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?"
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.
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.
I'm sorry, but have you listened to some of the crap that is getting a lot of airplay? I mean, a week ago, one of the record stations played the first single off of some blonde pop-tart's new album, and it was a cover song. (What does it say about the rest of the album if the first single pushed is a cover? To me it says the rest of the album reaks.)
Quite frankly, after hearing Hoobastank's "The Reason" for the 157th time in a week, I am tired of hearing it. Or any of the other "we must play this song every couple of hours" hits.
And if there's one good song on an album, and the rest of it sucks liquid monkey ass through a straw, then there is damn little reason to buy the entire CD. And unless that one good song is available through iTunes or any of the other legitimate music download services, I don't honestly expect most people to pony up $17-$20 for one song.
Just because he hates it doesn't mean it's bad music. But it doesn't make it good music either.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Economics. They don't believe that the quality of the music justifies the price the labels demand for it so they use a supply mechanism that provides the music at the price they believe the music deserves.
How many times have you or your friends waited for an averageish game to drop to bargain bin prices and then bought it because you didn't want to pay the initial retail price? Same idea.
If the music lables produced things people really, really wanted and they have high enough perceived value to justify the price then they would sell more, but in the absence of this and in the presence of cheaper supply mechanisms they aren't going to get anywhere.
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)
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!
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking for myself: It's not crap just because I hate it. I hate it because it's crap. Slight difference.
It's crap because it's all the same. Unless you have heard the song before, or are a fan of the artist, it is virtually impossible to tell who the artist IS. Truly distinctive sounds are few and far between, and original sounds are rarer still. All the music industry seems to be concerned with today is manufacturing an image so they can sell shoes and soft drinks, not promoting creative music.
The end result is that on all but the rare occasion, what gets palyed on the radio is trite.
=Smidge=
It's not so much about making people WANT to pay... it's about people not feeling like they just took it in the ass after buying a new disc.
Say you buy a new CD for $15, because of a song or two you heard on the radio. But when you sit down and listen to the whole album, the rest of it is total crap. Then you might (justifiably) feel ripped off.
On the other hand, say you throw down the same $15 for a different CD. When you listen to the whole album you discover that the entire disc is amazing. You would most likely feel that the $15 was well worth the price.
The problem is that many times current CD offerings leave the buying unsatisfied at the purchase price. After repeated purchases leave the same unsatisfaction, the consumer is more likely to just say "screw paying for this crap, i'll just download it and see if i like it."
-- disclaimer: I don't want to hear "you should listen to the whole disc before buying it" because thats rather inconvienient, time consuming, etc etc. --