Slashdot Mirror
TMBG on DRM
scootr1 writes "John and John from They Might Be Giants speak to Newsweek about, amongst other things, digital rights management. My favorite exchange? 'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.' When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?"
In related news, the gang over at Homestar Runner recently did a video for TMBG's song "Experimental Film." Lots of fun movie references.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I just saw TMBG last weekend. Great show. I thought I had kept up with their more recent work, but I was obviously wrong. I only recognized several of the songs that they played. I was actually embarrassed to have mentioned to a friend that told me of the show that I was a "fan".
The show was great. Even the songs I didn't recognize were great. My only complaint was that they were a bit loud and my left ear is still ringing seven days later).
I support TMBG like I would any other band that supports the freedom of music. They allow their live shows to be traded freely (according to FurthurNET) and I was happy to purchase two tickets to see them and help them.
They were a lot of fun and I really love their comment in the NewsWeek article:
Record companies are certainly scared.
They should be scared. They're hemorrhaging dough.
Damn straight they are. I have said it 1,000 times here before. While the music companies complain about them losing money they are losing it because they sponsor shit music and treat their customers like shit. At least there are bands, who support freedom of music, that care about their fans/customers. While it might not mean much to TMBG they just made their percentage of the $30 ticket prices I shelled out for them and I was thrilled to do it.
Perhaps we need more bands that love their fans to speak out against the RIAA. Maybe then other bands will see how you can survive for 20+ years by caring for your fans and them caring for you back. I'm pretty certain the RIAA doesn't think about THAT when they come up with contract terms for their cookie cutter noise machines.
For those that found the extra interesting exchange "'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.'" to be less than clear, here's a little more context:
How would you eat, then?
That's my problem. Being a musician is an unreasonable idea anyway. The life expectancy of a professional career in music is five or 10 years. That would be a long run.
More interesting really:
Record companies are certainly scared.
They should be scared. They're hemorrhaging dough.
Best thing about TMBG? They're huge Homestarrunner.com fans.
We live in a split world--people who know about Homestar and people who don't... Now we have this "Experimental Film" video out. It's a video directed by [the Homestar character] Strong Sad.
Worst thing?
They're working with MoveOn.org. Oh well, they might be giants, but I guess that doesn't mean they're perfect.
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?
Bad music? How about DRM isn't going to help sell more of ANY music. At all. Ever. The less you give, the less you empower your customers, the less they trust you, the less you make.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Triangle, man
Triangle, man
Triangle man hates DRM man
They have a fight, triangle wins
Trinagle man
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Why is music bad if he doesn't like it?
I know lots more people who do like today's music. People claim bad music is the reason for increased piracy, which doesn't make sense. Why are people pirating music they don't like?
> How would you eat then?
Concerts. It's how artists make their real money anyway....
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
My head a-splode.
America needs more TMBGs. I'm sickened by the greedy, self-important jackholedness that passes as 'American' these days. We used to be people who cared about each other; we used to ask what we could do for our country. Now, we're a bunch of jugular-sucking opportunists who take pride in bending the rules, running through loopholes, and shouting louder than the other guy.
Bring back humility, honesty and generosity! Those are real values! Carry that torch, TMBG!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
What the labels need to do to get more circulation isn't DRM, but instead to oppose legislation that allows media giants to buy up radio and television stations son that such stations can back those artists who push the messages that those companies want the people to hear.
This era in music is so depressing because the bands that are out there for the music are being drowned out by the bands out there for the money and sex, which is what the corperate machine would like to have people hear, in order to push a less-regulated business world into the mass mindset. This country suffers from severe groupthink, as has been demonstrated several times. The media companies want this. We, the music fans, just get screwed.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much?
For the same reason they keep coming here, despite the overwhelming flood of crap posts like this one. In other words, there's no accounting for taste. People like what they like.
My stuff doesn't have DRM. But then again I'm no TMBG.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It's just a badly placed end quote. I thought he said that the music was bad as well, but it was the submitter that said it, not Flansburgh.
I thought so too, but I went back and double checked the article. (See, it pays to RTFA.)
I'd be interested in knowing their stance on spam, since they used to spam the hell out of my inbox.
mbbac
I'm glad that TMBG is realistic about the future of digital media. My money is on the future where musicans realize that their bread and butter lies in making life performances and distributing merchandise like t-shirts, posters, etc.
The record industry, specifically the RIAA, are holding onto an anachronism ... they don't create the music, they help to distribute it. Unfortunately what they don't understand (and some artists do) is that free distribution gives people the chance to get into an artist's music. And when an enthusiast is serious, they'll pay for the quality that comes from having a clean and attractively packaged CD.
Good job, TMBG! Now the rest of musicians need to fire their record labels ...
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?"
When are you going to realize that complaining about the quality of the music you then download only makes it sound like you are trying to justify criminal activity?
DRM isn't bad. If a vendor produces DRM products and you have a problem with that, don't buy them. It's just another option available to content producers and distributors. It has value, and it has its place.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
I say let them use DRM to their heart's content. Let them put in all kinds of nasty, horribly restrictive DRM in everything they sell. It will only accellerate their decline, though it might prop up their profits a little while longer.
The inevitable trend for music is away from wealthy, centralized music and towards a much smaller, decentralized, community supported scheme, where the indie bands have much more a chance of breaking even, and hardly anybody really "makes it big" anymore.
Just as with software, the Internet is re-writing the rules of the marketplace. Just as Open Source software marches to the drum of inevitability in the marketplace, so do unrestrictive music distribution models.
It's been a *long* time since the expense of recording quality music was beyond what could be achieved with some thrift-store mattresses, a garage, and a computer with a $200 sound card.
In other words, in 1955, quality, good-sounding recording equipment was very expensive. Today, it's less than a thousand dollars.
In 1985, it was very expensive to distribute music in bulk. Now, a commercially hosted website can get you going for $15.95 per month.
That's the marketplace of today. That's what's going to do these guys under. Not DRM. Not "crappy music". (that people download and listen to anyway)
If there's an area with legitimate concern about intellectual property, it's with copyright law and patent law. Sorry, but copyright law is no longer in alignment with its original purpose of promoting the development of literature and the arts. Neither is patent law, in its current incarnation, truly a socially healthy way to encourage invention and creativity.
Work to change the real evils, and quit whining about people who try to prevent you from stealing.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I tried to play one of the ogo files and it wouldnt work in Ms Windows Media Player Version 9. I also have a flower power ImaC and it would not play in iTUNES. What is wrong with the ogo files?
Sincerely,
Richard Head
OS Master
Cite an example; spelling is not important to the argument.
There is a documentary on the band called Gigantic, which, if you are a fan, I feel would be pretty amusing. I am not much of a fan but I have heard some of their stuff from 15 years back and I enjoyed the movie.
______________________________________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
They have been surviving for 20 years without traditional record contracts most of the time.
They are selling the new songs, US$1 per, in addition to concerts and assorted materials. If they were giving away all the songs for free I would see the relavance of the question. Currently, I do not.
___________________________________________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Yeah. I can't stand slashdotters either.
Ever notice that shitty bands are the only ones in love with the idea of giving their music away free? (as if it'd make me listen to it)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
DRM's only accomplishment is to make the record companies treat honest consumers (the people who have actually paid for the stuff) like criminals.
If I pay to download a track, or pop my new CD into my CD-ROM, it comes complete with DRM. I can't play it on my other PC. Forget about playing it on my Mac at all. Can I transfer it to my NetMD portable? Good luck! No, I can only play it on my stupid computer on my crappy speakers. Not on my portable, not on my stereo. However if I just don't bother to pay for it, and download the track/album in mp3 format from any number of questionable sources, I can play it on whatever device I want. In other words, if I pay for it, the Label treats me like a criminal and restricts my ability to use what I paid for. Steal it, and I can do what I want.
They all began working most diligently
creating programs which behaved intellegently
But these programs were lacking still.
For when prompted they would only say or .
Yet a researcher in the great white north continued on
Feeding song after song into to his very own atomiton
Then at last one tiresome night in 84
he played a track he never played before.
And queried the program: To which it responded /wanting to work that last line into a joke for years
My solution to only liking one or two songs on an album is to set my price point for buying it lower... I won't buy it at full price. Others just download the song(s) they want. I have one song in my MP3 collection that didn't come from a CD I own - it was encoded from an HBO concert, because I didn't want to spend $18 for the two-CD set the song is found on, which was full of, well, CRAP.
Even the artists themselves are realizing that they've been selling albums that consist of one or two songs, plus filler. This information was gleaned from the recent Frontline show, "How the Music Died".
OK - I'll go after this troll.
Speaking for myself, I like TMBG because they're interesting. Their music is well-produced and crafted, their song lyrics can range from nonsensical to literate, and they sing about topics ranging from nightlights (Birdhouse in Your Soul) to obscure presidents (James K. Polk). Interesting music that is well done will catch my interest, regardless of the genre.
They also usually produce catchy hooks regardless of the material, treat their fans with respect, and put on a tremendously entertaining live show as well. TMBS are fans of technology (Dial-a-Song, their wax cylinder recording for the Edison Museum), like Slashdotters are, and they used to tour with just backing tapes for a rhythm section. The musicians they've worked with on records have been a virtual "who's who" of the "alternative" genre, so their skills are obviously appreciated by their peers.
And finally, they've managed to keep at it for about 20 years now, making a decent living in the music biz without becoming the type of band/people we all rant about here online. I've met them both on a couple of non-concert occasions over the years, and a good friend of mine actually was a classmate of theirs in high school. I also worked a little bit with a band (Mark Cutler & Useful Things - I did the design and CD booklet for their first album as a favor to another friend who produced their record) back in the late '90s whose drummer had played with John Linnell in another band (The Mundanes) before TMBG. Nobody (including me) who I've ever seen to meet either of them have had a bad word to say about them - even the ones who aren't nuts about their music. From all accounts (not just the few I mentioned), they're a couple of good guys who make music for a living.
So that's at least part of why I like TMBG - my cousin first put me on to them back in '86 or so, and I've been buying their albums, going to the occasional concert, and downloading their live shows ever since.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
It was a stupid question, implying as it did that they would be able to eat if they did use DRM which is pretty much a non-sequiter, so it didn't deserve a straight answer.
Of course, TMBG are doing a ton of other things to bring in money, as any fan of theirs knows.
Since you know me so well, perhaps you can tell everybody what the last copyrighted material I downloaded was? Can't do it, can you? So quick with the tongue.
Believe it or not, I believe that DRM is bad for another reason - how am I going to play those lovely WMA files on my MP3 player? Why do I not have the right to listen to the one license of the music that I purchased however I want?
Did the submitter even read the article or was he just dense?
I was not touched there by an angel.
The question from the interviewer was "Is this the way you see things going in the future--artists securing digital rights?"
This is a question about getting the rights to distribute their work online, not about DRM. Record companies usually own the exclusive rights to distribute an artist's work in any format. The answer John Flansburgh gave speaks to the difficulty they had in securing (in the sense of "obtaining") the rights to distribute TMBG's music online themselves, independently of their label and distributors:
Now, TMBG doesn't bother with DRM (their music has been available for years in unrestricted MP3 format on emusic), but this interview doesn't really speak to the question of DRM.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Some music is just bad,as in you couldn't pay me or most others to purchase it.
Some music just isn't good, or not good enough, to warrant the price it is set at. So really, the issue really a relation of quality vs cost. A really good CD might warrant purchase at a higher cost. An average CD might not warrant purchase until cost has declined.
Oh, and we're not really claiming piracy as the sole cause by any stretch, as many people wouldn't even pirate music that's really bad, and many others (such as myself) just don't pirate but rather wait for an item to end up in the "Used CD" rack.
DRM, if kept to a minimum, isn't so bad - it merely prevents people from filesharing the music they just bought. The fact that RIAA is evil doesn't justify IP theft (which filesharing pretty much is).
The Raven
Since they mention EMusic specifically... here's the EMusic TMBG page. Nine albums for download as high-quality VBR MP3s. Not a DRM in sight...
(To explain my sig... EMusic went through a period of severely sucking. They're back to being a pretty good site IMHO, worth a look).
This is about advancing a Socialist agenda. Thanks for further distorting the purpose of /.
Woot!
My sister and her husband are aspiring Country&Western artists/songwriters. Yeah, I know, but that's their dream.
They're having trouble getting people to buy their music. Yeah, I was shocked, too. I suggested that they give it away. They didn't like that idea -- no money in it.
"Why not?", I asked, "No one wants to pay for it. Why not generate some demand?"
I think they're afraid the first song they give away might be the one that would have made them filthy rich if they'd just held on to it.
sigs, as if you care.
Concerts *are* where they make their money. The labels like concerts, because they help boost record sales that the corporations make 95% of.
OK, that was a well written and thought out comment, but I disagree with it.
Bypassing DRM should not be illegal. Copyright law gives certain rights to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of the product. Slapping DRM on something does not automatically give the purchaser less rights, although it can make make it harder to exercise those rights. (At this point, both sides are using technology to go beyond what rights they are legitamately granted).
As far as the rest of your comment goes, making and distributing music cheaply means next to nothing. The power is in RADIO! I can write and record the greatest song in the world, and put it up on my website for free. No one would care. If I were to go through some expense to promote it, (maybe tour, etc.), I might get a few people to care, but nothing even come close to the power of radio. As long as there's a tight grip on radio the battle is next to hopeless. And with consolidation of over-the-air radio, and the death of internet radio, it's only getting worse lately.
I guess that that would be news to their Wives.
They DONT, don't you get it? This was posted by MICHAEL as a political attempt to further advance the socialist agenda. Nothing to do with DRM at all. They spend more time Bush bashing in the article then talking DRM.
And you're not allowed to answer "because there's nothing else" because last time I went to a record store I found music going back a couple of centuries and it can't all be bad.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?"
So far record companies seem pretty successful at foistering their bad music upon us (Cristina Aguilera any one?), I fail to see why they won't continue doing the same over the Internet, if DRM allows them to....
No, the shitty bands are the ones on MTV, with their shitty music videos being crammed down the throats of millions of sheep listeners every day on TRL.
The non-shitty bands are the ones out there without sucking dick and actually playing instruments. Until this changes, I know for certain I won't be buying any music.
The last CD I bought was in the summer of 2000. 4 years and 10000 downloads later, I've never been happier.
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
No, I never noticed....
Then how come Metallica, Brittney Spears, Madonna (or whatever she's calling herself these days), etc. are against giving their music away for free?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
People, in general are stupid. Young people, in particular. They want to listen to what is played on the radio - music that, despite federal regulations to the contrary, is played for payola.
DownhillBattle.org
Music activism!
- Don't buy a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a freinds CD
Napster Era / Kazaa / etc- Don't buy a CD
- Download a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a friends CD
Post napster (lawsuit era)- Don't buy a CD
- Download a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a friends CD
Guess when I stopped buying CD's (except one's that I really liked)....I think it was 1991 or 1992. What stopped my from buying?Usually, I would hear a song on the radio, decide that I liked it, then go buy the album. If this album was good, I would usually buy a subsequent album from the same artist. If the first album was Crap, then no more albums from that artist. If the second album was crap, then no more albums from that artist.
Everything right now is not art it's a pre-planned fad. Fad's never last, i.e. time to create a new boy band. But quality endures, even if it is truly overpriced - people will pay because it is quality. Look at any of the long lasting Artisans of watches, jewelry, etc. Sure you can buy knockoffs that look exactly the same, but people still buy the actual items.
The industry turned away lots of people who have the disposable income to buy quality music, by packaging fads for easily impressionable teens. Guess what - they just eliminated a repeat income stream - because these teens eventually grow up!
More radio stations means more payola. Why not make one easy payment to get a whole bunch of stations to play your crap at one time?
BUT the fast majority of artists make their living doing just live. A record is a bonus. Remember real artists are not created by a records comany, they do not have a single out before their first concert. Real artists start performing at the local pub and are just another worker getting paid for showing up and doing their job.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I Hope You Die.
that you spent thousands of your own hard earned money on music and DVDs and random people just get it for free?
Let me guess. You didn't spend money on what you have.
I let friends borrow my stuff. I wouldn't appreciate a random asshole breaking into my house on account of a false sense of entitlement getting a free copy of everything I *paid* for.
You want it, you pay for it.
I don't imagine that too many people who actually pay for things turn around and pirate them.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
So when someone was having installation issues, and system resources were low, we would check what is running at startup.
I had 2 or 3 calls a day from people who were 60+ with Kazaa or some other p2p app running on their system.
And before someone says "the grandchildren put it there, and they have no clue about it". I will mention, when disabeling programs that run at startup just long enough to get a good install, they would complain about not being able to run Kazaa.
When grandma and grandpa DONT CARE about copyright issues and pirate mp3's like they are going out of style, I figure that the RIAA have a rather larger uphill battle.
Especially when you consider that AARP is a large voting block with a lot of PAC money.
You will notice, that the RIAA is trying not to go after people over 60......
------
vi +
Sounds to me they just want to become filthy rich by making music and performing. Good luck to them but that doesn't make them to me real artists. Real artists would be real artist even if they got to keep their day job.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
LMAO, yes, the ads are in bad taste, but you make it sound as if MoveOn MADE those commercials.
They were submitted to one of their ad contests. As a submission it was available for viewing. Just like the stuff over on ifilm and sites like that. It was submitted for consideration.
That would be the same as holding slashdot accountable for GNAA posts and our lost beloved goatse.cx posts. Or holding slashdot accountable for some maniac ranting and opinion that occurs in these threads (not that it ever happens LOL)
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
It depends on your definition of "shitty". I know plenty of shitty bands who would like very much to sue your pants off if you downloaded one of their songs...
So what are the 10000 downloads of? The shitty bands or the non-shitty bands? If the non-shitty bands sucked dick would you then pay for their music?
If you download 10000 tracks that suck your an idiot.
If you download 10000 tracks from bands that don't suck and blame it on sucky bands being played on MTV then your just adding to the problem.
Oh please, just because you want to torture yourself by listening to TMBG doesn't mean that the rest of us want to. I really dislike the argument that independent artists make better music. It's true that they make more attempts at being creative than big label artists, but most people don't want to listen to music that creative or experimental. They want to listen to music that sounds good, and that's what the big labels produce. I mean, TMBG is funny, but I wouldn't want to listen to more than 5 minutes of it in a day, much less a whole album. DRM is pretty stupid though.
Concerts. It's how artists make their real money anyway...
...
Indeed, that's the traditional money earner for musicians who actually like to play live, and those still exist in reasonable numbers. It's not just tickets that help pay the rent, but direct CD sales and merchanising too. Not only does this bring a useful chunk of dough into wallets quickly, but it's great promotion too.
There are other ways of making money as a musician as well though. Above all else, you keep a website as a direct sales outlet, and you set up links with other bands who operate such sites. Musicians with similar backgrounds and tastes are nearly always going to be happy to help each other out.
Having done that, you start promoting yourself, bigtime! Do the rounds of the smaller radios with music shows -- many will be happy to host small live sets if they're into your kind of music. With the explosion in Internet radio, there is immense opportunity here. Outside of the RIAA brain-death zone, there's nothing a station likes more than broadcasting an exclusive set. (You need to be good, that goes without saying.)
That's a start, but there's a lot more that a musician or band can do to generate sales. You need to create buzz, and that means doing free concerts, assisting in charity events, going on chat shows, pumping the college gig circuits forever, helping out the local theatre groups, writing articles to the music papers, reviewing musical instruments, anything and everything
It's continuous work, but we all work hard, and musicians aren't an exception to this. If you believe in yourself and are a real musician rather than a cut'n'paste artist, you can do it and the money will roll in, very slowly at first but more and more rapidly as you become better known. Fortunately the outgoings are remarkably low for a one-man startup in the music business, largely as a result of digital technology.
Persevere, and in the end you'll become not just a fully independent musician, but also an independent music business. And that's a pearl beyond price.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
MTV needs to climb out of their teeny-bop ghetto, dust themselves off and get back to the business of new wave.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
I thought GNAA had purchased slashdot a while back?
Anyways... I was under the impression that moveon.org had pushed the hitler ad a little more than they might have, but the real issue I guess I have is with some moveon.org supporters/members who feel the comparison is legitimate (as well as some actors and musicians who think it's neat to include similiar images in their concerts).
Casual Games/Downloads
My favorite exchange? 'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.'
Am i the only one that read that as "How would you eat them?"
I kept looking for some point in the interview where TMBG talked about eating this abstract concept...
i'm...so sorry
i hotdog.
DRM technology is available, and I should have the right to use it. You certainly have the right to not buy it.
Personally, my big fear in all of this is that enough legislation will be passed by RIAA's lackeys that nothing will be available without DRM.
Yeah, I have a webcomic...
..about the greatest man I ever knew - Lawrence Hess. You probably never heard of him, but that's not unusual - there's a lot of musicians you've never heard of. The difference here, is that Lawrence was the single most talented one I've ever, and probably will ever meet (and I've known many). Not too many musicians have the distinction of being in The Boxtops, or Ripley's Believe it or Not - he was.
What does this have to do with DRM/Music Labels? I'm getting there.
Back when I was an aspiring musician I was introduced to Lawrence and invited to one of his shows. He was a always-smiling, one man band. Lawrence embraced any technology related to music and getting the sound he wanted. He'd sit, surrounded by 4 or 5 keyboards with a little Steinberger guitar slung over his shoulder. Having played in bands for years, he decided that he could be his own band - one that wouldn't make mistakes, one that would always show up on time and not be intoxicated.
Every bit of his music was sequenced by him - and he used his own bizzare midi settings (I think as to confuse anyone who might try and steal a few of his backup discs). His voice was one of those given to you by God himself - an impossible, deep range.
But he was unlucky in a few other areas. You see, Lawrence wasn't much to look at - physically. He stood no more than 5'2", and always managed to look somewhat disheveled. He also had Type I diabetes - had it since childhood. It eventually killed him at 35 years in 1998.
In short, Lawrence was hardly MTV material - he simply didn't look the part. But... He was a musician's musician - a master. He had a great local following and he managed to meek out a decent existance right up until weeks before he passed away.
Now, here's the point to all of this. Lawrence didn't bitch that he wasn't a star. Sure, he would've liked more exposure, but he did what he did because it was all he knew how to do. Being a musician doesn't mean you have to starve, but certainly aren't any guarantees. If you suck, you suck, and no amount of promotion by a label is going to change that fact. If you want to eat, you have to prove yourself to people.
Lawrence's fans would travel from miles away to see him perform. He always kept the venues and customers happy wherever he played. He didn't expect the RIAA or anyone else to bail him out - he did it for the sheer love of music.
What I personally took away from his death was that although I enjoyed playing and singing immensely, I could in no way live the life he had chosen. I simply wasn't that good (well, few are!) and so I stayed in the computer field where I think I've done fairly well for myself.
I guess I just get a little pissed off when I hear about DRM and/or musicians spouting off about piracy - especially when it's world famous musicians who should have the least to complain/worry about.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Playing live makes very few artists enough money to eat. Did TMBG who can fill large halls at $20 a head didn't say that. But further if you actually do the economics of playing live (resonable sized places great write up about this a few years ago.
There are bands that make bank touring, but if you look at a big city newspaper, you will see hundreds of bands playing with about 5 making enough money touring to feed themselves for much longer than the length of the tour.
I was under the impression that moveon.org had pushed the hitler ad a little more than they might have
s/moveon/RNC/
That clears it up.
Moveon deleted the ad as soon as they found out about it, but a helpful RNC clerk or intern downloaded it and they nicely mirrored it for a while.
Ever notice that fucktards make coments like:
> ver notice that shitty bands are the only ones in love with the idea of giving their music away free? (as if it'd make me listen to it)
?
There's nothing in the article about DRM. They don't even mention it indirectly.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
not to be a nit-picker on typo's, &c, but
'at al' should probably have been '&al'., 'et al.', or (fully written-out) 'et alia' -- it translates into english as 'and others'.
&c., and etc. are short-hand and abbreviations for 'et cetera' -- latin for 'and so-on' or 'and continuing-on-in-a-similar-vein'.
the ampersand [&] is shorthand (a single character contraction that combines the letters 'E' and 't' thus 'et' -- latin for 'and'). thus, the really lazy (usually includes me) would just type '&al' when we meant 'and other related items'.
look at the economics of touring. look at something like pollstarfor the concerts in a good sized city, you will find 100 or more bands playing on a weekend. In that list there is a one band that will clear 10k, Modest Mouse, and probably someone at shoreline and the greek theatre, but then we need to bring up pollstar for San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley where there are hundred more small shows. However the average place has about 3 bands playing with 1 being local. The average venue in the pollstar list holds less than 200 people. If those 200 people each pay $10, that makes a door of $2000, split between 3 bands, and 5 members a band makes a take of $133 per person. even if the split isn't even the headliners don't get all that much more, say $200/person. They also had to travel to get there, gas, maintance, maintain their gear, guitar strings, drumsticks, tubes for their amps. They need to sleep somewhere (this past weekend the floor to my apartment was used for a band that is an absolute critics darling and on a very large indie label Matador, who pay their artists well). They need to eat, and probably can't very easily cook for themselves, since they have only a cramped van. You may say $200 is a good deal for a couple of hours of work, well, they had to get to the show usually driving several hundred miles, they had to load in, and load out, practice. Also you can't tour all the time, the more you visit the same city the less money you make per show as people stop coming, as they have seen you already. All in all it's a tough life that doesn't make too many people that much money.
Man or Astroman? has a few articles from 1996 about the economics of touring you should read it before flapping your lips. I know people who do this shit for a living, touring ain't where the money is at, generally they lose money, if they are lucky they break even.
"When are you going to realize that complaining about the quality of the music you then download only makes it sound like you are trying to justify criminal activity?"
The people who aquire copyrighted material illegally are not necessarily the same people who say poor quality explains poor sales.
If it were even possible to 'protect' copyrights perfectly, sales would not increase dramatically. The people who were stealing the music would just stop listening. There may be a scant few people who would start paying for music they would have 'stolen' before, but they are insignificant.
The people who are 'stealing' will never pay. The guy who steals an apple pie cooling on a window sill will not go buy a pie if he sees a pie cooling behind a locked pane of glass. He steals the pie because the price of the pie is below what he thinks it is worth, not because he wants it badly enough to steal it. If the cost to aquire the pie exceeds the value he places on it, he won't seek to aquire the pie.
So, regardless of whether one believes that breach of copyright is as bad as stealing concreate items like pies, it is falacious to claim that improving copyright controls will increase content sales.
actually, until July 12th 2004 the Hitler ad was still on Moveon.org's servers at this address:
m ed .mov.FKbxnT3hzaHCcOR7vWvRYmZpbGUtMTM4OQ--.mpg
http://www.moveon.org/images/renamed.again.rena
It's gone now. This was (suprisingly) pointed out by drudge.
Casual Games/Downloads
>> How would you eat then?
> Concerts. It's how artists make their real money anyway....
You might be onto something. Rolling Stone had an article about this recently: Touring revenue doesn't come from ticket sales, but from selling merch. (Merch is short for merchandise.)
Here's a quote from the Rolling Stone article to ponder: "You're not making that much money off records anymore, so until people can figure out how to make a rewritable Hanes Beefy-T, merch is one of the last bastions of individuality, commerce and style that an artist has left."
So you don't like the music but download ten thousand tracks anyway?
Your idea is brilliant and fits neatly into the scheme of US trade laws, with a perfect parallel between patents and trade secrets.
Copyrighted music ~= patented technology
DRM'd music ~= trade secret
Let the labels pick which they want; they can't have both.
I believe in supporting artists that I like, that's why Apple's Itunes is a big hit with me. I can buy just the songs that I like, unlike buying a whole CD for ~$15 just to get one song.
I applaud TMBG for their efforts and for blasting the industry they themselves star in.
Balls. Big, hairy balls.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Why would I pay for music I can freely download from the internet when I'm going to be treated like a criminal either way? At least in the latter case there's no pretense of legitimacy on either side, and I might save myself some cash. If I buy a DRM crippled CD or MP3, I'm basically supporting the record companies' assertion that music fans are criminals.
Here's a hint: As long as the RIAA views music fans as parasites, they'll never offer them anything of true value. The problem isn't DRM; the problem is that the RIAA has an adversarial attitude toward the public which engenders a spirit of retribution among music fans. After having seen themselves and their favorite bands treated like dirt by the record companies, it's easy for the average fan to justify downloading against the RIAA's wishes. Professional musicianship has now become a con game between the RIAA, the band, and the fans. The fans love the bands, the bands love the fans, and the RIAA hates them both. Is it any wonder people turn a blind eye toward illegal downloading?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Speaking for myself: It's not crap just because I hate it. I hate it because it's crap.
Did you know Rolling Stone said the same thing about every Led Zeppelin album released? You're going on the assumption that your OPINION is suddenly a fact that everyone else must go by.
You may think it's crap. That has absolutely no bearing on what everyone else thinks of it (hint: most of the public likes today's music). I know the popular bands around here are either garage electronic acts or really old bands like The Who, but that doesn't mean your opinions are set in stone to cast judgement on us all.
You don't hate it because it's crap. You think it's crap because you hate it. How this simple fact escapes you, I don't know. But next time I hear my country music-listening neighbor driving down the street, I'll be sure to tell him his music is crap, and that I hate it because it's crap, and therefore it is crap.
The songs that you buy are in regular un-DRMed, easy to transfer or put on CD or put in iPod or put anywhere (including kazaa or whatever) MP3 files. On the download page, they ask you nicely not to share the songs on P2P services, but they don't force you not to by locking the songs to your computer with DRM. I like their approach. Sure, I could have illegally downloaded it all, but I like TMBG, and I want to see them make more music, so I'll support them any way I can.
Rush just came out with a new mini-album called Feedback. I looked for it on iTunes, but couldn't find it, so downloaded it from bittorrent. But I kept looking for it on iTunes, and as soon as I saw it, I paid for it. Totally worth the 8 bucks.
Support artists!
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
There *do* exist people who would buy more CDs if they were cheaper, even though they can download MP3s for free. I'm one of them.
I could easily name a half dozen CDs I'd literally buy tomorrow if I could get them for $10 or less. All regular stuff I've seen for sale, but the stores want $16 or $18, and I won't pay that. I haven't pirated the tracks either; I just listen to other stuff. I check the discount racks regularly.
Mute records reduced a load of their back-catalog releases to $10 or less, and that very day I sent in an order for over $100.
If you think I'm lying, you're welcome to call my bluff. I'll name some CDs, you sell 'em to me for $10 each.
I made the same point to a local record store owner. The problem, from his point of view, is that the distributors charge him so much he can't afford to price things at a level the market will bear.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?
First of all, the TMBG interview didn't talk about DRM technology. It just talked about the band holding onto their rights to digitally distribute the music. I suppose that if they wanted to, TMBG could still slap DRM technology and restrictions onto the digital content they give away or sell.
That said, as long as people keep buying up bad (unoriginal, uninteresting, trite, formulaic) music, the record companies will keep selling it. And the sad thing is that people will keep buying it up, because that music sounds original, interesting, and novel to the next upcoming generation of kids who haven't already heard it all before and who are more interested in image and style than in the actual music. Bad music will forever sell, because it will always seem new and interesting to stupid teenagers.
It's interesting to hear people talk about "the music industry" when what is being sold is not primarily the music but the image. For instance, most rap doesn't sell because it's great music. Most rap sells because of its stereotypical woman-as-objects, BLING-BLING bullshit imagery that, for whatever ridiculous reason, millions of black and latino kids (and plenty of race-confused fat white chicks) find appealing. The RIAA ought to be the Retarded Image Assosciation of America, and their industry is the image industry, not the music industry.
The real music "industry" doesn't try to sell image, but instead focuses on the music and message itself. This industry is arguably larger than the big evil "music" industry we all hear about, but it is composed mostly of independent bands and small labels that have nothing to do with the RIAA or the big studios. Bands like TMBG and Primus are more prominent examples, and they actually have more relation to the big RIAA industry than others... but for each independent band you've heard about, there are likely a thousand others that make great music you would enjoy if you could only find out about them. While they do each project their own image, it's not the entire (or main) point of what they do. The focus is on the music itself, and the substance actually exists to back up the image.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
It's true they do not explicitly mention DRM, but by choosing to distribute MP3's for the album they are selling they are basically saying they do not need, or need to support, DRM. Same with the work they did with eMusic which was also straight MP3s.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just saw TMBG in concert last weekend and they were a blast. Just to show you how cool they were, they were selling their new CD "The Spine" two days before its official release which was apparently a no-no, because they told all the bloggers to keep quiet about it. So here I am blabbing about it like a dumbass. But hey, it's just unsubstantiated gossip. Don't mind me.
"Intellectual Property" is a logical contradiction, IMHO.
Property laws were written for that which is tangible. It is extended in 3D space, has mass, etc. In order to replicate it, I have to obtain appropriate material. The more you have, the less I have. That's property. It gets taxed when you transport it overseas, and stealing it is a criminal offense.
Music is just information. Data. It is not tangible. It is not taxed when moved overseas. It can be replicated ad infinitum without material. The more you have, the more I have too.
To try to call music "Intellectual Property" is to try to treat data like it is something it is not, to apply to it laws that were not written for it, to impose upon it arbitrary and inefficient rules of use, and generally speaking to harm the many for the benefit of the few.
The "but the musicians will starve" argument is bunk. People LOVE live shows, and musicians can earn an honest living that way. The music they produce and distribute over the Internet is just free advertising for their live shows. And if you don't like that model, there are even others available which do not mis-apply property laws to information.
$0.02
carrot + stick: free the content, and collect on the storage.
So at least its got that going for it. What a surprise that radios broadcast pop music to a wide audience. Oh, pardon me, but I'm so hip I hate everything. Popular music is good at being popular. If you think it's so formulaic, then: 1. Write a javascript to create popular music 2. Produce an album 3. ??? 4. Profit! It's not so easy to write a hit song; there is a certain art to it. Naturally anything foreign to you "all sounds the same".
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
I think Margaret Cho said it best:
"They were looking for Hitler in a haystack."
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
no-bid contracts too and billions of dollars in business? Of course not, because Paul Begala and James Carville never talk about that.
That's a good sheep. B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a.
PS--in case you didn't get the memo, anyone who seriously attempts to use the lib mantra "Republican Spin Machine" in an argument loses by default.
"Hitler was elected." ... right, and Hitler burned the Reichstag *before* he was elected.
-- thinkyhead software and media
"Did you know Rolling Stone said the same thing about every Led Zeppelin album released?"
4 93 2&pageid=rs.ArtistDiscography&pageregion=tripl e1
No, actually, Rolling Stone loved several of Zep's albums. They certainly loved the Led Zeppelin I:
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album?id=10
I'd call that a gushing review.
They have similar opinions on "Houses of the Holy". I suspect they liked IV (ZOSO) just as much, but the review isn't online.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"A couple of my friends are even now very pissed at me because I absolutely refuse to burn them copies of a couple games."
ergo you have no friends.
Which is par for the course for people who whine about piracy with friends. Friends loan each other stuff. Its the way it goes.
Sorry, you're not actually employed by RIAA. And they're not being mean to you - they just have crappy and overpriced products. Don't like it ? Buy something else. There are a few good indies.
The Raven
Why is it that every single article on TMBG calls them a "quirky pop duo?"
Google reference
Somebody should buy these guys a thesaurus.
It's worth checking out Their download store too if you haven't done so already. They're going to be offering their own bootlegs, interestingly. I imagine they're making a pretty huge profit margin compared to their per-CD profits on regular-old CD's.
1. Write a javascript to create popular music 2. Produce an album 3. ??? 4. Profit!
I know somebody who tells me he has actually tried that, but it actually turned out something like this (if I remember correctly):
Think this nightmare scenario couldn't happen? Something similar happened to George Harrison.
Just stop listening to the Clearchannel stations and tune in to the local college or university station.
You mean like WBCL, the "local college or university station" of Taylor University? When WBCL isn't playing Christian talk shows, it's playing generipop with Christian lyrics. Fort Wayne's FM dial doesn't have a secular college radio station, and there isn't enough locally unused FM spectrum to add one.
Yes, I'm talking like a heathen.
Don't like it ? Buy something else. There are a few good indies.
How can members of the general public discover "a few good indies" or even learn that there is life beyond what is sold at Wal-Mart and Best Buy or played on Clear Channel and Infinity FM radio?
Here in the first verse, we are told that we are entering the realm of Eris herself, The Void, or 'Chao'Town
OK, what the heck does this have to do with Sonic Adventure and Chao Garden?
Assuming Disney eventually fails to sufficiently bribe lawmakers to keep passing copyright extensions, the copyright on every piece of music in your CD cabinet will expire one day.
Nitpick: Even if the Bono Act is the last copyright term extension in the U.S., then by the time copyright in one of the first commercial all-digital recordings (say Like a Virgin by Madonna) expires, it won't be my CD cabinet anymore because I'll be dead and buried, having passed the CD cabinet to somebody else in my last will and testament.
A number of years back, I had a chance to buy the Cutthroat Island (1995) score on CD as an expensive import item. I was reluctant to buy it because it was so expensive....
But I took a chance and heeded the praise other people heaped on this movie score and bought the score....
It was a memorable purchase as I am enjoying the music from that film to this very day! Debney captured 'lightning in a bottle' when he composed that score!
The bold, dynamic closing bars of music on the last CD track of the score should become as famous as the opening four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony!
I have a much lower opinion of R.R. as president than you obviously do, but agree that as far as dead presidents go, he would make a vast improvement over the scumbag currently on the $20 bill. (I wouldn't say that about any other piece of U.S.A. money, not even the one with Salmon P. Chase.)