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?"
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
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!
What's wrong with MoveOn.org?
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
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
Why wouldn't a musician make sense about DRM? Musicians are creative, intelligent people. (The ones that aren't "manufactured" anyway). They also generally get royally screwed by the RIAA, etc, the whole 5 cents on the dollar generated, etc. I doubt that piracy really affects their cut at all. They tend to value the music, much more than the record executives. I am actually suprised more musicians aren't making sense about DRM.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The RIAA, unfortunately, doesn't care about individual bands. It only cares about the recording studios. Why? Because is was formed by, and is controlled by, the studios. From their perspective it makes sense to push DRM and the latest craze (a la Brittney Spears), because this is what makes them the most money.
They are not, like some have supposed, in it for the long haul as far as any one band is concerned. Older bands do not make as much money off albums as do newer bands (generally speaking), because they can't tap into the market that spends the most--teenage kids.
The teenage kids buy more cds, go to more concerts, and purchase more paraphenalia than other demographics. This is because they aren't generally paying any bills, and are rarely saving money (if they even have a job--many recieve an "allowance", which just makes folks lazy).
Thus, from the marketeers perspective, it makes sense to engender one craze after another, because these are what make money. Granted, they will squeeze every penny they can from every artist they can, but the big money isn't there for bands like TMBG.
That said, I do agree that in the long run, bands that care about their fans, and that care about making music, are the ones that I generally enjoy listening to more.
Think about the difference in attitude illustrated by, "I want to be a rock star", compared to, "I want to play music". The one is focused on being rich, famous, and having lots of neat toys. The other focuses on playing great music, and if the other (money, fame, etc) comes to them, great.
Brittney Spears is not around for the long haul because she doesn't care about the music the same way that TMBG.
FWIW, I love their music, but am far from up to date on their latest stuff.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
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.
Only liberals are allowed to call things "hate groups."
That's because conservatives aren't clear on the concept of what constitutes "hate speech".
Here's a little test. Find the example(s) of hate speech from the following:
1) Any n___ers who refuse to move back to Africa should be hanged.
2) George Bush is the most conniving, underhanded President since Richard Nixon.
3) Let's tie this f___ot to a fance and beat him up for flirting with us.
You still don't see the difference do you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Amen and thank you! The Republican Spin Machine's managed to indoctrinate a lot of otherwise-intelligent people into believing that Republicans care about your civil rights. They don't give a damn - they're in it for the money. Democrats care about your civil rights... Unless by "civil rights" you mean "ability to pound my fellow citizens into a pulp financially and steal their money through large-scale corporate fraud". (Enron, Haliburton, etc.)
Pull your head out of the sand. Clinton balanced the budget and generated a small surplus that could have, under a competent President, been used to reduce national debt. Under the Governmental Oppression Party, the Federal Government's got a $500 billion deficit, and your taxes are going up, up, up! (Though at the local level, to make up for cuts in Federal funding, and through other insidious, behind-the-scenes means, like increasing payroll taxes and cutting rebates used by middle- and lower-class citizens)
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
DRM ain't gonna help if no one wants the music.
Last time I checked peer-to-peer download stats, they reflected pretty much the junk ridden top ten billboard: mostly requests for Britney Spears songs and American Pie(?) by Maddona.
Music collections can be worth several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars(mine must be close to 10k), ergo, _any_ DRM is unacceptable.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
But supported far more by the Republicans. I suggest you read about the eight worst internet laws. Of the worst offenders, 18 of the 93 were Democrats. 2 of the worst 25 were Democrats. Once again....
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
Yes, but I fail to see why you think Bush would be any better a steward of your taxes than a democrat. Granted, he did give money back - but he's billons in the hole, and someone will have to pay for it. Maybe not Bush, but I don't believe we can operate at a 300-500 billion a year defecit forever.
I really don't see how we can pay that back without raising taxes back or more, or lowering spending. I really doubt anyone from the major parties is going to lower spending (well not Bush or Kerry) - granted they will spend it in different places, but they will both spend as much I'll bet. Now - unless you believe that money can really come out of thin air, eventually someone will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's spending(well, the whole govt's spending).
I really think it comes down to where you want to see federal money go - coporate interests, business incentives and military - vote GOP. Environment, welfare, and "social programs" vote Democrats. Neither? You are SOL then I think.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
"My only complaint was that they were a bit loud and my left ear is still ringing seven days later)."
Word to the wise - after years and years of attending loud concerts, I and many of my friends are developing tinnitus. Think of experiencing the persistent ringing in your ears all the time.
It's not that you're getting old...it's that concerts are ridiculously (or is that rediculously?) loud and it's a great idea to wear earplugs to protect your hearing from long term damage.
And you might look like a dork, but just think about that guy from Mission of Burma who has to wear OSHA approved ear mufflers whenever he plays. You don't want to grow up to be like him.
seriouslyexcited.net
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.
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