David Bowie on Music, Copyrights, Distribution 403
EddydaSquige writes "In this New York Times article David Bowie talks about his new album, distribution deal with Sony, and how he's "fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing." Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"
no NYT acct. (Score:2, Interesting)
Rock on david.
Bowie always had vision. (Score:5, Interesting)
I still think there's room for artists to sell music in a physical medium, with disks, nice cover art, books, perhaps a box set. I've downloaded just about everything by Tommy Guerrero but I'm collecting the CDs anyways... better sound quality, more permanent, nice cover art, and the pleasure of owning them and knowing I've contributed something to the artist. (TG does amazing grooving downtempo Cali-Latin style funky jazzy ambient blues, kinda like Booker T meets Tortoise with a bottle of wine on Carlos Santana's back porch.).
G
Bowie and Don DeLillo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:See the light, sure (Score:2, Interesting)
If I believed that everything was milk and honey, and that people would be kind to each other, I wouldn't be opposed to the copyright system because I would think that people wouldn't abuse it as they do now.
These days, people (like the record industry and the software publishing industry) exploit the public by abusing copyright.
These people put their long tentacles of control on everything they publish. You buy that record? Well, sonny, you better not copy it or you're gonna pay!
Your sweetheart asks for a copy? Are you going to be loyal to her/him or to the copyright owner?
Sharing copies with other people shouldn't be a crime, it's a nice thing to do.
These days, everythings not "milk and honey", because the laws are set up to reward miserliness and punish friendliness.
CopyRight (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that our current distribution model for intellectual property, especially music, does not work given the nominal distribution costs of internet-based music distribution. No digital form of distribution provides an equivalent level of moderation provided by the music industry, it is almost impossible to find the best quality content out of the giant databases like IUMA [iuma.com] or MP3.com [mp3.com]. We still need some way to sort the good stuff from the banal. It probably makes sense to use Gnutella to download pop music today, but from a long term perspective, we need to create an entirely new paradigm for music proliferation.
I seriously doubt copyright will die (Score:4, Interesting)
What will have to change, however, is our perception of copyright. At this point, copyright is considered (however incorrectly) an inalienable right that often trumps even the first amendment. This situation is untenable. What I already see happening is the start of a movement to put the teeth back in the public side of the copyright bargain.
In the best case, I see copyright terms decreasing significantly and fair use rights being enforced by law. The first increases the incentive to produce by shortening the term of the artificial monopoly we the People grant to authors and artists.
The second means that the People's right to use works protected under copyright in any reasonable way they choose will be formally encoded, perhaps even to the point of outlawing fair use prevention technologies (what is usually called "copy protection") on works protected by copyright: this would restore the same balance that used to exist for patents before the DMCA.
I'll leave the worst case to others. =)
Re:He is pretty much spot on... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not 10 years (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it'll have to get worse before it gets better in order for the public to start examining it. But I also think in about 20 years, we'll start to get a crop of legislators that are not quite so corporate. I think it's partly a demographic thing.
Of course, it will help if the average slashdot guy becomes a little more activist. Should you run for congress?
Bowie - Hits and Misses (Score:3, Interesting)
Was ahead of his time by packaging and selling the rights to his current/future music back in the early 90s.
Unfortunately, BowieBanc [dailyrevolution.org] didn't fare as well [bankrate.com] ("Bowie bank leaves the stage") -
On the other hand, it seems the Thin White Duke had a way with words back almost two years, with respect to digital piracy -
Visionary, or just outspoken?
Unfortunately the legality of the situation ... (Score:1, Interesting)
However, a more interesting question in my mind is how to regulate this. Quite frankly I don't think you can. I am fairly technically savvy, and I don't think that they will come up with a way to stop people from copying music, video, and writings.
Given that you can't regulate it, what does it matter if it's illegal?
I think that artists will just have to deal with the fact that they will be creating things which will not bring them income. Although all artists are not in this game for the income, it seems to me that all the one's that are complaining are the ones who only care about the cashola. Maybe a new breed of artists is how it will be in the future.
For the record, I pay for my DVD's (right now) and I pay for all of the CD's that I listen to. However, I have downloaded MP3's and I would honestly say that if the CD player in my car played MP3's, then I would be burning my own.
Regardless of the law, people are going to break it. Mostly when they really want the payoff, and there is little or no punishment. It's a gamble, just like speeding, but right now there are very few speed traps.
My 2 cents
(mp3s == crap) ? "Bowie 2002" : "Bowie 1999" (Score:2, Interesting)
Nevertheless, I've never seen any mp3s on his web-site [davidbowie.com].
Besides, with Bowie's Al-Gorish claims to geekdom in the past, and a webpage that insists I go get a new plugin... Hey, where's the non-flash version?
This sort of eyecandy whoredom that goes with most bands' web-sites is rather quite sickening. If you're in a band, what would your fans want?
I refuse to believe that if you're in a band, that your fans really want lots of eyecandy that's just that--eyecandy.
If you're an artist in the visual sense, then perhaps some eyecandy is to be expected. But in a band--no. And flash? Flash might do some okay things, but it's never used right....
Bowie has had some interesting quips in his day, but he seems altogether too self-absorbed. Okay, the music is okay, some of it. But his 15 minutes of fame are over.
Re:No (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, 1900, right. Copyright law dates back 1700 and the statute of Anne. Bach lived during the time copyright laws were in effect. Much prior to that copyright didn't matter because the industrial revolution hadn't happened and nobody had an easy way to print anything.
Copyright law was established at the strat of the industrial revolution for the purpose of preventing publishing companies from just taking anything avaialable and printing it witout even putting the author's name on the works.
Has anyone thought clearly what the lapse of copyright law would do to authorship?
I don't think so.
real rock musicians... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only rebels left are old! (Score:2, Interesting)
Young people then had to learn to fight for their rights. Young people today are being panzies. Its a different kind of flower child.
When it comes to accessing copyrighted materials on-line please remember this. You _did_ pay your ISP for access to the net. Your ISP _did_ pay their upstream - typically a large telco. Ususally the large Telco also _did_ pay the backbone operator for access to the copyrighted materials on the backbone.
The problem is that most content providers connect through an ISP or a large Telco and neither of these groups pay the people who own the content they wish to distribute.
There would be little issue with copyright infringment if the people who held the copyrights were being paid. P2P file transfer is perhaps one form of abuse of copyright.
A seond form of copyright abuse is a carrier paying one group of people for access to copyrighted materials while they simultaneously refuse to pay another group for access because the second group (the actual copyright holders) have less market clout.
A third form of abuse is when ISP's dump copyrighted materials into their caching proxies. Since the ISP does not hold the copyright they literally do not have the right to duplicate it in caching proxies.
The bottom line IMHO is that content creators deserve to be paid regardless who they are and this means as a for instance that since I PAID my ISP for access to slashdot.org and my ISP in turn PAID my TELCO for access to slashdot.org that this chain should continue all the way back to the slashdot people and they ALSO should be PAID when their uplinks seek to access the content in the slashdot servers. Does everyone agree?
Re:Only rebels left are old! (Score:4, Interesting)
I blame the uber-PC view: "Be accepting of everyone and everything that is different." We have been trained not to care. No wonder everyone is so detached no one cares, everyone accepts. It's a mandate enforced and reinforced through 12--16 years of societal-normalization camp, err... I mean school... It's fallout from the 60's, and it doesn't taste as good 4 decades later.
Then there's all the messages being broadcast directly into our frontal lobes by large corporate sponsors. "Good consumer... good boy! sit, stay, be happy, buy stuff." Almost all of the urgent messages that bombard us are of no real importance. The real important stuff is mysteriously absent from the news... unless it somehow has to do with 9/11. You have to blow up a building or no one cares. What a sad world.
I wish I could make everyone read No Logo and Fast food nation. At least peruse Adbusters. *sigh*
I'm glad Slashdot exists.
Re:Only rebels left are old! (Score:2, Interesting)
I am happy that it got moderated up. A few weeks ago I switched my preferences to filter all comments less than 5. Unfortuneatly this only allows me to read the typical /. drivel, which isn't too bad in the technical articles or software release articles. For law/IP/DRM stories, it's the same typical comments that get moderated up everytime.
All of the good comments either don't get moderated to 4-5 or they get moderated back down as *troll*. Please readers, if you are moderater, please take your job seriously! Take a little time and effort to improve the site for people who can't take the time to read everything. Don't moderate anything down. Only moderate things up!
I challenge moderators to moderate up two opposing viewpoints attached to the same article. Only that way, will you know that your not moderating things that you agree with.
Also, don't moderate things that are already modded above 3. Take the time and concentrate on uplifting valuable comments that are still buried at 2, 1, or 0.
Before you moderate this as *offtopic*, remember that moderating comments *up* provides a higher value to the site than moderating comments down. Allowing this comment to remain at 2 will allow more people to read it, and create more awareness about how moderation works here at /. !!
Re:Only rebels left are old! (Score:3, Interesting)
For that matter, what the heck are you doing excluding yourself? You don't count, you're gonna give up because you can only trust old hippies to be enlightened? News flash, they are now the ones doing this stuff.
In a culture that devours itself as violently and avidly as ours does, that turns even the most personal statements into soundtracks for commercials, where exactly are you looking for your sincerity? I think you're just as hosed as the rest of us but haven't figured out it's your fight yet. And it is, so quit looking for inspirations and figure out what matters to you...
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Great authors eat because they have to eat. With no income, they have no food.
Who said they would have no income? There are a variety of ways they could get income that may or may not be directly related to their writing.
Why is this ALWAYS an argument? What are these people supposed to do for a paycheck? Work at the Arco Station on the corner?
You're pretty unimaginative. First, they could actually have day jobs. Robert Burns was a farmer and excise collector. Who knows what Lewis Carroll's day job was? Second, they could use strategies like the street performer protocol or individual or corporate grants. Third, there are a variety of ways to turn intellectual works into "performances" which can be paid for: plays, interviews, signings, etc.
From one of your posts in another thread
Ok, tell you what. You go spend two years of full-time days (and nights and weekends) to write a novel and then give it all away. You have
absolutely no idea how much work is involved in writing or developing "cool stuff."
Actually, I did write a book and I did take about a year (not two) off of work for it (across several editions). If there was no copyright law I would have approached it very differently but I still would likely have done it. First, I would have seen it as a calling card, not something that would make me money directly. Second, I would have taken longer to do it, working on nights and weekends. Third, I would wait until the area of technology (it was a tech book) calmed down rather than expecting people to buy multiple editions as technology changed.
Overall, I would have radically changed my business model for the project. And in the end, that's my point. There is no one true business model for writing books or making widgets or anything else. The way the market works is to find ways to connect people who want something with those who can provide something. If a particular way of making that connection is blocked (copyright) then other ways will be found. That's why we had creativity before there was copyright and will have creativity after copyright disappears.
If there are authors who absolutely refuse to change their business model to adjust to changes in technology and society, then that is their problem, not society's. There will be other authors who will choose to adjust and they will thrive.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't people just buy the book? About the most creative thing I think will come from electronic publishing and distribution is lower prices. Sure, there may be some further creative ways of making revenue, but at the end of the day, someone has to ring a sale and make change, or the product has no economic value.
It's not exactly unheard of for an author to find they can't get published or they can and sell their rights to a publishing house that doesn't promote their book.
That's the publisher talking, not the author. Abolishing copyright is not going to make this any easier. In fact, it will make it even *more* difficult, since it will remove the only authority an author has with regard to their own work. Think publishers and distributors aren't playing fair now? lol
It is just silly to presume that these other jobs will be low-paying, as if a person who has the capability to create great art is going to be completely talent-less otherwise.
They'll be low paying. No doubt about it. I can't think of three high-paying jobs for which a professional writer would even be considered, much less hired.
Talent has nothing to do with getting a job.
Does society owe this minority a living? Does society owe anyone a job doing what they want?
While ignoring the fact that this is a red herring which neatly reframes the argument in terms sympathetic to your conclusion, I'll reply by saying yes, *our* society promises the "pursuit of happiness." That usually means a career of something other than dull, pointless, joyless drudgery for low or no pay.
People should be encouraged to pursue that which makes them happy, because it is in those fields of endeavor where they will contribute the most to our society. Forcing people to work two jobs: one of suffering for a paycheck and another of uncompensated joy, is patently unfair, pun intended.
Copyright has exceeded its original purpose, and it is because of this fact that I support modifying the law so that it helps authors, musicians and artists do what they do best. I do NOT support abolishing copyright along with the livelihoods of millions of people so that the warezzzzzz d00dz can have everything for free.
Abolishing copyright will eviscerate the entirety of most authors and artists' ability to produce anything of value. This is a fact. Without copyright, artists would have absolutely no standing whatsoever across the table from Big Music Inc. Authors would have no ability to negotiate with Big Publisher Inc. And so on.
I think lower prices and a lesser term for copyright should be the net result of the influence of electronic publishing. Beyond that, the balance will have swung too far in the other direction, and that is unfair to the authors, artists and musicians for whose benefit this *entire argument* is being discussed.
A different kind of rebel (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're looking for thousands of young people marching in D.C. or holding sit-ins on college campuses, then yes you're going to get the impression that there aren't any young rebels. I, and I'd suspect many other young people, have no interest in being on the receiving end of tear gas, a policeman's nightstick, incarceration, or hot lead in the name of idealism when it's unlikely to result in any real change or even significant media attention. I'm a rebel, but a pragmatic one. I know plenty of others and they are similarly pragmatic. We'll speak out when there is an opportunity for real change to occur and take what individual actions we can take to work for incremental changes. It makes no sense for Gen-Xers to take on the system directly. Just from the standpoint of demographics, we're vastly outnumbered by aging boomers (who are now the supporters of the status quo). We change what we can, subvert the system when given opportunity, and bide our time until the "Me Generation" steps aside so we can fix the world (if the planet is still inhabitable).
Re:A different kind of rebel (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah..... I know... responding to one's own post is generally considered lame.... anywho...
Here are a few of the legal things that you can do to rebel:
1) Vote. Even if all of the major candidates are filthy scum, you should still vote. The media always interprets low voter turnout as apathy. On the other hand, if there are enough of them, votes for third party candidates, family members, friends, and dead people send the clear message of dissatisfaction with the available choices even though they generally fail to change the result of the election (at the very least, it cannot be interpreted as voter apathy because you did take the time go to the polls).
2) Change attitudes one person at a time. Start with your parents, friends, and other people who you have some influence with already and move outward from there. Be opinionated and expressive.
3) Refuse to be a consumer, to the extent possible. If you don't like Corporation X's policies, don't buy their shit unless you can't find a way to get around it. Make sure they know that you're not buying their shit and why. Remember when McDonalds used to package their burgers in styrofoam containers? They don't anymore because enough assholes (like me) made a stink about it and refused to accept any burger that had been packaged in styrofoam. When the check-out guy at store X asks you for personally identifying information (and you're paying CASH!), refuse to give them so much as a zip code. When a telemarketer calls, waste as much of their time as possible but never buy anything from them or give them any information about you that they can sell to other marketroids.
This, of course, brings us back to the topic at hand. If you like David Bowie's stance on copyright, buy his album. If you loathe the RIAA's stranglehold on music distribution, support independent record labels and artists who sell their music direct, attend live concerts, etc.