands such as Phish and the Grateful Dead have always made a substantial amount of their income from touring and live performance, rather than selling studio material. Instead, they encouraged the free exchange of live recorded concert material, and in response fans flocked to see them perform. This may just change the profit model of running a band. The big dollars may shift from expensive cd's and a wide range of concert prices to cheap cd/mp3's and expensive live performances. Whether or not this is a bad thing is anyone's guess. I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make. How much does an artist get from that 18$ anyway?
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
This, I think, is the core of the matter. It's also interesting that this is not, by and large, what the labels are saying. They're talking mainly about "artists' rights", while the artists figure they worked hard, and really ought to get paid, thank you.
So, I'll lay out the idea below again. I've run it through various discussion forums at mp3.com a couple of times, and nobody really noticed. I thought it was simple and straight-forward, but maybe it really is revolutionary...
First - you can't digitally protect music. If you encrypt it, then you have to decrypt it to use it, and unless you're using secure hardware, that protection won't last long. [see deCSS] You also can't use watermarks for that reason - if someone can identify the watermark, then they can remove it. You can identify music using watermarks, but only to determine that piracy and illegal distribution has taken place. You can't actually distribute the watermark check (see above). And if all else fails, someone will just digitize an analog copy.
It's beginning to look like it's digitally hopeless to try and protect music, until you realize that's not the goal. You just want to pay the piper. Literally.
Everyone's worrying about music distribution, but as MyMp3 and Napster show, the distribution problem is solved. We're just waiting on a little more bandwidth and disk space, and it will be solved for everybody forever. The distribution cost will be so low, that you would pay more to control the distribution than you would to actually distribute the content.
So, rather than worry about a solved problem, how can we pay the musician? The other time-honoured method of paying for music is pay-for-performance. This could be like a penny-an-hour radio station, but this ignores portable MP3 players and large hard drives. Last time I checked, I can't connect anywhere while I'm riding the subway.
The next step in the thought process is to let you store the music, but whenever possible, the player notifies ... well, it notifies someone of this selection. Ah, yeah, right. I don't want to think at all about the privacy aspects of that model. [see RealAudio]
The final ah-ha is realizing that I don't need to charge for all performances, or even most performances. I just need a good-enough sample of how often the music is selected. This, it turns out is easy.
First, you embed additional information in MP3 files - you can do this today without breaking existing MP3 players. [see MP3,ID3v2] We can squeeze in about 64K for the equivalent of about 4 seconds of audio - in other words, it's really inexpensive. In this 64K, you get about 3 or 4 sets of information. Each set is for one entity - the artist, the label, and (critically) one or more for sponsors. Each set has (a) a big banner advert, (b) a tiny banner advert, (c) a 16x32 black and white logo, (d) a name (ascii), and (e) a special URL.
Now, crank up that compiler, and go back to your open source MP3 player. When you encounter this block of data, display the appropriate chunk from the section. Try for the big banner, or just use the small one. Portable players with a graphic screen can go for the 16x32, and the really simple portable players will go with scrolling the name. Then cycle through each set, moving forward about once every 20 seconds. Finally - if someone selects the banner, logo, or name (by clicking - or whatever) then launch that special URL. Notice that the selection is clearly a user action - nothing happens unless the listener does something.
The URL is very special. It uniquely identifies the advert, and also uniquely identifies the tune. It could uniquely identify the original download as well, but that's up to the distributor. Before launch, the player will add the X and Y address of the click on a banner, and a hash code (with salt) of the following few seconds of music.
The server that receives the URL will redirect the user to something appropriate - artist, label, or sponsor - to what was clicked. If it is a sponsor, it records the click-through. But as it does the redirect, it notes the tune that it came from. That's all for the core technical stuff. The server itself would sensibly be the label's, but there's no concrete requirement for that.
Now look at the information stream you're getting. The number of click-throughs is going to depend on both how widely the file is distributed and how often it is listened to. These are the core attributes we want to measure for music popularity. In addition, since sponsors get a click-through, the artist and label can share a click-through revenue stream and an impression stream. As a final note, if you let the URL identify the specific download, then you can get loyalty points for downloading and distributing tunes to your friends.
So, did we achieve what we were after? I think so (but then, I'm biased). We have:
Conveniently, this is completely compatible with streaming MP3, so netradio works immediately and automatically generates the artists revenue stream. I don't think there will be a lot of pressure from artists and labels to penalize (or even regulate) netradio if it is going to automatically generate income.
Yes, you could strip out the information and pass on the file. But this has relatively little effect. With legitimate hyper-distribution it becomes very difficult for a pirate to get their works out to a lot of people.
Most conveniently, this is completely backward compatible with MP3. Artists could start adding sponsor info to downloaded MP3 tomorrow, and it won't affect properly built players. Once a large enough base of tunes exists, players can be reasonably expected to support the option. As a final nice touch, this can even move into the physical world, by including pre-encoded MP3s on the end of each CD, ready to move to the PC, stereo, or portable player.
So - final question. Would this model help solve some of the difficulties we're having here?
It's surprising that Salon would publish an article that could've come straight from the pages of a RIAA press release or music trade mag. Using a record exec as the spokesperson for the starving artists doesn't quite help the piece's credibility. Some artists' comments are spliced in for good measure, sure, but the author (an editor at Rolling Stone, which to the music establishment is what the WSJ is to the business world) apparently couldn't find any well-known, big-selling names to support his argument. The article also chooses to almost completely ignore those artists who support the MP3 phenomenon, mentioning proven, publically-acclaimed performers such as Chuck D only in passing, and instead devoting the best of three pages to quoting middling record execs and their unsuccessful acts.
Unfortunately for the Rolling Stone hack and his corporate backers, the initiative backfires, since even a mildly critically minded person can see right through the bullshit of statements such as "We send them to Napster and they see all their work being given away for free, and they're stunned and horrified." The artist as a weak puppet in the hands of the omniscient record exec who always looks out for his proteges' best interests? I don't buy it. If your music is good and I dig your stuff, however, I will go out and buy the album, if for no other reason than finding entire, properly ripped albums on Napster is next to impossible, unless your searches consume most of your waking time.
The thrust of the article was not to indict record companies for overcharging for CD's (they do (duh)), or to showcase artists complaining that they're underpaid by the record companies, but to make this very important point--
To cast the Napster debate as a free-speech issue is misleading and beside the point, like making the right to shoot someone a second-amendment issue.
Artists (and unfortunately their labels) own what they produce-- that's why we have copyright laws. Napster is, as cool as it is (I love it), it is nevertheless pretty much illegal, and unless you are talking about Phish, or Britney, or some other artist who no longer has to live in a van and shower in bus stations while on tour, Napster screws musicians right in the ol' cornhole.
YES, it's true that the distro structure of the music industry needs to change.
YES it's true that record companies pocket most of the $18 sticker price for CD's.
YES it's true that it's much more fun to get music for free on a large scale. That's why tape trading is such big business for Dead- and Phish-heads, fans of Medeski Martin & Wood, Zappa, etc.
However, avoiding the traditional distro and payment structure entirely hurts artists who are not yet top-shelf successful.
Copyrighted music is a commodity just like anything else, and the producers deserve compensation. I'd think that lots of people on Slashdot, being overworked and underpaid IT folks, can definitely sympathize with this situation. The open-source metaphor only allies ot music int he public domain. It not yet apply to copyrighted musicans unless they want it to.
I apologize for coming off so strident, but I'm one of the very-lowest-echelon struggling-musician-types, and I'll be damned if I'm giving away all the rights to my music for free.
---
You are the victim. RIAA is also the victim. So are the artists.
.sig:
Everyone's the victim *and* the antagonist(sp).
It is, of course, a question of morality. Who is wrong and who is right?
You mention the price of CD's but you are not buying CD's, you are buying music. Music that takes time and talent and money to produce and distribute.
Now I am not against Napster. I am against illegal copying (the word piracy isn't right, now is it?). Napster isn't at fault, it is simply a medium that human beings make the decision how to use. Not to you specifically, Palin, but anyone who wishes to answer: How have you decided to use Napster? Have you become the victim *and* the antagonist?
I am not someone who beleives in the law for the law's sake. But I know why we have law: to stop anarchy. You see, we don't pick and choose which laws we will follow because then we have undermined the purpose of law. If you think a law is unfair and unjust then, at least in my country, there are methods to challenge the law. This is why I am against illegal copying.
If you beleive that you are the greater victim then find the groups who beleive the same as you do. Boycott the industry seems to be the valid method of protest but that is the precise opposite of illegal copying, isn't it?
There are two methods of going about the issue: either you can formally protest or you can copy illegally and *then* justify your actions. If the later then you should at least acknowledge that no one has any God-born or natural right to gratis music. Either you want to pay fairly or you don't get the music.
The RIAA has caused nothing to happen. The only thing that has changed is that with Napster it becomes easier to copy music. Napster does a poor job of keeping honest people honest. People don't copy music illegally out of protest. Protest means boycott. No, people copy music illegaly because it is easy.
One of the worst traits of human morality is that people have hard time controlling their own actions.
(I should put this kind of disclaimer in my
The ideas in this post are my opinion only. No one said that I had to agree with you or that you had to agree with me. I will agree or disagree politely to you. I expect the same in return.
Thank you)
I like the quote right at the beginning of the article ``Artists should get paid for their work''. If that's so, then I have a lot of canned human feces I HAD BETTER GET PAID FOR. I call it art and I want my money! (Heh, one of the nicest things about shit is that there's an endless supply of it, if I get desperate enough I can use the RIAA website as a source for more.)
What is sad is that this may have been true before but the chances of this happening now that people have gotten used to being able to download music quicly, easily and for free on Napster are rather slim. People will keep using Napser, there's no way this is going to change without the disappearance of Napster and its clones or at least a fundamental change in the way they behave. Reasons why it's too late
No website distribution model will be faster easier or cheaper than Napster. So why should people switch to downloading music from several websites or officially sanctioned MP3 servers when they can just use Napster to get all the music they need.
Napster allows access to all sorts of music for free. Do not underestimate the power of free stuff. Most of my friends have stopped buying CDs and while I still buy them (I have over 150) I do it more from a guilty conscience (and because I can afford to) than due to any real need. And even then, if I ever find an affordable car MP3 player I doubt that I'll ever buy a CD again. I have seen this same sentiment echoed by journalist for magazines as prestigous as Fortune and Forbes when describing the new threat to the music industry.
Microcharging for individual songs only means that the record companies and artists get even less money. Now instead of 1 person buying a $16.00 CD or $5.00 single and making it available on the Net for Free, the song would have cost $0.50 or $1.00 and would still be available on the Net for free.
Napster and its clones have rocked the foundations of the music industry. MP3s may have begun the funeral dirge but it is Napster that began the nailing of the coffin shut. The reason the RIAA is so up in arms about Napster is because they also have realized the above points and know there is no viable distribution model that would not seriously reduce their income (Frankly I wouldn't mind if the Backstreet Boys & Britney Spears weren't millionaires). The only way they can defend what they feel is their right to selling overpriced music will be to lobby for legislation. Everything else they do is at best a holding action, while they keep trying to get more of our rights stolen...(maybe a proposed ban on CD burners or a music tax on them for all the music that will get stolen is in the works).
Napster is by no means anything "new". It's just popular at the moment. There have been other file-sharing systems in place for far, far longer than Napster has, such as IRC, the web, and ftp servers. The 3 terabytes of music you see listed on Napster when you log in is _nothing_ compared to the total volume of music available out there via other formats.
The only difference with Napster is that there is now a company behind. A perfect target the RIAA to file suit against. Which, ironically, only serves to fuel Napster's popularity. RIAA says "Napster lets you download pirated music for free! It's bad!" Your average college student would probably stop listening at "free".
Then there's the real blunder that the RIAA made. RIAA launched an all out war against the MP3 format. Not the software that makes it, not the people who use it, the format itself. And in so doing, they doomed any chance they had to use it, or for that matter any other compressed media format, for distribution. Why? Because adopting such a format would be the highest form of hypocrisy. While shouting down from the heavens and condemning the online distribution of music, they'd be asking their artists to use the same formats to distribute the music.
And you wonder why you've never seen more than fluff and hype about the RIAA's SDMI initiative?
The RIAA had a chance to capitalize on the MP3 movement. Instead, they did the last thing they should've done. Look at what the my.mp3.com service is offering now! The RIAA could have _easily_ offered up such a service, with the support of the artists. And by adding the ability to buy a new album online relatively inexpensively, you've just made a service that people will not only want, but one people will _use_.
The RIAA's only goal here is to stave off their current business model. They missed the proverbial boat when they slammed down on the mp3 format. Now they're trying to do too little, too late.
The problems that have led up to the current MP3 "scene" are pretty obvious when you stop to look at them. People have access to both the blank media and the neccesary hardware to imprint on said media. You can pick up a CD-RW drive for under 200 bucks now, if you're willing to get an older, slower model. Blank CD-Rs, the same material used in commercial CDs, sell for less than 50 cents each in bulk quantities of 500 or more. I think the RIAA would probably manage to get bulk rates that are even lower, wouldn't you?
Yet commercial CDs sell for between 10 to 20 dollars. What exactly is it that we're paying for with that 2000% to 4000% markup? The shiny cellophane wrapping? The stupid adhesive plastic strip along the edge? The cheap (as in quality) plastic case? Or maybe it's that flimsy booklet inside, printed on poor paper stock and as often than not containing no lyrics.
The RIAA probably asks itself how this could happen. I'm sure the artists are asking their labels that very same question. And the answer is simple:
You made it happen.
Overpriced CDs that don't contain a full CD's worth of music, wrapped in poor quality containers makes for a helluva lot of profit for the RIAA labels, a steady stream of royalties for the artists, and an overall poor quality product for the consumer. After nearly a decade and a half of this abuse, the consumers are finally fed up with it, and they're saying "No"in perhaps the best way that they can. With their wallets.
I suggest a modification to napster that records and caclculates totals on the searches that are being done on napster.
Then, you can publish a list of the 100 most requested songs on napster!
That would be a much better indicator of what songs and people are popular than album sales, because certain types of music does not lend itself to sales of albums, though it may be popular.
Im sure you would find that some songs and bands become popular only on the internet that are not popular on the radio (yet).
It would be interesting to see proof of smaller name bands becoming popular due to Mp3 distribution. It would be a good demonstration to those who have doubts as to Mp3's power to make your band more popular.
I know of many bands that I had never heard of that I discovered due to napster and now I love. I have gone to see several of them live. (they probably make more money from me paying for tickets to see them live than from me buying any album of theirs)
What happens if we attempt to produce a new file sharing system for things like free software, patches, and all the other things currently distributed via anon FTP, HTTP, etc. Are we going to have problems with the RIAA and other copyright owners attempting to block this? A system that allows non-centralised mirroring with signing to ensure file validity and integrity would be a Good Thing. It would make Internet resources more accessable and more fault tolerant. There would be more mirrors, which would tend to be more local and less loaded.
The problem is that if this system is built and then flooded with illegally copied material then copyright holders are going to start throwing lawsuits about. This is likely to stifle innovation. Is there a way we can come up with a distributed file sharing system and make it explicitly clear that it's for the distribution of legal material, without getting sued, resorting to the "it's not our fault what people do with" argument, all without resticting peoples freedom to use it, and hence it's use?
Colin Scott
Colin Scott If you build it, they will be dumb...
The fact of the matter is that Napster is the first method of trading mp3s in a way that is sufficiently convenient to allow for average (and even highly capable individuals such as myself) computer users to download mp3s. Being a long time mp3 user and one of the original founders of #mp3 (undernet, amongst others), I can tell you that IRC, FTP, HTTP, and other decentralized systems are highly flawed, too much so for the vast majority of mp3 users today. The problem with these services is that they're either merely providing indexing, or they're archiving. Archiving clearly exposes them to liability, and thus will never withstand an all out legal attack. Indexing (although likely not immune from litigation) is plagued with problems of broken links, full ftp servers, slow systems, etc.
In other words, given the nature of the internet (human nature, of course, being contained within), there IS a need for psuedo-centralization such as napster (indexing is definetly centralized, and mp3s are effectively centralized and assured in that the listing, downloading, uploading, etc is controlled by the software). Furthermore, any service/software which is sufficiently effective is apt to be sufficiently centralized to be held accountable and to be sued. I, also, highly doubt that services like napster will stand up in the legal system. Thus, I would not say it is "impossible" for artists/labels to effectively control their music.
Artists need some way to profit from their work. Even if only a small fraction goes to the artist, it's better than none. By freeloading you're doing nothing to encourage the production or distribution of "quality" music. While the system may be "unfair", and while you're free to disagree with it, it does not make intellectual property null and void. It exists for a reason, you, as a consumer, have a simple choice: Accept conditions and buy it, or not.
That being said, I'm (obviously) not completely innocent of downloading non-free mp3s myself. However, I've never attempted to justify outright freeloading in the name of "fairness" (nor anything else for that matter). Furthermore, I tend to restrict my mp3s downloads (or ripping) to CDs that I either already own (so I can listen to them exclusively at home on my computer plugged into my hi-fi--I find this the best way to browse and listen while doing computer work), or songs that I likely would never buy in a store (allows me to sample and discover songs, if I find something I really like, I will generally purchase it). In other words, on songs that I do not yet "own", mp3 enables me to listen to a diverse swath of music, which i'd _never_ buy if I had to purchase the CD on which each song belogs. Once i discover something I really like, I will buy it, for the sake of convenience if nothing else (so I can listen to it elsewhere besides my computer), and to get all the other songs (which even napster frequently lacks--one other reason to keep up enforcement).
None the less, intellectual property is intellectual property--I do not have a right to do so. They are perfectly entitled to make reasonable efforts to enforce their rights, especially since they can't trust the general public to go out and buy their CDs in a way that does not discourage future production.
...straight from here. Not that I'd call out Salon for pandering or anything, you do need two sides to have a debate.
I can tell you exactly which artists will be most against napster, and that Creed guy is a perfect example. They are in a class affectionately known as One-Hit-Wonders. There is no doubt they would be against, or at least their agents would be against, Napster, since their entire body of useful work consists of about 3 minutes of music (coupled with 15 of fame).
Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable. The only way to enforce it would be to make what I do about once a week, (surf Napster for bands I just heard of), illegal. I am not a big fan of making ridiculously simple and common actions illegal. You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.
The RIAA is running scared, expect FUD in large helpings, be prepared to see the word pirate thrown around like it's assumed to be the correct word. . It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing. This is what happens in a capitalistic society when a billion dollar industry is made obsolete overnight. They don't wanna believe it, they don't wanna change, and dammit all the people that are taking their money are "evil pirates" (since they have a *right* to that money, since they convinced a generation of artists to sign over their life's work (for life+50 years, no less))
Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works. Laws won't be enough to convince people that having 982,345 songs at your fingertips is somehow wrong. But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share. By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant). Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.
We are not immoral pirates, dammit, we like music!!
--
+&x
One of the main things that people do with mp3's is put them on CD's. This is cause most people don't have that many extra GigaBytes of space on their hard drive.
/.). This not only doesn't solve the problem but it condones the mp3 pirating industry. People are more likely to get the newest songs and make a mix CD with no regret because they feel that the bands are being compensated.
Canadian law has put a Tax on blank CD's and tapes (here at
I wouldn't be surprised if sales go down in canada this next year. It's not because of the mp3 distributer software, but because of the government's actions have encouraged pirating.
People forget that napster isn't the only way to get mp3's, therefore I don't think it's a direct cause from napster or these kinds of software.