Surely he can't be arrested for publishing a tool to do this, as he did it outside the States and he's not an American citizen? That would be an outrageous (though not surprising) abuse of US powers.
If he's simply been arrested for giving that presentation (great presentation judging by the slides) - then this seems like a great case for blowing the DMCA farce wide open.
You're a liberal individual, but you want laws regulating other people's behaviour, even when it doesn't affect you?
Prostitution isn't abuse of women, and making it illegal doesn't make it go away. Or were those women in NY offering me a good time just going to take me to Disney Land?
As for your other assertion about tolerating drug use. All the evidence is the other way (unless one includes actual drug use itself as a crime, I guess. Though even there, drug use in the Netherlands has gone down, while everywhere else in Europe it's on the rise). Drug related crime is a huge proportion of all property crimes (muggings, thefts, low level frauds etc) by people trying to get the money to pay the inflated prices of most drugs (inflated by simple market economics of supply and demand. Make something illegal, supply tends to go down). Legalised, it would cost a fraction of what it now costs, reducing the money addicts would need to pay for their next fix.
Of course where I live in London, the police haven't actually bothered enforcing drug posession laws in a long time, but that's another story...
Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?
Nestle, the United Fruit Company, Unilever, Shell...
A lot of large corporations trade happily with regemes that are far worse than either of those two (Burma comes to mind), and actively help put down dissent (money, lobbying the US government, etc). What do you think the ethnic cleansing of East Timor was about?
It's no coincident that corporatism, fascism and communism came about at roughly the same point in time. They share a similar mind set (centralised power, conformism, uniformity). Fascist Germany was, ignoring the nutty philosophy, an attempt to create a corporation in the political and social sphere. Large corporations loved it. They traded with it, jeez Coke took active advantage of the war to build Coke Europe into an unassailable position (they were granted a virtual monopoly, and created Fanta to take advantage of it).
Yes, but no. Some strands of it are amazingly pragmatic (the earliest, and best critiques of fascism and communism were from anarchists). Trouble is that it requires people to be a lot more intelligent and responsible than most probably want to be/are.
But, yeah, libertarianism is for rich geeks who don't want to grow up.
The right side emphacizes personal fiscal responsibility and collective moral responsibility.
So their propoganda would have you believe. Funny how they're more than happy to use government to back their personal moral beliefs/to enrich their interests.
Most gigs lose money, or break even. Or did that bit of the article pass you by?
And most of the musicians cited in the article aren't millionares, but people who get paid a lot less than "over paid software geeks". Musicians do badly enough as it is, without you taking their main source of income away.
Studio, instruments, engineers, producers. Or did you think it grew on trees? Not mention the fact that if you want to get good, you have to practise, get lessons/coaching and spend a lot of time on it. Not things that coexist particularly well with a day job.
And for those who think that home studios are the answer, I have one word for you: 'acoustics'.
Signed musicians hardly make anything from recordings. If an artist holds all the rights on a recording then can make about $4 per CD sold.
Well possibly. But out of that they've got to meet recording costs, promotion costs, legal costs, etc. And they've got to pay those costs ahead of any sales for the most part. And if the record bombs, they have to eat those costs. Currently record labels eat those costs, and hence take all of the risk. The current arrangement is very unfair to artists, but it's not quite as unfair as some people seem to imagine.
Now, keep in mind that most artists do not have many rights in regards to the recording--they sign that away to the record companies!
...who paid for that recording. Though admittedly, the artist normally ends up paying for it out of their royalties. Dunno, grey area this one. Rights revert.
This basically means that they do NOT get paid per recording. This is rubbish. They get paid royalties for each recording. If the recording doesn't recoup the record company's bizarre definition of costs (everything), then you don't get paid. The extent to whic this is true, depends on the artist and how switched on they are. Don't forget, most recording artists get screwed because they're lazy and greedy.
They may get a signing bonus but be damn sure that they HAVE to tour to make money. Depends. True of some artists, other artists lose money touring, but do it for promotional reasons.
It used to be that musicians would tour to promote a recording. Most still do. I'm not convinced that that's a good thing though. Tired of waiting for your favourite artist's new record. Have to wait for them to finish touring first...
Now most of us don't see many indy artists! We pay out the rear to see the Stones, or the Eagles (just examples folks).
Don't see this changing. Most people like offal. Haven't noticed the internet changing that.
No longer does an artist tour to promote his/her work (unless they are indy, Ani DiFranco has an INCREDIBLE tour schedule and STILL releases more recordings than most) hee/she tours because that is the only avenue the record lable they signed thier life away to will let them make any cash.
Actually touring is still the best way to break a new band in America.
Now, computers have given artists the ability to exist outside of the labels. There is absolutly NO WAY that Ani DiFranco would have been able to do 20 years ago what she has done over the last 10! Rubbish. There was this little thing called punk... Fugazi and the Dead Kennedies were doing it in the 80s. The internet and computers make it easier to run your career, but it's never going to be easy, and most bands either won't be particularly good business men, or will just lack the energy.
Digital power has finally made the umpteen-million-dollar recording studio of yesterday obsolete! Well sort of. Good acoustics are still important though.
The Internet will make the traditional marketing-chain obselete! More Ani's will flourish in this New Media age. Not because they want the money, but because the love what they do.
Yeah, heard that one before. I suspect things will change a lot less than you think. Some artists will take advantage, a few will do well out of it, most won't.
If they are good, they will become popular and the economy of scale will give them the money they need to tour/promote/continue doing what they love.
Doubt it. Most people's taste sucks. That isn't going to change.
Electronic musicians don't tour? What about Orbital? What about Crystal Method?? What about... Jeeze, a whole crapload of "electronic" musicians that tour?
What about Biosphere? What about Squarepusher? Mu-ziq (does tour occasionally, never works. It's a bloke with a sampler, sequencer and DAT machine. Great). Orbital and (sound of vomiting) Crystal Method are the exceptions, not the rule.
That's not the point though... the point is that the industry as it stands now is an inefficient dinosaur that prevents the really good musicians from making the money they deserve for their talents
Large record companies are large corporations. They're inefficient. And? There are good small record companies out there.
Artists have always been ripped off. The current system rips them off less than any previous system. May not be a good system, but the alternatives are?
Bands on major labels for the most part do badly. So do most founders of companies who get into bed with venture capitalists. It's a tough world out there, and those with the money hold most of the aces. However I'm not convinced that the Fugazis of this world will do any better under this new brave world either
And the thing is, record companies do a lot more than just distribute CDs. Promotion, advance money, engineers, MTV videos and buying the artists drugs are just as important. That won't change.
An increasing number of people DON'T listen to the radio anymore, they listen to their own cd's that they've purchased.
They DON'T listen to the radio. Cor! Those rebels. Course some of us weren't listening to the radio 5 years ago...so I'm not entirely sure what your point is there...
The ability to take the tracks from freinds as mp3's and burn them to cd's to make their own custom audio is increasingly making the radio even more obsolete.
And buying CDs I shouldn't wonder. Which is great for you. Not sure it's so good for the "Sea and the Cake's" of this world.
The radio is the pander baby to the recording industry and the media. *shrug*
That's not a nice thing to say about my local pirate stations. or KMFDM for that matter. Most radio stations are crap, yes. Sad fact is what most people want is crap (course I'm mostly into free jazz, improv, noise bands and contemporary classical - so I'm possibly a bit biased). That won't change.
when the industry changes to where the money is made in selling single tracks to be burned onto one cd... Then you'll see the majority of bands either changing their tunes.. or going out of the business.
Out of business? I thought we were talking about art? This is my problem with all of the suggestions I've seen for how you can make money out this way. They all treat music as a commodity. Some have suggestions for selling T-shirts. Which is treating music as if it was some kind of loss leader that helps establish a brand. Which is depressing (and won't work for bands whose fans don't wear T-shirts. Not everyone's a computer geek, or student).
Others talk about touring as if that's what all real bands want to do (and if they don't, then they're lazy). They don't. Some bands just don't work live. And plenty of bands can only afford to tour because their label funds it. The economics of the music business aren't as simple as the average slashdotter seems to think, but then the average slashdotter seems to believe that the entire new economy could be funded by T-shirt sales.
The only way for them to make serious money would be for them to create an entire album of GOOD music... If their music is sold by tracks... what's the incentive for them to make a cd with only one hit selling song on it?
No idea. Not in the habbit of buying music by hit artists myself. I think you're complaining about being manipulated by marketing into buying poor albums. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll find new ways to sucker you.
I'm not gonna buy the whole album.. that's just dumb.
I seem to remember something called, err, "singles". I'm sure the record companies will adapt. Coopting revolutions is what they do best. They got hardcore and rave in the end after all.
Once again... Number of CD's I've purchased in the last 5 years from hearing ILLEGAL Mp3's of them. 28... Soon to be 35 (Income tax return check). Number of CD's I've purchased in the last 10 years because I've heard the band on the radio?? NONE!
28! In 5 years! That's, dunno, pathetic really.
I may be the exception to the rule right now.. but it's changing in my direction more every day.
You're probably right. 'cept for the bit about you buying CDs. Things don't change that much, and most of the people I know who copied CDs from friends onto tape, didn't subsequently go out and buy them. If anything, I would imagine that MP3s will make them even less likely to. I mean what's the incentive. Easier to get the music online...
And that's what worries me. At the end of the day I want the musicians I like, to be able to afford to make their music. The more time they can devote to it, the better for me
So how's that going to work for Squarepusher? Or Oval? Or bands who use overdubs and technology to create sounds that can't be created live. What about bands who are really good on record, but really suck live? Not everyone's in a garage band. And the Steve Albini letter? He's talking about bands on large record labels. The terms for bands on indie labels can often be pretty good. Of course they might only get $2, but most of the rest is eaten up in distribution, promotion and creation. Some of those costs will go, but some will always be with us.
I'm sure the pro-MP3 contingent is the same people who used to have "Keep Music Live" bumper stickers.
I'm a great blacksmith.. but all my jobs are out of town. Shouldn't I still be paid if I just sit at home?
Totally bogus analogy. The artist isn't sitting at home, he's working writing music AND recording it. Not everyone can tour (electronic music in particular), not everyone wants to. And in that time that they're touring, they generally don't have the time, energy (and in the case of electronic musicians) resources to create new music. The longer the tour, the more time you have to wait for new music.
All of this of course rests on the analogy that all tours make money. Many don't. Quite a lot lose money, and the costs are treated as a promotional expense. The better the show, the more likely it loses money. The less like a standard rock group the band is, the more likely it loses money. Just because it worked for Black Flag, doesn't mean it would support Square Pusher.
Real artists often have children to support. Real artists often don't have the energy for a day job, and to create music.
You are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
If the artist can't afford to make music, then the supply is 0. Regardless of the economics of distribution, the economics of production will always be expensive. Home studios have inferior acoustics, qualified engineers are better than amateurs, session musicians are often necessary. All of these things cost money.
And record companies aren't going away. Perhaps some will break. Perhaps new ones will appear. But who's going to provide recording money, who's going to sort out tours, promotion? Most bands don't do it well. Most bands don't want to do it. And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes. They'll go to the corporate sites and pay for downloads, because there's a certain guarantee of quality there. Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
Slashdot Mirror
That's bollocks. Actually read the Comic's Journal, or are you basing this on what somebody told you.
Surely he can't be arrested for publishing a tool to do this, as he did it outside the States and he's not an American citizen? That would be an outrageous (though not surprising) abuse of US powers.
If he's simply been arrested for giving that presentation (great presentation judging by the slides) - then this seems like a great case for blowing the DMCA farce wide open.
Cian
Clinton was responsible for DMAC.
You're a liberal individual, but you want laws regulating other people's behaviour, even when it doesn't affect you?
Prostitution isn't abuse of women, and making it illegal doesn't make it go away. Or were those women in NY offering me a good time just going to take me to Disney Land?
As for your other assertion about tolerating drug use. All the evidence is the other way (unless one includes actual drug use itself as a crime, I guess. Though even there, drug use in the Netherlands has gone down, while everywhere else in Europe it's on the rise). Drug related crime is a huge proportion of all property crimes (muggings, thefts, low level frauds etc) by people trying to get the money to pay the inflated prices of most drugs (inflated by simple market economics of supply and demand. Make something illegal, supply tends to go down). Legalised, it would cost a fraction of what it now costs, reducing the money addicts would need to pay for their next fix.
Of course where I live in London, the police haven't actually bothered enforcing drug posession laws in a long time, but that's another story...
Not if used appropriately
err, he did give a reason. Something to do with the new OS...
Why not, we seem to adopt all their other stupid ideas
Sillicon Graphics isn't the best example though. All the best tech in the world is worth nothing if noone wants to buy what you sell.
Red Hat are ludicrously over priced though
Well only in the very long term. As a year on year return on your investment it would have been pretty dreadful.
Moscow is effectively an anarcho-capatalist system. As is the drug world.
Does mr Friedman have any evidence to back his views?
Cian
In Britain? Are you mad?
Not that I've been sure how a gun would protect me from a psyched up Yardie, but that's another story...
Cian
They all seem to be armed my way, but may be that's just my manor...
Cian
Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?
Nestle, the United Fruit Company, Unilever, Shell...
A lot of large corporations trade happily with regemes that are far worse than either of those two (Burma comes to mind), and actively help put down dissent (money, lobbying the US government, etc). What do you think the ethnic cleansing of East Timor was about?
It's no coincident that corporatism, fascism and communism came about at roughly the same point in time. They share a similar mind set (centralised power, conformism, uniformity). Fascist Germany was, ignoring the nutty philosophy, an attempt to create a corporation in the political and social sphere. Large corporations loved it. They traded with it, jeez Coke took active advantage of the war to build Coke Europe into an unassailable position (they were granted a virtual monopoly, and created Fanta to take advantage of it).
Yes, but no. Some strands of it are amazingly pragmatic (the earliest, and best critiques of fascism and communism were from anarchists). Trouble is that it requires people to be a lot more intelligent and responsible than most probably want to be/are.
But, yeah, libertarianism is for rich geeks who don't want to grow up.
Cian
Anarchism says, "Fsck the army.
Yeah they were famous for it in Spain. Gee, could you be more uninformed...
The right side emphacizes personal fiscal responsibility and collective moral responsibility.
So their propoganda would have you believe. Funny how they're more than happy to use government to back their personal moral beliefs/to enrich their interests.
As for the left? You are joking, right?
look at Hong Kong -- the *only* thing Hong Kong had was capitalism.
Actually they had location and a harbour - which for a trading state is Everything
Most gigs lose money, or break even. Or did that bit of the article pass you by?
And most of the musicians cited in the article aren't millionares, but people who get paid a lot less than "over paid software geeks". Musicians do badly enough as it is, without you taking their main source of income away.
Cian
Studio, instruments, engineers, producers. Or did you think it grew on trees? Not mention the fact that if you want to get good, you have to practise, get lessons/coaching and spend a lot of time on it. Not things that coexist particularly well with a day job.
And for those who think that home studios are the answer, I have one word for you: 'acoustics'.
Cian
Signed musicians hardly make anything from recordings. If an artist holds all the rights on a
recording then can make about $4 per CD sold.
Well possibly. But out of that they've got to meet recording costs, promotion costs, legal costs, etc. And they've got to pay those costs ahead of any sales for the most part. And if the record bombs, they have to eat those costs. Currently record labels eat those costs, and hence take all of the risk. The current arrangement is very unfair to artists, but it's not quite as unfair as some people seem to imagine.
Now, keep in mind that most artists do not have many rights in regards to the recording--they sign that away to the record companies!
...who paid for that recording. Though admittedly, the artist normally ends up paying for it out of their royalties. Dunno, grey area this one. Rights revert.
This basically means that they do NOT get paid per recording.
This is rubbish. They get paid royalties for each recording. If the recording doesn't recoup the record company's bizarre definition of costs (everything), then you don't get paid. The extent to whic this is true, depends on the artist and how switched on they are. Don't forget, most recording artists get screwed because they're lazy and greedy.
They may get a signing bonus but be damn sure that they HAVE to tour to make money.
Depends. True of some artists, other artists lose money touring, but do it for promotional reasons.
It used to be that musicians would tour to promote a recording.
Most still do. I'm not convinced that that's a good thing though. Tired of waiting for your favourite artist's new record. Have to wait for them to finish touring first...
Now most of us don't see many indy artists! We pay out the rear to see the Stones, or the Eagles (just examples folks).
Don't see this changing. Most people like offal. Haven't noticed the internet changing that.
No longer does an artist tour to promote his/her work (unless they are indy, Ani DiFranco has an INCREDIBLE tour schedule and STILL releases more recordings than most) hee/she tours because that is the only avenue the record lable they signed thier life away to will let them make any cash.
Actually touring is still the best way to break a new band in America.
Now, computers have given artists the ability to exist outside of the labels. There is absolutly NO WAY that Ani DiFranco would have been able to do 20 years ago what she has done over the last 10!
Rubbish. There was this little thing called punk... Fugazi and the Dead Kennedies were doing it in the 80s. The internet and computers make it easier to run your career, but it's never going to be easy, and most bands either won't be particularly good business men, or will just lack the energy.
Digital power has finally made the umpteen-million-dollar recording studio of
yesterday obsolete!
Well sort of. Good acoustics are still important though.
The Internet will make the traditional marketing-chain obselete! More Ani's will flourish in this New Media age. Not because they want the money, but because the love what they do.
Yeah, heard that one before. I suspect things will change a lot less than you think. Some artists will take advantage, a few will do well out of it, most won't.
If they are good, they will become popular and the economy of scale will give them the money they need to tour/promote/continue doing what they love.
Doubt it. Most people's taste sucks. That isn't going to change.
Cian
Electronic musicians don't tour?
What about Orbital? What about Crystal Method??
What about... Jeeze, a whole crapload of "electronic" musicians that tour?
What about Biosphere? What about Squarepusher? Mu-ziq (does tour occasionally, never works. It's a bloke with a sampler, sequencer and DAT machine. Great). Orbital and (sound of vomiting) Crystal Method are the exceptions, not the rule.
That's not the point though... the point is that the industry as it stands now is an inefficient dinosaur that prevents the really good musicians from making the money they deserve for their talents
Large record companies are large corporations. They're inefficient. And? There are good small record companies out there.
Artists have always been ripped off. The current system rips them off less than any previous system. May not be a good system, but the alternatives are?
Bands on major labels for the most part do badly. So do most founders of companies who get into bed with venture capitalists. It's a tough world out there, and those with the money hold most of the aces. However I'm not convinced that the Fugazis of this world will do any better under this new brave world either
And the thing is, record companies do a lot more than just distribute CDs. Promotion, advance money, engineers, MTV videos and buying the artists drugs are just as important. That won't change.
An increasing number of people DON'T listen to the radio anymore, they listen to their own cd's that they've purchased.
They DON'T listen to the radio. Cor! Those rebels. Course some of us weren't listening to the radio 5 years ago...so I'm not entirely sure what your point is there...
The ability to take the tracks from freinds as mp3's and burn them to cd's to make their own custom audio is increasingly making the radio even more obsolete.
And buying CDs I shouldn't wonder. Which is great for you. Not sure it's so good for the "Sea and the Cake's" of this world.
The radio is the pander baby to the recording industry and the media. *shrug*
That's not a nice thing to say about my local pirate stations. or KMFDM for that matter. Most radio stations are crap, yes. Sad fact is what most people want is crap (course I'm mostly into free jazz, improv, noise bands and contemporary classical - so I'm possibly a bit biased). That won't change.
when the industry changes to where the money is made in selling single tracks to be burned onto one cd... Then you'll see the majority of bands either changing their tunes.. or going out of the business.
Out of business? I thought we were talking about art? This is my problem with all of the suggestions I've seen for how you can make money out this way. They all treat music as a commodity. Some have suggestions for selling T-shirts. Which is treating music as if it was some kind of loss leader that helps establish a brand. Which is depressing (and won't work for bands whose fans don't wear T-shirts. Not everyone's a computer geek, or student).
Others talk about touring as if that's what all real bands want to do (and if they don't, then they're lazy). They don't. Some bands just don't work live. And plenty of bands can only afford to tour because their label funds it. The economics of the music business aren't as simple as the average slashdotter seems to think, but then the average slashdotter seems to believe that the entire new economy could be funded by T-shirt sales.
The only way for them to make serious money would be for them to create an entire album of GOOD music... If their music is sold by tracks... what's the incentive for them to make a cd with only one hit selling song on it?
No idea. Not in the habbit of buying music by hit artists myself. I think you're complaining about being manipulated by marketing into buying poor albums. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll find new ways to sucker you.
I'm not gonna buy the whole album.. that's just dumb.
I seem to remember something called, err, "singles". I'm sure the record companies will adapt. Coopting revolutions is what they do best. They got hardcore and rave in the end after all.
Once again... Number of CD's I've purchased in the last 5 years from hearing ILLEGAL Mp3's of them. 28... Soon to be 35 (Income tax return check). Number of CD's I've purchased in the last 10 years because I've heard the band on the radio?? NONE!
28! In 5 years! That's, dunno, pathetic really.
I may be the exception to the rule right now.. but it's changing in my direction more every day.
You're probably right. 'cept for the bit about you buying CDs. Things don't change that much, and most of the people I know who copied CDs from friends onto tape, didn't subsequently go out and buy them. If anything, I would imagine that MP3s will make them even less likely to. I mean what's the incentive. Easier to get the music online...
And that's what worries me. At the end of the day I want the musicians I like, to be able to afford to make their music. The more time they can devote to it, the better for me
No, just a walking, talking, cliche
So how's that going to work for Squarepusher? Or Oval? Or bands who use overdubs and technology to create sounds that can't be created live. What about bands who are really good on record, but really suck live? Not everyone's in a garage band.
And the Steve Albini letter? He's talking about bands on large record labels. The terms for bands on indie labels can often be pretty good. Of course they might only get $2, but most of the rest is eaten up in distribution, promotion and creation. Some of those costs will go, but some will always be with us.
I'm sure the pro-MP3 contingent is the same people who used to have "Keep Music Live" bumper stickers.
Cian
I'm a great blacksmith.. but all my jobs are out of town. Shouldn't I still be paid if I just sit at home?
Totally bogus analogy. The artist isn't sitting at home, he's working writing music AND recording it. Not everyone can tour (electronic music in particular), not everyone wants to. And in that time that they're touring, they generally don't have the time, energy (and in the case of electronic musicians) resources to create new music. The longer the tour, the more time you have to wait for new music.
All of this of course rests on the analogy that all tours make money. Many don't. Quite a lot lose money, and the costs are treated as a promotional expense. The better the show, the more likely it loses money. The less like a standard rock group the band is, the more likely it loses money. Just because it worked for Black Flag, doesn't mean it would support Square Pusher.
Real artists often have children to support.
Real artists often don't have the energy for a day job, and to create music.
You are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
If the artist can't afford to make music, then the supply is 0. Regardless of the economics of distribution, the economics of production will always be expensive. Home studios have inferior acoustics, qualified engineers are better than amateurs, session musicians are often necessary. All of these things cost money.
And record companies aren't going away. Perhaps some will break. Perhaps new ones will appear. But who's going to provide recording money, who's going to sort out tours, promotion? Most bands don't do it well. Most bands don't want to do it. And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes. They'll go to the corporate sites and pay for downloads, because there's a certain guarantee of quality there. Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
Cian