TMBG on DRM

scootr1 writes "John and John from They Might Be Giants speak to Newsweek about, amongst other things, digital rights management. My favorite exchange? 'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.' When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?"

Experimental Film

[daeley]

In related news, the gang over at Homestar Runner recently did a video [homestarrunner.com] for TMBG's song "Experimental Film." Lots of fun movie references.

Eat food?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that found the extra interesting exchange "'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.'" to be less than clear, here's a little more context:

How would you eat, then?
That's my problem. Being a musician is an unreasonable idea anyway. The life expectancy of a professional career in music is five or 10 years. That would be a long run.

More interesting really:
Record companies are certainly scared.
They should be scared. They're hemorrhaging dough.

Best thing about TMBG? They're huge Homestarrunner.com fans [homestarrunner.com].
We live in a split world--people who know about Homestar and people who don't... Now we have this "Experimental Film" video out. It's a video directed by [the Homestar character] Strong Sad.

Worst thing?
They're working with MoveOn.org. Oh well, they might be giants, but I guess that doesn't mean they're perfect.

Re:Concerts.

[Richthofen80]

if only this were true.

bands might play a show every other night. Depends where and when they get there, if they own a touring van, and what nights will yield decent dough. As as idea, clubs usually take an obscene amount of 'the take' of a concert. After traveling and paying monkeys to set up their stuff, bands are lucky to come out on top. TMBG has a good draw, and earned it from trucking around and playing for 20+ years. But honestly, only a small subset of artists will make real money performing professionally. Most major artists tour to promote the album, not release an album to promote the tour.

John didn't say that

[TravelSizedMonkey]

It's just a badly placed end quote. I thought he said that the music was bad as well, but it was the submitter that said it, not Flansburgh.

I thought so too, but I went back and double checked the article. (See, it pays to RTFA.)

EMusic

[26199]

Since they mention EMusic specifically... here's the EMusic TMBG page [emusic.com]. Nine albums for download as high-quality VBR MP3s. Not a DRM in sight...

(To explain my sig... EMusic went through a period of severely sucking. They're back to being a pretty good site IMHO, worth a look).

Re:A musician is making sense about DRM?

[Infamous Tim]

Mods must be Homestarrunner fans, no one else caught that one. =P

"And in this one, the player wouldn't control me, because YOU CAN'T CONTROL ME!"

Re: Eat Food (MoveOn ads)

[curtisk]

The whole Hitler/Bush thing is disgusting. Those that truly believe there's a comparison are ignorant at best.

LMAO, yes, the ads are in bad taste, but you make it sound as if MoveOn MADE those commercials.

They were submitted to one of their ad contests. As a submission it was available for viewing. Just like the stuff over on ifilm and sites like that. It was submitted for consideration.

That would be the same as holding slashdot accountable for GNAA posts and our lost beloved goatse.cx posts. Or holding slashdot accountable for some maniac ranting and opinion that occurs in these threads (not that it ever happens LOL)

Re:Eat food?

[Rei]

Oh, and I forgot to mention: Back up a couple levels of parents for the discussion of MoveOn/Hitler. MoveOn had absolutely nothing to do with those ads; they were uploaded to their site, and MoveOn deleted them. They never aired, they never won any awards, and they weren't even there that long. If I were to put something offensive on Slashdot and the administrators removed it, wouldn't they be justified to be just a *little bit* upset with everyone accusing them of it being their content?

Re:Sorry. No way.

[norkakn]

your right to use it stops as soon as it impedes my right to legitimate use in the same way that my right to copy stops when it infringes on your copyright.

Both of us have our rights, and as long as we are fighting against each other, both parties will be pissed off.

Re:Sorry. No way.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Except that we don't have such a device, and we're *never* going to have such a device, any more than we're going to have Star Trekish transporters or replicators. It's just plain science fiction.

Never Say Never [nanofactory.com] Nanofactories such as those made by this link are already a reality, and every year they master more elements. Diamonds are easy- food and clothing is hard in comparison, but it won't be very long before we have EXACTLY such a device. Your grandchildren probably won't even know what a STORE or MONEY is because of it- all they'll need is a connection to the net to download open source dinners.

Re:Sorry. No way.

[DunbarTheInept]

It is self-contradictory to claim you are simultaneously in favor of DRM and in favor of open software. If DRM becomes ubiquitous, then open source software falls behind because it cannot be made to legally play DRM content (to be an approved DRM playing program, the program is going to have to be closed) - ubiquitous DRM would mean open source becomes useless for multimedia. And thus supporting DRM means being against open source, and furthermore, being against what open source is all about - that people should be allowed to learn how their technology they own actually works. Being technologically competent should not be a crime.

Re:Sorry. No way.

[clambake]

Distributing some of my software with DRM enabled allows me to *afford* my other contributions to the community. It pays my bills, provides food for myself and my 5 children, and lets me live comfortably.

Would you *really* want to take that away? Would you *really* want to take away my ability to help the hundreds of teachers in California that my software assists?

Selling drugs to children and running guns for terrorists *affords* my other contributions to the community. It pays my bills, provides food for myself and my 5 children, and lets me live comfortably.

Would you *really* want to take that away? Would you *really* want to take away my ability to help the hundreds of teachers in California that my software assists?