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?"
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.
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.
My stuff doesn't have DRM. But then again I'm no TMBG.
Radio used to be great for artist exposure. Well, it still is, for sufficient values of $artist as determined by the RIAA...
GTRacer
- Needs an in-car MP3 changer BAD!
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
There's plenty of good music out there. The entertainment industry isn't going to die just because Joe Beer-Belly here can't find any that he likes. What are you going to do, Joe -- complain on Slashdot? Ooh, that'll send a message to the RIAA.
But that's actual hard work! Artists would be forced to keep on working, like a plumber or a programmer, in order to continue earning a living. That's just absurd!
Artists (read: LABELS) should naturally have the Right To Profit(TM) from artificially scarce old "intellectual property" for life+(next_copyright_extension) years.
--
Power to the Peaceful
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?
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 personally wouldn't have a problem with someone coming into my house and copying everything in it.
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.
DRM is bad. While we may have difficulty making it completely illegal, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to grant copyrights only to those artists that don't use DRM, and to revoke their copyrights if they ever do use it.
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?
That's precisely why DRM is bad. Music _IS_ different. We grant copyrights, but those copyrights are limited in scope; it is perfectly legal to engage in fair uses of music. It is perfectly legal to reproduce music within the scope of AHRA. It will be perfectly legal to reproduce music for any purpose we arbitrarily make legal tomorrow. And the Constitution requires that copyrights expire -- so when the term is up, anyone can do anything with the music and it is totally legal.
These sorts of limitations that benefit the public are a significant difference as to ordinary personal or real property. Copyright is expressly and deliberately designed to benefit the public -- not the artists, not the publishers. DRM interferes with that, because it is a lock that does not ONLY protect against illegal uses, while allowing ALL legal uses, and because it does not magically evaporate when the copyright expires, and because the law can change all the time, and DRM already applied to a work will not.
I would rather have the law be the ONLY protection on works because it is the only one that can even slightly be trusted to fulfill the public interest and incorporate those limits are as necessary for the public to be the most satisfied.
Using DRM is like putting up a wall around a public park; maybe the park is only open at certain hours, but the wall closes it off all the time, and is therefore intolerable. It needs to be destroyed.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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."
You're joking, right?
Here, I'll say it... and my face is as straight as they come.
MoveOn.org is NOT motivated by their hatred of Bush.
Sure, many MoveOn.org members hate Bush and what he stands for. But it's not like he hasn't given them ample reason.
MoveOn.org is motivated by their members' common love of personal and social freedom. Something Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft at al are systematically and carefully trying taking away from anyone whose opinion differs from theirs ("you're either with us or against us" remember).
I guess if you only have a "half a brain" your view may be a little skewed. I have a whole brain, and I know the truth.
-- This sig for rent.
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
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.
I haven't bought anything mainstream for YEARS because of that nonsense. Hasn't been anything worth it. Stuff I have from a few years ago, coupled with the independent artist stuff I have from recent years, is enough for me. That, and I don't tend to spend much time in places where I'd be just sitting around listening to a CD anyway.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I've noticed very similar prices for most new releases in major stores and record chains. In the second-hand stores, you generally have to wait a couple of weeks to a couple of months before that same CD will show up at half price.
Plus, I'm not about to drive all over the city (much less the state) to save money on CDs. (Yes, I could call, and it's always possible that the people at the stores won't be incompetent, but I know for a fact that they are, in fact, incompetent in the music section of Best Buy, so why waste time calling?)
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
- 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.
I don't like Hillary on a personal level, but I wouldn't resort to lying about her, or anyone. But I don't have a fear of powerful women.
That MP3 is damned funny. Thanks.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
That's exactly true! Personally, I love owning an original CD. I make a point of still purchasing originals for my favourite bands. I find that having the cover art and liner notes is sometimes an intrinsic part of the album (eg: Neil Young - Greendale).
What I do hate is that most of the moeny I pay for an original disc never gets anywhere near the artists that I love. Hopefully this can change. I'll still buy albums from artists I love if they were to distribute them directly. I'd even pay (almost) the same price a label wants to charge, if only the entire profit went to the artists.
-Ben
..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..."
If this kind of world of abundance (digital AND material), the only reason you could have to care if somebody copies your product design, is if you're a greedy control-freak bastard who's still in love with the structure of the old socio-economic hierarchy.
"Greedy"? "Control-freak"? Strong words.
How about just being a 30-something man trying to provide a comfortable existence for his family? Somebody who really wishes his children grow up to be engineers, scientists, or teachers?
Somebody who home-schools all 5 of those children? Would you recommend I work 60+ hour weeks to provide for the needs of others, and then not ask for reasonable remunerations?
Until your "atom-by-atom" duplicator actually exists, you are standing way too far out in left field to be part of the game.
You can wait for the atom duplicator and give away your sweat and toil, if you feel it's right.
In the meantime, I'll do what I must to live up to the expectations of my role as a caring husband and father. I'll use Open Source software wherever it makes sense, and give back to the community whenever I can, and use DRM where it makes sense to protect my assetts.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The music industry is in the process of blindly choking itself.
Firstly, they release very little music that I at least would like to buy. All the complaints about mass produced crap seem very largely true to me.
Secondly, they are in the process of alienating their best fans by busily sueing them all. Music is fast losing its appeal. A switch in public opinion that makes music in general an un-cool thing is a distinct possibility.
Thirdly, DRM is likely to suffocate the publicity the music industry craves. I am not surprised at the results of a survey recently that showed the people with the higest rate of music purchases were also the people with the highest rate of music downloads.
I have only sought to buy 2 CDs so far this year. I saw an artist called Dido doing a spot on TV, and liked her enough to try to buy her latest CD. But I discovered that the CD was fitted with "copy protection". That means that I can't play it on my PC, which is where I would choose to listen to it most often, while working or browsing. Instead, I would have to wait until Wifey is not watching the TV, and listen in that room instead. I also understand that the DRM reduces the sound quality, which might not matter on the PC I can't play it on but certainly would matter on the hi-fi that I would have to use to listen to it. No sale.
The one CD that I did buy was of an artist that I had not heard of until someone at work gave me a USB keyring with a set of MP3s on it, and said he thought I would like that. He was right. But this was his 5th try. The other 4 albums he gave me copies of have long since been deleted after listening to once. Many tracks I only listened to the first half of. One track I actually listened to 3 times, but it didn't grow on me.
When I was younger, it was very common to borrow music from friends who liked it and thought I might too. Talking about music and lending it was a great social thing. I realise now (I didn't at the time) that the record companies didn't want that to happen - read the small print on any LP or CD. But this was the primary way of finding out what music there was that you might want to buy. Much more so than listening to the radio. DRM could kill that grapevine off completely, making it pretty-much impossible for people to ever find out about music. And if you don't know it exists, you'de not going to buy it, are you.
I am sure that the 5 albums I have received copies of, four of which I quickly deleted and the other of which I bought a CD of, have all been counted in the statistics as revenue lost to copying, whereas they have in practice lost none. They have GAINED revenue in the sale they would have not otherwise have made, and have lost revenue on a DRM protected CD that I would otherwise have bought. But of course, they don't want to hear that.
"I was just talking with a colleague about this... I mentioned that people pirate because bad music dominates the airwaves. How is someone supposed to know if they're gonna like a CD if it's never played? Our top-40 station plays a short rotation that I bet I could get on a dozen or so CDs. What about the 200 other discs at BestBuy?"
I'd be far more sympathetic with the RIAA if the return of music was opened up to 'satisfaction guaranteed'. One big reason why anybody'd download music instead of buying it is the "you open it, you bought it, too bad it sucks" cycle.
"Derp de derp."
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
I am assuming no such thing.
Speaking for myself: This is my opinion and I do not speak for anyone else because I understand other people may feel differently.
It's not crap just because I hate it: I do not like most modern music. (The "most" part I explicitly stated later in my post, so don't even go there.) However I recognize that this is my opinion and that does not automatically make it universally the worst music ever.
I then go on to explain the reasons why I feel it's crap.
To turn your own argument against you, you are explicitly stating that it's NOT crap simply because "most of the public likes it". I can just as easily state that if "most" children believe in Santa then he must exist. Of course I'll have to proove that "most" children believe in Santa first, but you also have to proove that "most" people like "today's music". Does this also mean that if "most" of the people living in the Southern US circa-1830 approved of slavery, it wasn't cruel and inhuman? Oh no, because the undefined statistic that "most" of the general population is for or against something is totally irrefutable, because the majority voice can't possibly be wrong!
This does not mean, however, that my opinion weighs any more than yours, or anyone else's. It's just that I find your argument that something must be true because lots of of people believe it just as absurd as the statement you claim I've made.
It is a FACT that much (far too much, IMHO) of the music played on the radio and on TV is manufactured, formulated, overhyped and optimized for sensationalism and marketability. Then it's ruthlessly drilled into the heads of the general public hour by hour on the airwaves. maybe "most" people like it because they're never exposed to anything else? If you enjoy the cookiecutter tunes churned out by the record labels then by all means give them your money. I'm sure they won't mind.
As a personal preference I prefer originality and honesty in the music and the ideas it prepresents, so I'd rather my money go to the artists that produce it.
Perhaps I'm not the one who can't see outside his own perspective?
=Smidge=