Slashdot Mirror
NYT Opinion Piece on DRM And P2P
bsartist writes "The NYT is running an opinion piece written by a working musician who has a pretty healthy dislike of copy protection and DRM. From the article: 'As for musicians, we are left to wonder how many more people could be listening to our music if it weren't such a hassle, and how many more iPods might have our albums on them if our labels hadn't sabotaged our releases with cumbersome software.'"
I found that piece to be quite interesting.
What was said at the end, in particular, about the record labels feeling that because it targetted college students with the best access to P2P was the reason to put the DRM on it.
But the labels obviously don't see that that would only drive college students to download. If one person buys the CD in the college setting and it won't get on his iPod, he'll inform his friends and they won't buy it, no matter how great the CD is, and will instead go onto a P2P service and download it from a Linux/Mac/Shift-key user who ripped it in 10 minutes anyway.
I begin to wonder if the labels understand cause and effect. And that quite a number of college students are tech-savvy enough to use Linux/Mac/etc. anyway, more so than in the home setting.
Slashdot will post a million articles and opinions from anybody on the Internets that hates DRM, yet never post any opinions that defend it. Who has ever heard of this alleged musician in the first place?
Hey editors, how about some equal time? You don't need to hit us over that head that you think DRM is bad. How about letting us make that opinions ourselves, instead of steering everybody towards that conclusion.
If your music is good, then people will give you donations (especially if you ask). You most likely wouldn't make millions, but you'd be more than able to get by.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If you always treat people as if they are out to lie to you and steal from you, they WILL lie to you and steal from you.
**Record company executives reasoned that because we appeal to college students who have the high-bandwidth connections necessary for getting access to peer-to-peer networks, we're the kind of band that gets traded instead of bought.**
This is a stupid argument. EMI's "protective software" overwrote my sound drivers when I tried to rip a purchased Leahy CD to mp3 so I could then listen to the music on my portable mp3 player. The lesson I learnt? Don't purchase EMI and/or Leahy CDs -- I didn't really need the CD or the hassle in the first place.
If I absolutely have to have the music, I now know it's far safer to download EMI mp3s from the flavour of the week p2p program than it is to purchase the CD.
EMI's "protective software" encourages piracy, not discourages it.
And at least Sony's "protective software" gave you some sort of a heads-up that there was 'extras' on their CDs; EMI didn't tell me a damn thing. I had to figure out what in hell happened to the sound card on my own.
It doesn't surprise me that some artists go for restrictive contracts. But then again, perhaps they're not really true artists.
"Obscurity" is quite relative. OpenBSD is fairly obscure in the big picture, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. It has its niche, and it works there very well. It has many supporters. And the project gets by just fine. The same would go for many artists. If they produce quality music, then word will spread and they will gain fans. Many of the fans will offer financial support. They may not be a household name, but they'll still get by financially.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
All you need: www.bugmenot.com
(and with the Firefox plugin you'll soon forget which sites are encumbered).
I'm sure there are a few people who get fired up about it, but I suspect most people don't care all that much.
I suppose you didn't hear about the Sony DRM debacle did you? Ok, was being sarcastic there as you'd have to be living under a rock not to have heard about it. Then would you mind revising your statement above as obviously MANY people cared a bunch about that and it put DRM right into the limelight...which the RIAA doesn't want it shown. It doesn't want press about DRM or anything like this. They want the people not to "care all that much". But obviously this isn't going to happen as many people got fired up about the rootkit AND the DRM crap.
And as you see, now there's even editorials in the frickin New York Times!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
A great musician can make a living doing live performances. People who need 6 takes of each line in a studio followed by some DSP cleanup and effects are the ones who want DRM to maximize profits through heavily advertised music sales. Several pop stars come to mind. When the music IS the product, you want DRM. When you sell yourself as a musician, you don't.
I have been a working musician for the past 25 years. I've been able to buy a nice house, take care of my family, and I'm putting myself through school right now. All the money that I have made has been through live gigs, or studio sessions. The only royalties I have made have been through collective bargaining agreements between my union and various venues.
The money that is being "protected" by DRM is not the musicians' money, it's the record companies'. And it's clear that their money is not in danger, because the profits of these various conglomerates have gone up by leaps and bounds during this current scourge of "piracy". Just as they did during the last one, and all the preceeding ones, going back to the piano rolls.
Musicians make money by playing music. Publishers make it by selling music. There is a difference.
WTF? Accountants are judges of rock stars? What happened to the music?
But a true artist might be willing to trade freedom and a percentage of album sales to get more people to listen to their music. The recording industry can be a very efficient marketing force, getting music played on the radio, getting CDs placed in stores, getting tours booked and so on and so on.
I really don't see integrity coming into play. Most musicians really don't care about DRM one way or another, or at the very least are ambivalent. For most people "integrity" means having a code of ethics that matches theirs.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
The problem isn't with DRM, it's in the poor implementation (Sony + rootkit = makes everyone on the label look bad), as well as artists believing in a little something called "Fair Use". People who get these CDs can't use them in their iPod, and are required to use a "licensed" player. The discs are questioned on Macs (Finnish government wants to make it illegal to listen to copy-protected materials on Mac, since they don't acknowledge the copy protection), and people are questioning whether they "want" a rootkit on their Windows box (I don't have one, but my Grandmother does), and corporate IT dosen't want the rootkits on their networks, so listening to audio at work became a major pain if you choose to do it the Sony way. Personally, I support the artists, I go to their shows, I buy their CDs (as long as it's not on a "Sony/BMG" label. Some people just don't have that option.
$0.02
If you don't think middlemen serve a purpose, then why, do you suppose, do producers not simply sell directly the consumers?
There's a service in delivery and there's a service in filtration... both of which the music industry provides. Just because someone is a middle-man doesn't mean they're not providing a service. If they weren't providing a service, nobody would ever hand them any money.
--
RumorsDaily
I love music. I love all kinds of music (ok, not so much country). I like listening to music on the way to school. In my car. In the House. My life pretty much has a soundtrack.
Unfortunately, I can't afford music. I make about $10k a year and most of that has to go to more important things - rent, food, and insurance - the necessities of life. Anything left over goes straight to school supplies and books. So, at $16 a pop, I can afford either a single CD, most of which I won't listen to more than once, I can also get a case of Ramen noodles, which will feed me for at least a week. Sure, I could buy songs from iTunes or the like, but then I won't be able to use them anywhere else, and I don't have an iPod, so I'm pretty much left out in the cold.
You leave me with three choices, two of which aren't viable. I can listen to the radio - unfortunately most of our radio stations spend more time advertising and playing dance remixes than anything new (or old). I can go without music - of course music being a joy of my life that would certainly make things duller, if not eerily quieter. I can copy music - I probably won't get caught no matter how strong your penalties are and I can get what I want, when I want it.
Since most people tend to base choice as the result of a rational decision making process that weighs out the pros and cons, why don't you look at the above pros and cons I've mentioned and determine for yourself, what is the rational response to music pricing and availability? To a poor person that loves music the pros of not copying are minimal at best while the cons of copying also minimal. If there is anything the war on drugs has taught us it's that you can't legislate or enforce your way out of a "crime problem". No matter how harsh the penalty, all seeing the enforcers, individuals will always escape the law. So here I leave you with an option, make things easier for all of us poor music lovers out there, or accept the "copied" future...
Sincerely,
A Poor Graduate Student
"but you don't need 50 cent's money to live large (heh), heck, a couple hundred thou a year from touring gigs is fine
And how many artists are successful enough to make six figures touring? Not many.
"so the future will be the same even with 100% music piracy: bands will just make cash from touring gigs and advertising"
And what about everyone elso who is involved with producing the music? All the people who work in the studio, all the people who work on distro, all the people who make an album happen? Do you think that only musicians who self-finance should be able to succeed? How about all the money it takes to get a band to the point where touring becomes profitable? Because the jump from playing small bars to big venues is a huge one, and requires some serious capital.
"it's not morality, repeat IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF MORALITY TO PIRATE MUSIC"
Well, that depends on your morals, now doesn't it? If your morality doesn't account for all the people who worked to make the product you want to listen to (sound engineers, etc), then sure, it's not a question of morality. If your morality doesn't account for the validity of the marketplace, then sure, it's not a question of morality.
Me, I don't like concerts. I can't frickin stand the crowds or the volume. The only way I can support an artist I like is to either send them money directly, or purchase their album (yeah, I know they make crap off album sales).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Question to Slashdotians as to where DO the artists make their greatest revenue? Its it through cd sales or is it through touring?
Do they need the mass media (Video, Radio and record sales) to generate the recognition to have a sucessful tour or do they also reap massive revenue from all media and touring?
Not being a working musician or even a musician at all, here's what I'd do if I were. Even if I was just starting out...
It's very simple. I'd find a non-label corporate sponsor. I'd take my tracks around to Ad agencies and PR firms... talk to the people there about providing some low-cost background tracks or something... find out who their big clients are and approach someone at those companies using my Agency contact as a name drop to get in the door, then try to negotiate a direct deal with them to provide music for whatever they need.
I'd become their 'musical consultant' and 'musician of record' much like an attorney or specialist in IT or any other field would do.
I'd negotiate a 2 year contract to provide my services at a living wage with a little bonus for my special skills. For this, they would get all the loops, soundbytes, jingles, elevator music, whatever they want. In return, I'd get to practice my skills, receive a decent paycheck, spend all my free time in a studio and release my personal creations with any license i want and any distributor who I think will do a good job.
Few corporations would have any incentive to want to keep me for much more than that but if they did, so much the better when I shopped around for a new sponsor with a better contract. The better I got at providing them with a musical brand, the more valued I'd become. After a few corporate gigs, I'd hopefully have enough saved to release something that would do well on the charts and could decide to go independent.
In the meanwhile, I could supplement my income with agency work directly... seeing as how I'm good at providing corporate musical brandind now... agencies know I can perform and get the job done.
Maybe I'd never be a media superstar, but I'd probably make a lot more money in the end and have creative control of both my music and my reputation.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
My recent strategy has been to purchase CDs directly from the artists at their shows. Not only are they making some cash from me at the shows, but frequently they have their older albums on sale as well as cases of their current work. Does this mean the label is totally out of the picture? Maybe not, but sometimes. I have purchased "pirated" CDs from the artists themselves because the f'ing label didn't think it worth their time to make more. Sure this won't work for the FOTM pop bands, but I don't listen to that junk anyway. Big bands like the Rolling Stones? Local used CD stores and discount racks, baby. I plan on doing all I can to give as little as possible to big labels.
The poor guy is just conflicted, and wants the best of both worlds: he wants it free for people to listen to, but they gotta pay for it to make him rich. I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money. For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
Aw, come on now, give us musicians a little more credit than that. Some of us, like Damien, are educated, motivated, quick-thinking folks who are trying to make a *living*, not necessarily millions, from playing music. Does that make us stupid? It shouldn't, not if music fans still want music to listen to.
This is clearly a two-way street: musicians should be figuring out the best way to produce good music and get it to fans and potential fans, and fans should be concerned about whether the system encourages the good musicians at the bottom to rise to the top.
One facile answer is to say, "Give the music away for free and make your money from playing live. If you can't play a live show, you shouldn't be trying to make a living this way."
The problem with this argument is you'll lose out on all the great musicians who (a) construct amazing music using the studio itself as an instrument (vide Radiohead, who still put on a great live show, Praxis, you name it -- even Mingus overdubbed a bass solo from time to time), and who (b) have something to offer you but for one reason or another can't tour. Ever tried touring? Ever tried it with kids? With a job that doesn't let you take more than a few days off at a time? With a bad back?
The easy answer is not the right one, not in a situation where we want good music from both the well-known and the obscure. And don't think that indie labels are somehow the be-all, end-all; any musician on an indie label can tell you plenty of stories to put an end to that fantasy. Some indies have their hearts in the right place, but no money to realize their intentions; some are little people trying to be industry players; and others, a very few, do it right.
The labels owe it to the musicians and to the fans to put out music in a format and at a price that makes sense. The fans owe it to the musicians to support them financially if they like the music. One positive model for P2P is this: download some tracks by a band you've never heard, or from an album you don't know; if you like the music, go buy the album. If you don't like the music, you won't those tracks on your hard drive anyway, so erase them.
The question for my model, and for many other similar suggestions, is this: can we all trust each other?
Not that it will ever happen in our lifetime for audio files, but there will be some advancement in audio that will only be avaliable on DRM, it's only a matter of time. Maybe it will be some newfangled 42 channel lossless surround sound that we haven't even concieved of yet.
.ogg and .flac. Look at DVD to .avi software.
Wrong. The new format is the portable music player, iPod et al. And it's worse quality. People bought it because it did things that big, high quality stereos didn't do at all, like fit in your packet and play any song in your collection on random.
If a new stanbdard in sound quality did emerge, and was truly in demand, sooner or later an open-source version would follow. And rippers to remove the DRM. Look at
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There's a powerful incantation specially designed to deal with shopkeepers:
Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended.
The mere mention of the phrase is enough to send a shiver down the spine of even the hardest retailer; junior sales assistants have been reduced to gibbering wrecks by a particularly powerful rendition. Goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose described. If you explicitly mentioned at the time of sale that you intended to transfer it to an iPod and were not advised that this would not be easy, then the album is not fit for purpose and you are entitled to a refund. Even if not, if you were given reason to expect that this would be easy, then you might have a case.
But in any case, you can rip DRM-protected "CDs" to an iPod. You might need Slax if you aren't already a penguin-shagger. Even if your PC is infected by the Sony rootkit, Linux has its own set of drivers and will see the audio tracks just fine.
This practice is legal as long as you don't get caught. If you are unlucky enough to get arrested, insist to go to Crown Court. As long as there are two people on the jury who have ever taped an album, you'll walk free -- and establish a precedent. The case is most likely to collapse before it gets to trial, so don't bother booking the day off work.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!