Slashdot Mirror
Sharing Still Doesn't Hurt
Robotech_Master writes "Eric Flint has posted two new Prime Palaver rants. The first one is a continuation of the one that was mentioned here on Slashdot the other day, about the Free Library, the e-book, encryption, and you:'One thing you have to understand about this whole controversy is how much of it is sheer hot air. Many authors and most publishers, when they address this issue, give people the impression they're at risk of losing their shirt through electronic "piracy." That's pure hogwash[...]' The second is a response to the idea of boycotting Harlan Ellison for his anti-piracy stance (and I imagine some Slashdot faces will be red over some of what he has to say!)." We linked to Ellison's rant last year.
The RIAA wants taxpayers to pay for the cost of tracking down those who 'diminish the incentive to invest in creating music'
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
To draw a connection to boycotting a dead creater to boycotting a living creater is spurious, at best.
You have 0 chanve of getting Wagner to change his views, or even take a closer look at them, because he's dead. You have nearly 0 chance of getting HE to re-think his position, but nearly 0 is not 0, and if enough people do it, maybe he'll actually try to put a story onto the baen library to see if it works.
I won't buy anything new from Ellison. No I won't boycot him, but I sure as hell will see that no money I spend ends up into his pocket. His thinking is draconion, and feeds right into the corporate misconception. Fortunatly I have a library card and easy access to a used book store.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Okay, let's clarify things. Yes, libraries give copyrighted works away free, so does radio, blah, blah, blah. And that's great. Libraries and radio don't cut into book or music sales and they're wonderful resources. But that's not how the Angry Young 3/_33+ see it. Their take is that the companies that distribute music and books are evil and should be taken out of the picture. So when they argue about sharing being okay, there's a stronger agenda behind it: that copyrights should be abolished. The attitude of "entertain me for free" is a a hard view to get people to agree with.
Zero minus zero equals zero. Read the rant, learn the phrase. Seriously. RIAA types and the IP-martial-law crowd still won't get it (because they can't conceive of anything from which they can't get a percentage), but the average person understands that going to a public library and reading a book is not theft, and neither is 0 - 0 = 0.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I'm a conservative, but I don't boycott Mercedes Lackey because of her politics. I boycott her because of her contrived plots, shallow characters, stilted dialogue, and a preachy tone that annoys me whether it comes from her or Robert Heinlein. How this woman became a popular writer when she produces such crap is something I don't understand.
And the brethren went away edified.
(Posted to the Pho list last year),
Seeing as I don't work in the music industry, I've been a little hesitant to
post this, but I'm feeling a little froggy today. If I'm being a little
presumptuous feel free to hack me to shreds, but here goes:
The Nature of Demand
It seems to me one of the key problems facing the music industry in the
digital age is the "commodity" approach to marketing music. Who was the
genius that first determined that the real product is a piece of plastic?
When I buy a CD, it's not because I simply want to be able to play the music
at my leisure. At the core of every music purchase is a connection between
the artist and the consumer. For some, it's an association of ideals. For
others, it may be image, lust, identity, craft or a myriad of other
possibilities. This is the real nature of demand in this business and it's
being completely ignored under the current model.
Pissing Off the Consumer
This whole idea came to me as I was driving to work one day listening to
"Celebrity Skin." I'm on my third copy now and it irks my hide a little each
time I buy a CD that I have previously owned. Especially considering the
fact that I know so little money is going to the artist.
Why can't I just buy personal rights to the piece of work and pay a media
fee for whatever form of media I choose as a playback device? If I lose the
CD, why can't I just pay a reasonable media fee to replace it? Why can't I
be a patron of the artist rather than a consumer of plastic? The value of a
CD is in the beauty of the work, not in its physical manifestation.
In a Perfect World
I'd pay $25 bucks for a CD. It would come with a serial number. I'd go to a
Web site managed by the artist or their representatives and register. Once
registered, I'd be able to download the CD in MP3 format. Maybe I'd get
access to a couple of bonus tracks as well. Maybe I'd like a second copy of
the CD or a tape for my car. I'd be able to buy a second copy for 5-7 bucks.
Call it a media fee.
A Different Approach
Now here's the real power of this model. Now that I've registered, the
artist can send me an email telling me about what's going on in their
creative life every now and then. Maybe I'd be able to get an early copy of
the next album in MP3 format for pre-ordering. Maybe the artist could send
me a link to some live tracks from concerts or some things they have been
playing around with in the studio between major releases. Maybe they could
point me to a couple of older albums I might be interested in. Maybe once I
have purchased the rights to three albums I would achieve "distinguished
patron" status that allows me special access to other material. That's
value. Now I feel like I have a relationship with the artist. Now I feel
like a patron who helps support the artist so they can spend their time
working on their art. Now the artist has a direct way to build a
relationship with me the fan. Foster that relationship and the artist is
meeting the real demand of a music consumer.
Maybe when the artist comes to town, they can put on a special show at a
small venue for "distinguished patrons." I think a show like this would be
good for the artist and the patron. The artist would know they are
performing for a select group that appreciates their craft and has shown it
by supporting them. The patron gets to see his or her favorite artist up
close and personal. The patron would be willing to pay a higher price as
well. The next day, maybe a special commerative t-shirt would be available
at the web site when the patron logs in.
Also, think about how valuable the database would be.
Watch the Money Roll In
So under this scenario, I'd probably spend at least a couple hundred bucks
with an artist. Under the current model, I might have shelled out $100 for a
CD and a couple of concert tickets. Why allow labels to take so much money
for "managing" the artist, when what they really should be doing is managing
the relationship with between the artist and the patron? The marketing
potential under this model is a no brainer. Some might abuse it, some might
manage it well. At the end of the day, it's the relationship that counts.
Piss off your registered fan base with a load of spam and chances are the
fan won't cough up any more dough. Provide a real value to registering and
watch the money roll in. The better an artist manages the relationship, the
more money they make. Make the management earn their keep for a change.
This Kills the Napter Problem
Piracy will never go away. Instead of trying to limit access to an artist's
work, why not take a different approach... provide real value for paying for
the work. Why would I spend hours trolling Napster for bad MP3's encoded at
different bit rates and labeled with no common format when I can just buy
the CD and have access to clean copies encoded at a high bit rate for my
desktop machine and maybe another set encoded at a low bit rate for my car
or portable player? Napster's cool, but face it, it's still a
pain-in-the-ass. Today's average MP3 collection is a sloppy mess. Why would
I pirate when buying the work and registering offers me real value? Sure
some people will pirate. Face it folks, it's going to happen no matter what.
The loss from piracy would be more than covered by the additional revenue.
This would also go a long way to killing the demand for used CD's.
Eviscerate The Damn Middlemen
I'm offended that the record companies skim off such a disproportionate
amount of income from the process compared to the value they inject into the
transaction. They get away with it because they control the distribution
channel. That control is dying and all the industry seems to want to do is
come up with another way to protect it. Wake up! Fans are pissed off.
Artists are pissed off. Everyone is sick and tired of paying twenty bucks
for a CD and knowing that the artist only ends up with a buck or two. That's
why everyone is sucking songs off of Napster. We're all tired of feeding
your machine. Let go and start fresh. Didn't most people in the business get
into management or promotion or whatever because they loved music? Wouldn't
it be nice to get back to that rather than working in a system that is
basically a leech feeding upon both artist and consumer?
Someday Soon
An new act is going to make it big direct. No label. No management. No
distribution deal. Self-financed. Self-promoted. Self-Published. Another
possibility is a major act going direct successfully. The day is coming soon
and when it happens, a lot of people in this business are going to face a
rude wake-up call. Why not make a deal now while you still have a chance?
Apologia...
I've had all this bouncing around in my head for some time now. I honestly
planned on writing it up as a coherent article. If I waited till I had time
to do it, I would never have gotten around to it. I'm truly sorry to have to
present it in such a disjointed rant.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I truly love music. I work for a living.
I don't have the kind of talent musicians have. The mere fact that there are
beautiful souls out there producing such wonderful works of art makes the
drudgery of my day to day a little brighter. I'm willing to pay for that. As
a matter of fact, I'd feel damn privileged to be part of a support base that
allows an artist to focus on their art instead of schlepping food at a
restaurant for a living. I just wish doing it under a the current model
didn't leave such a bitter taste in my mouth. Fix it and I guarantee you'll
make more money, see a more diverse range of work and happier artists and
consumers.
Here's my true story about how sharing is good.
I'm a young guy (20 years old). When Prince (aka, "The Purple One," "The Artist Formally Known As Prince," etc) was just getting started up, I was very young and not too interested in music. I knew who Prince was, however, and I remembered that.
However, I didn't know who Morris Day was -- an artist who, in my view having heard him, is superior to Prince.
Now, about a year ago, I saw the movie "Purple Rain". In that movie, I saw the story of Prince and Morris Day competing at a local club. They showed several songs of each artist. As it turns out, in reality, Prince and Morris Day were actually in the same band and good friends, but the movie is a dramatization which sets them up as being enemies.
Anyways, in this movie, they showed Morris Day performing the song called "The Bird". I thought that song was really fun and great, so I looked it up on Amazon, and looked for Morris Day on Google. So I found out this was a real guy, and he had a alot of songs before he unexplicably quit the music industry.
I thought cool. But I'm not going to buy an album by a guy just because he had one good song. So I downloaded Day's album's off from Grokster and LimeWire. Turns out, almost all of the guys music is good -- some real great songs, like Jungle Love, Fishnet (Black Pantyhoes), Color of Success, Get It Up, The Walk, 777-9311, etc.
That's how I found out about Morris Day. And that's how I found out his songs were good. And that's why I've bought a few of his albulms. In short, he made money because of file-sharing. Of course, if he had sucked, he wouldn't have made money; but he also wouldn't have lost any either.
The general point that can be taken here is that almost all people who download tons of stuff from LimeWire/Kazaa wouldn't have bought it anyways. I have about 40Gigs of songs. Do you really think I would have actually gone out and bought 40Gigs worth of songs if it weren't for file-sharing? Of course not, that's absurd. So in short, the artists who's songs I've downloaded haven't lost anything because I wouldn't have paid them anyways. Some gain alot, because I like them enough to buy their albums.
In fact, everyone gains. Before file-sharing I wasn't an avid fan of music. Now, I am. All kinds of music too. I even watch M-TV once in a while, something which I never did before.
In fact, I'd venture to say that the interest in music today is higher than its EVER EVER BEEN. And that's accounting for the size of the population.
So, how exactly is it that artists and the music industry loses from this?
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This is utter rubbish. At eMusic and MP3.com ( prior to being absorbed by the Beast) I often sample music by finding a genre I like and seeing which artists were downloaded the most - the best artists typically bubbled to the top. I found many acts that were "worth listening to" without having my hand held by the RIAA.
Unfortunately, some labels have a single agenda - that agenda is Make Money. So they will thrust into the limelight those bands they believe will make money. Witness the countless knock-off boy and girl bands from the last several years - fucking O-Town, a band manufactured during primetime for God's sake - is this an example of the bands they think are "worth listening to"??
The fact is, you are spreading the same myth the RIAA uses to justify their existence at this point. MP3.com was an effective way to market music without signing your soul to the major labels. And guess what? The stupid, mindless, sheep fans were actually able to decide for themselves which music was good and which music was bad, all without Uncle Hilary Rosen having to say "Put down that silly O Brother, Where Art Thou? disc and look at this shiny, new N'Sync album!"
People love music. Left to their own devices, they will find ways to talk about music, spread the word about the bands they love, and find as many new acts as they can afford. And in the process the good with be separated from the bad.
I do agree with your latter point, however. Not all labels are bad and some do sincerely promote the artists they believe will produce good music and not only good royalties. But the labels are on borrowed time. There are alternatives.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
#1. Flint is a published author making a very good living selling SF books. His books are probably in your local bookstore.
I'd say he has a pot to piss in. He's also been helped financially by 'losing control of his work.' He has cold hard numbers about how he has made MORE money by his work getting out where all of us 'thieves' can read it free of charge.
Flint says first and formost that Ellison is within his rights, but as laws change, it is hurting the publishing industry, and authors. That is most assuredly his business.
The too-restrictive laws are also hurting our culture. This is also his business. Mine too. Mabye even yours. Flint makes the point that Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to legally make the works he did, had our copyrights been in place. Surely you can see the implications of that.
hanzie,
bibliophile and car nut.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.