Slashdot Mirror
The Golden Age of Infinite Music
Over at the BBC, music journalist John Harris speculates on what may become of the music business now that we have entered the golden age of infinite music. "I've just poured the music-related contents of my brain into a book, and I would imagine that 30-ish years worth of knowledge about everyone from Funkadelic to The Smiths has probably cost me a five-figure sum, a stupid amount spent on music publications, and endless embarrassed moments spent trying to have a conversation with those arrogant blokes who tend to work in record shops. Last weekend, by contrast, I had a long chat about music with the 16-year-old son of a friend, and my mind boggled. At virtually no cost, in precious little time and with zero embarrassment, he had become an expert on all kinds of artists, from English singer-songwriters like Nick Drake and John Martyn to such American indie-rock titans as Pavement and Dinosaur Jr. Though only a sixth-former, he seemingly knew as much about most of these people as any music writer. Like any rock-oriented youth, his appetite for music is endless, and so is the opportunity..."
you know what I LOVE about piracy?
What I REALLY REALLY LOVE?
All the Spice girls and Brittany spears of this world will burn the quickest. No more bullshit bands manufactured, spliced and merged together for a 'formula' that will make [money/music]. The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
I love VNV Nation, I've never bought an album... I did however see them in Glasgow last week and bought over £100 in merchandise because I want to ADVERTISE them... if they come back here again I'll do it again
Who is the biggest fool? paying for the music and paying to advertise your favourite band? I dont think so .
Gone is the era of the multi-millionaire superstar (although they will still make money) and why the hell not? they are just doing a job like anyone else - and as a bonus they actually like doing their job!
Now I need the same to happen to sports stars and I'll be happy. NOBODY is worth millions of dollars/pounds and I'm sure the fans would love to knock 60% off the already inflated ticket prices.
People will pay for what they believe in, the main difference here is that most of the music out there now is shite. You talk about all the small bands losing the most... why? they already make sweet F all as it is. Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby. Lets also be honest here, it does not matter how little you people artists... music will ALWAYS be made (and people will always play football).
Let them burn, we are over it already.
Now, there's no where on earth most of us could afford to pay for all the content we consume.
Perhaps because we consume so much more because we aren't worrying about paying for it.
My father sits most of his days off in his chair reading and listening to an oldies station that plays the same 20 or so albums every day. I sit in my office at work and listen to a 1000 or so albums I've "acquired" sorted based on last listened to. That means I only hear the same song about once every couple months. We are listening to more music I'd say than previous generations just because we have convenient portable music devices, but we consume vastly more music than the previous generation just because we don't re-listen to things as much. Instead of getting an album a week or whatever instead whenever an artist we like, or even just an artist is recommended to us comes around we hit the internet and grab everything they've ever made. Maybe we only listen to it once and delete it but we don't care because we didn't pay for it.
As for "music literacy" improving: perhaps. However I'd dispute most claims that it has any value. Very few people have work related to music, or even do any sort of critical thinking about the music. Heck most of my friends will even admit they don't care about the lyrics and haven't ever read them for their favorite bands. Music is just background noise that sounds good to us, that is about the extent that must of think about it. Being able to identify a band and name a song are very unlikely things to come up in a job interview or even in a social situation where people's view of you would depend on whether you know the answer or not. Its just trivia like people that can quote batting averages: no one really cares except the drunk idiot in the bar that is going to fight you during an argument over it.
The original poster's statement was incorrect, but so is this. Life + 70 means the creator's life + 70 years, not mine. I could very easily live to see the copyright expire on works created in my lifetime, assuming that they were created when I was very young and that their creators died shortly thereafter. All I have to do is live seventy years beyond the age I was when they died, and pray that Congress doesn't extend it further...actually, you're right, I'll never see it happen.
I completely agree with you. Now, there is a factor that acts upon the rest of the world that is probably not seen inside the US, and completely ignored by most publishers. We usually pay A LOT of taxes to get some things imported. I live in Brazil (one of the countries that have more taxes in the world), and my friends in the US can't believe how much I pay for some things like CDs and books.
An example is the Andy McKee albums. I really admire that guy. His album costs 14.95 at his publisher's website, a very reasonable price. When I look at sites to buy this in Brazil, I get the price of R$ 95 for the imported version. At a conversion rate of almost 2:1, this would be about USD 45. Now, remember we are in a third world country, and you can assume that we get paid half (for a good job, and I am being very optimistic here) of the average in the US. If you look at the percentage of money you spend in this things in relation to how much you earn, its a huge price. I would go to his show to support him, but travelling to another continent to do this is not an option.
You in the US may imagine as well paying $100 or $150 for each album you want. Of course, not everything costs that much. All big artists are redistributed in scale by local publishers, and the price drops to $15 - $30. But most of the bands I like are not big, and the only option is to either import or buy the MP3 online, which I do sometimes. Books are more of a problem, since they need to get translated to be re-published, and this is much harder, specially the ones for very specific topics.
Still, the parent post is right at the fact that we simply have too much choice. Yes, I would love to have money to pay for absolutely everything I download, but I simply don't have. And its not a matter of getting a better job, its simply impossible for a regular person that pays all the taxes, support the family, etc. I pay for some, I support them when I can. Its just impossible to support all of them. Also, I can read english and have an international credit card to buy PDFs and MP3. Its not the case of the majority of the people, specially regarding music.
And I'm sorry, but I won't stop listening to music or reading books just because I don't have money to buy them. It may sound unfair, but its the truth.
The thing is, people don't torrent Beyonce to protest the copyright status of Richard Strauss. They just want free stuff. If the duration of copyright were revised drastically downward, people would still pirate the most current music. I'm not defending life+70 - it's patently insane (ha ha) - but let's not pretend it has any bearing on this issue.
The thing is, people don't torrent Beyonce to protest the copyright status of Richard Strauss. They just want free stuff. If the duration of copyright were revised drastically downward, people would still pirate the most current music. I'm not defending life+70 - it's patently insane (ha ha) - but let's not pretend it has any bearing on this issue.
But that's the crux of the issue: copyright is effectively meaningless to most people.
Whatever rights the artist may claim, the majority don't recognise them. If they felt some duty to pay, they would do so. But they don't. Nor do they feel that what they are doing is wrong, in spite of being told so. Sharing music appeals to the same part of human nature that gossip does - it's sharing of interesting information in order to solidify or improve one's status in a given group. It's an activity that's always been done freely, with no thought of (direct) recompense.
The whole issue of so-called piracy is based on what, to most people, is a non-sequitur: 'The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore every one of you who listens to me has to pay.' The second statement simply doesn't follow from the first assertion. Worse, the question of who gets paid (and how much) quickly becomes a morass that's interesting only to those involved.
For most people, their debt to the artist is measured in goodwill and little more. Sometimes that goodwill translates into an album purchase, a concert ticket and maybe a t-shirt, but that's incidental. One brilliant example: Bruce Springsteen walks by a busker singing one of his songs, decides to join in. Everyone is treated to a live performance. And nobody puts a penny in the hat. Not even Bruce.
I think ultimately that the entire framework of 'droits d'auteur' (author's rights) will have to be re-conceived before a renewal of the social contract between artist and audience can be considered.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.