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..."
That kid is likely destined to become an "arrogant bloke who tends to work in record shops".
I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.
Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on, and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations. And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy albums at all just because they can get them off soulseek or bittorrent or, god forbid, limewire.
If I had to wager I'd suggest the more popular the band, the more they're hurt, relatively, by piracy, with the completely unknowns actually benefiting because then they get exposure--if you haven't yet proved yourself, who is gonna buy your CD? Most stuff is crap. But those that have proved themselves... "hey, I know I like this guy's music but I'm a cheapskate so I'm going to download that anyway." So the unknowns probably benefit in getting a reputation and thus being able to sell CDs. The semi-knowns, the guys most people won't ever recognize and aren't played on the radio, probably hurt the most because they tend to be on smaller independent labels and don't get the big gigs and such well-known groups do--and their CDs are generally less visible, too, this day and age sometimes sold only over the internet.
Now, I have bought CD albums I'd downloaded that I wouldn't have if I'd not. Yes, that happens. But most people just want free mp3s on their portable music player, they aren't concerned about supporting the artist or even having a pressed CD as a collector's item or for preservation. But quit pretending that one counterpoint on the piracy issue or the fact that the effects of piracy are exaggerated by the RIAA especially for famous bands means piracy is universally a "good" thing. For many artists, it's not.
Okay, maybe you can't use them, but that doesn't preclude you from actually telling us what they are.
I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.
Piracy is awesome and great because copyright no longer serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Or do you really think the Berne Convention's life + 50 minimum accomplishes that goal?
In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.
More likely, you'll be dead and your children might see it fall into the public domain.
I saw "might" because if the artist signed away their rights to a corporation, your grand-children will be the first to see it become public.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.
I recently gained a new perspective on this when I reflected on the following:
Let's say a 20 yo composes a new song. It's not unlikely that the person might live to be 90. That's 70 years right there. Add another 70 after the composer's death and you have 140 years of "protection". That means a work entering the public domain this afternoon would have had to be composed in 1869 -- four years after the close of the Civil war, given the current US term of copyright.
Ken Burns wold barely have been able to produce his PBS series as all the letters he quoted would have just been coming off copyright at the time he was working on the series.
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.
Life + 70 means the creator's life + 70 years
So... to give our (great?) grand-children a free world, we should be killing off all the creators now right? :)
"Well you see son, there used to be this thing called a 'rock star', and they made music. But we had to kill them all to set the music free. It was the only way."
I want to know where this idea has come from that making music should make you a millionaire.
Before the 20th century it didn't. Even some of the most respected composers in history earned only enough for a comfortable life, and the talented musicians could only expect a livable wage. Somehow, though, somewhere in the 20th century came the concept that every single mediocre pop act should earn 6 figure sums, and the "best of them" should be earning millions, into eternity.
Traditionally, artists were expected to earn their crust from live shows- something which is not only not harmed by piracy, but actually bolstered by it. And traditionally, recordings and covers and such (insofar as they happened) were sold at only a little above cost.
And somehow, despite this lack of monetary incentive, magnificent music still got made. Musicians made music because it was what they loved to do, and the music scene was a lot better for it.
So enough of the painful regurgitation of the myth that "if you don't pay £10 for an electronic download of the latest album, music itself can't happen". When the music industry returns to a realistic business model, piracy will end.
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.
What is a "local band" when people discover their music through the internet?
The internet equivalent to a local band is a band that is big on whichever sources you use, i.e. myspace, Jamendo etc. It's the bands that your friends have found and link you to. For practical purposes that's a huge difference. Thanks to the internet, I've discovered bands that I love, who will NEVER EVER tour the UK. Why? Firstly because they may be playing a relatively niche genre of music, and would not be able to pull in enough people to make it worthwhile, even if they are excellent in that niche. Secondly because being a "part time hobby" band is pretty incompatible with touring.
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).
You want to see bands live, and you're happy for all musicians to be part-time? Ok, say I blow a couple of weeks' holiday to tour... I'm not going to be touring anywhere near you, am I?
I write/record/rehearse/perform in my spare time. I know I would be able to write far more, far better music if I was dedicated to it full-time. I have the utmost respect for those willing to make that leap, because it's quite a gamble and a sacrifice they are making, especially in this age. Is that good for music? Do you think a band like Radiohead could exist if they weren't 100% dedicated to it? You risk advocating quantity over quality.
...this thing called a 'rock star', and they made music. But we had to kill them all
Where can I sign up for this insanely great plan of yours?
If you're going to make this argument, please use words precisely. What you mean when you say "buy" is actually "donate". Almost by the definition of capitalism, if you are "selling" to somebody who doesn't have to pay you (in fact, probably won't) then you're actually operating a charity and relying on donations to survive.
This isn't necessarily a bad model - as you point out, it has worked before. But it resulted in a stifling and uninnovative musical environment (good for religious folks though). If we're going down that road, society should be entirely clear about it to the musicians of the future. If a child ever says, "when I grow up I'm going to be a musician", we need to tell them - no you're not. Being a musician is a hobby that you do in your spare time.
And if we're going to do that for music, then really we should be consistent and say that for every job that is based on people getting paid for copyrighted works. For instance, if that child says "oh well. in that case I want to make video games!" - same thing. No you're not. You will get a job where you are paid per hour of your labor like the rest of the world.
Ditto for movies, books .... who knows what else in future.
But in reality, nobody wants to take that position. You claim you do, because "people have made music without being paid before", but that logic doesn't really generalize to other things like movies or video games. Music might well survive through the power of the amateur, but the rest probably won't. The popularity of big budget movies and games strongly suggests that most people are not willing to let it go just yet.
And that is why I think you are wrong.
I was right with you until this point. ... hence, these sports stars are in fact worth the millions they are
paid.
The definition of what something is worth is what someone else will pay
This is a pure economic equation: The sport franchise only needs N players* and they have revenue of R. Roughly speaking, the owner of the team is willing to pay "(R - other-expense) / N" per player.
Again, basic economics disagrees with you: there are N seats in the arena and G games. They can't manufacture more, so they are trying to determine the maximum price to sell N * G tickets each season. If you find the price steep that simply means that N * G people** in your area value tickets more than you do.
On a related note, this is why movie stars get paid so much: the movie only needs one star and the production company expects to be able to make millions in revenue, and the belief that certain actors will generate greater revenue. Contrast with stage actors who don't get paid millions due to the limited income on a nightly basis. The important fact out of this is that we don't have to worry that without copyright acting will die. Tom Cruise, on the other hand will have to choose between not working, working as an actor for a lot less, or finding alternate employment.
* For most businesses when they have extra money they can hire more people to try to do more of whatever they do. For a sports franchise they are prohibited from hiring more people, so they instead start to bid more for the better talent, driving the price per person up.
** Where some people value it so much that they purchase multiple games up to and including season's pass.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The first problem is the terminology: "the music industry" does not have a problem with piracy. The "music recording and publishing industry" has a problem with piracy. Note that it's the Recording Industry Association of America that is talking. The recording industry keeps saying that the "music industry" is in trouble, but it turns out it's just the recording industry that's in trouble: the music industry revenue is up.
So if you're interested in helping to solve all this, the first thing is to take back the language: the music industry is not only alive and well - it's growing. People are spending more on music then ever before, it's just the recording industry that needs to adapt. (imho, they can adapt by following in the footsteps of the dinosaur and extinct already...)
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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.
This only holds true in a free and fair market: where, given a free choice, people spend their money on Britney Spears, etc.
The reality is a music market where in practice a cartel of music companies limit choice to maximise the money made on certain artists. They prefer, instead of running 10,000 artists, to sell 10-100, advertising 10.
Companies like Sony-BMG, etc. ceased contracts with _profitable_bands_, as they maximize their profits when marketing costs are smaller, concentrated on a small number of "superstars". The chosen artist benefitted, but mostly the record companies benefitted; the consumer lost choice, and the bands they would have purchased from lost big-time.
For this reason, I consider the record companies anti-music, and am happy to see them go. Its only the advent of easy copying that makes them divert from this policy.
Similar arguments hold for professional sports, unfortunately.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
But I digress: what I meant to say was that the readily-downloaded media are something of a trap. I think we are going to be left with a whole generation that has no idea what their music is actually supposed to sound like.
So what kind of wooden knobs would you recommend for their ipods?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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.