TMBG on DRM 473
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?"
Bad music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad music? How about DRM isn't going to help sell more of ANY music. At all. Ever. The less you give, the less you empower your customers, the less they trust you, the less you make.
Bad music? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know lots more people who do like today's music. People claim bad music is the reason for increased piracy, which doesn't make sense. Why are people pirating music they don't like?
Concerts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Concerts. It's how artists make their real money anyway....
Re:Eat food? (Score:2, Insightful)
They ARE Giants. (Score:5, Insightful)
America needs more TMBGs. I'm sickened by the greedy, self-important jackholedness that passes as 'American' these days. We used to be people who cared about each other; we used to ask what we could do for our country. Now, we're a bunch of jugular-sucking opportunists who take pride in bending the rules, running through loopholes, and shouting louder than the other guy.
Bring back humility, honesty and generosity! Those are real values! Carry that torch, TMBG!
Re:A musician is making sense about DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have you or your friends waited for an averageish game to drop to bargain bin prices and then bought it because you didn't want to pay the initial retail price? Same idea.
If the music lables produced things people really, really wanted and they have high enough perceived value to justify the price then they would sell more, but in the absence of this and in the presence of cheaper supply mechanisms they aren't going to get anywhere.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not, like some have supposed, in it for the long haul as far as any one band is concerned. Older bands do not make as much money off albums as do newer bands (generally speaking), because they can't tap into the market that spends the most--teenage kids.
The teenage kids buy more cds, go to more concerts, and purchase more paraphenalia than other demographics. This is because they aren't generally paying any bills, and are rarely saving money (if they even have a job--many recieve an "allowance", which just makes folks lazy).
Thus, from the marketeers perspective, it makes sense to engender one craze after another, because these are what make money. Granted, they will squeeze every penny they can from every artist they can, but the big money isn't there for bands like TMBG.
That said, I do agree that in the long run, bands that care about their fans, and that care about making music, are the ones that I generally enjoy listening to more.
Think about the difference in attitude illustrated by, "I want to be a rock star", compared to, "I want to play music". The one is focused on being rich, famous, and having lots of neat toys. The other focuses on playing great music, and if the other (money, fame, etc) comes to them, great.
Brittney Spears is not around for the long haul because she doesn't care about the music the same way that TMBG.
FWIW, I love their music, but am far from up to date on their latest stuff.
Great to see Realistic Musicians ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad that TMBG is realistic about the future of digital media. My money is on the future where musicans realize that their bread and butter lies in making life performances and distributing merchandise like t-shirts, posters, etc.
The record industry, specifically the RIAA, are holding onto an anachronism ... they don't create the music, they help to distribute it. Unfortunately what they don't understand (and some artists do) is that free distribution gives people the chance to get into an artist's music. And when an enthusiast is serious, they'll pay for the quality that comes from having a clean and attractively packaged CD.
Good job, TMBG! Now the rest of musicians need to fire their record labels ...
Sorry. No way. (Score:4, Insightful)
When are you going to realize that complaining about the quality of the music you then download only makes it sound like you are trying to justify criminal activity?
DRM isn't bad. If a vendor produces DRM products and you have a problem with that, don't buy them. It's just another option available to content producers and distributors. It has value, and it has its place.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
I say let them use DRM to their heart's content. Let them put in all kinds of nasty, horribly restrictive DRM in everything they sell. It will only accellerate their decline, though it might prop up their profits a little while longer.
The inevitable trend for music is away from wealthy, centralized music and towards a much smaller, decentralized, community supported scheme, where the indie bands have much more a chance of breaking even, and hardly anybody really "makes it big" anymore.
Just as with software, the Internet is re-writing the rules of the marketplace. Just as Open Source software marches to the drum of inevitability in the marketplace, so do unrestrictive music distribution models.
It's been a *long* time since the expense of recording quality music was beyond what could be achieved with some thrift-store mattresses, a garage, and a computer with a $200 sound card.
In other words, in 1955, quality, good-sounding recording equipment was very expensive. Today, it's less than a thousand dollars.
In 1985, it was very expensive to distribute music in bulk. Now, a commercially hosted website can get you going for $15.95 per month.
That's the marketplace of today. That's what's going to do these guys under. Not DRM. Not "crappy music". (that people download and listen to anyway)
If there's an area with legitimate concern about intellectual property, it's with copyright law and patent law. Sorry, but copyright law is no longer in alignment with its original purpose of promoting the development of literature and the arts. Neither is patent law, in its current incarnation, truly a socially healthy way to encourage invention and creativity.
Work to change the real evils, and quit whining about people who try to prevent you from stealing.
Re:Eat food? (Score:1, Insightful)
That's because conservatives aren't clear on the concept of what constitutes "hate speech".
Here's a little test. Find the example(s) of hate speech from the following:
1) Any n___ers who refuse to move back to Africa should be hanged.
2) George Bush is the most conniving, underhanded President since Richard Nixon.
3) Let's tie this f___ot to a fance and beat him up for flirting with us.
You still don't see the difference do you?
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you need to step into his perspective, then you can both call it crap. Why should he be the one to change if you're the one who finds the existence of differing opinions so painful?
Why is it crap just because you don't like it?
Because that is what it means for something to be "crap", that I don't like it. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from ever expressing judgments? Or is it only ones that you disagree with that are the problem?
Re:Concerts. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your music is good, I will pay to see you in concert (I saw TMBG for the big July 4th party in Columbus, OH and brought about 8 friends with me) and I will pay for your albums (I legally own every TMBG album). If your music is average, or bad, then you should get a real job.
DRM is a slap on the wrist (Score:5, Insightful)
If I pay to download a track, or pop my new CD into my CD-ROM, it comes complete with DRM. I can't play it on my other PC. Forget about playing it on my Mac at all. Can I transfer it to my NetMD portable? Good luck! No, I can only play it on my stupid computer on my crappy speakers. Not on my portable, not on my stereo. However if I just don't bother to pay for it, and download the track/album in mp3 format from any number of questionable sources, I can play it on whatever device I want. In other words, if I pay for it, the Label treats me like a criminal and restricts my ability to use what I paid for. Steal it, and I can do what I want.
Re:They ARE Giants. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going down to Cowtown
The cow's a friend to me
Lives beneath the ocean and that's where I will be
Beneath the waves, the waves
And that's where I will be
I'm gonna see the cow beneath the sea
Here in the first verse, we are told that we are entering the realm of Eris herself, The Void, or 'Chao'Town, based on the eternal symbol of Eris, The Sacred Chao. Obviously, the writer feels kinship with her sacred symbol, since "The 'Chao's a friend to me."
Now what of the next lines? If you examine the cover of the Holey Principia Discordia, you will find that the Sacred Chao is centered beneath the title, placing the "Chao" beneath the 'c'.
The yellow Roosevelt Avenue leaf overturned
The ardor of arboreality is an adventure we have spurned, we've spurned
A new leaf overturned
It's a new leaf overturned
First, we have a fantastic example a Discordian statement. Words hidden within words, "The Yellow Rose" "Roosevelt Avenue" and "A new leaf overturned" are mashed into a single sentence, hidden between the actual words written. A wise reminder to never believe what we read (In this case what we hear and what we read are different).
The Ardor of Arboreality, of course refers to the "Love of A bor(ing) reality" something which is spurned by the Discordian, who prefers overturning new leaves and exploring different realities.
We yearn to swim for home, but our only home is bone
How sleepless is the egg knowing that which throws the stone
Foresees the bone, the bone
Our only home is bone
Our only home is bone
This verse contains two seperate esoteric messages:
First, we see that the writer sees his life as "egg" to "bone" or birth to death. There is no escaping this, for our only home (our final home) is 'bone' or death.
Of course, there is also the idea of creation, for bone can refer to the bone of Osris. Osris, of course was killed and reborn, killed and reborn again (though this time without his bone, which probably meant he had to get a strap-on for Isis). The egg would obviously refer to the Great Mother Isis. Thus we have the story of constant rebirth and life, couched in words that speak of the unavvoidable end of our lives.
The stone, may be a reference to the stone which was rolled away from the tomb of Jesus (another "Dying God" like Osirus).
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
&
Sjaantze, Harbringer of Distraction
Re:Bad music? (Score:1, Insightful)
Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me or the original poster that we have no right to our own musical taste? Taste in music is a very personal thing. And I happen to agree with the original poster. So, to me (and NOT stepping out of my own perspective), it is crap! That's subjective.
Objectively, it is still crap! Frankly there just isn't much musical innovation being played on the air! And there certainly isn't any technical excellence that I have been able to detect on the airwaves lately. So it is not just crap because I don't like it. It is crap because, well, it is crap! There is some good stuff being made out there but it sure as hell isn't getting air-time!
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the content "owners" locking me out of my rights to FAIR USE of something I have BOUGHT and PAID FOR? They can try to make all the DRM locks for whatever they want, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the content "owners" pushing through laws that makes engineering illegal (reverse engineering is engineering) and RESTRICTS MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH to share information with anyone who wants it on how to break their DRM.
Christ, it isn't illegal to share information on how to build bombs, even nuclear bombs, but I'm not allowed to share information that lets someone make a copy of their DVD of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" so the original remains safe??
rights to digital music DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Did the submitter even read the article or was he just dense?
They're not talking about DRM! (Score:5, Insightful)
The question from the interviewer was "Is this the way you see things going in the future--artists securing digital rights?"
This is a question about getting the rights to distribute their work online, not about DRM. Record companies usually own the exclusive rights to distribute an artist's work in any format. The answer John Flansburgh gave speaks to the difficulty they had in securing (in the sense of "obtaining") the rights to distribute TMBG's music online themselves, independently of their label and distributors:
Now, TMBG doesn't bother with DRM (their music has been available for years in unrestricted MP3 format on emusic), but this interview doesn't really speak to the question of DRM.
-Isaac
Re:Concerts. (Score:1, Insightful)
I.E. they made the music to be HEARD.
anyone that got into music to become "f**king rich" is nothing more than a damned anklebiter that is riding on the sucess of other real artists.
Painters dont paint a picture from their soul just for selling. they paint it for themselves and for others to see. Writers write stories for others to read or hear.
Trying to make a buck off it is ok, but trying to squeeze every single drop of blood out of it by putting it in a vice and smashing it as hard as you can is not.
I personally find indie music I find on iuma.org of higher quality and certianly more entertaining than anything the RIAA members have bought and marketed.
why? mostly because i have much more respect for the indie artists that are doing it for the right reasons than the money whores and manufactured musicians on the radio.
what little I do buy of riaa artists is used only. and that is a great piss-off to do.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think your analogy is a little off. It is more like, you bought a house, but the manufacturer did not give you keys to the basement, where there is a serious problem with the foundation. The plan is that in five years your house will collapse and you'll have to buy another one. Any housing inspector will tell you this, but there is a law against picking locks, so you can't legally go in the basement and fix it and there building company has a monopoly in your area. You could have a house built elesewhere an shipped to where you live at great cost, or just buy an RV and live there. Oh, and did I mention the building company also owns thousands of beautiful historic homes, but refuses to let anyone live in them, since they are not as profitable?
Not "bad" music (Score:4, Insightful)
Some music just isn't good, or not good enough, to warrant the price it is set at. So really, the issue really a relation of quality vs cost. A really good CD might warrant purchase at a higher cost. An average CD might not warrant purchase until cost has declined.
Oh, and we're not really claiming piracy as the sole cause by any stretch, as many people wouldn't even pirate music that's really bad, and many others (such as myself) just don't pirate but rather wait for an item to end up in the "Used CD" rack.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess... You are either a kid, or a wage slave. You *might* be in college. You've never produced your own intellectual property, and you've certainly never tried to make a living at it.
I have, and I do. I'm a big advocate for Open Source software. I use Linux. I give away lots of source code and documentation entries, mostly in the area of PHP programming. I'm a heavy user of php-gtk [php.net] and love the community.
I also make my living writing software. Much of what I write I'll never give away without a price tag attached.
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?
DRM technology is available, and I should have the right to use it. You certainly have the right to not buy it.
But, if you were to, in some way, crack my certificate-protected software and distribute it, I'd most definitely have a problem with that.
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is not correct.
The record industry claims that "increased piracy" i.e. filesharing, is causing the record industry to lose money through lost sales.
In response, people claim that the record industry is losing money because lost sales due to poor product, i.e. "bad music", and that the RIAA's current argument is a red herring.
There are a great many people who, although they agrre that filesharing is a copyright violation, don't believe that the music industry is telling the truth when it comes to their profit/loss statements. They have not been arguing for new laws based on the moral high ground, but on monetary terms. As such, their claims are open to factual dispute. They have been trying to argue the moral high ground as representatives of the "artist's rights," but that isn't gaining a lot of traction due to how horribly they abuse the musicians.
There is a difference between right vs. wrong and damaging vs. harmless. There are those that argue that filesharing of copyrighted works is right and just and perfectly OK, but they are a small minority. The rest of us (that have given it any thought) are of the opinion that file sharing is wrong, but harmless. The record industry is trying to convince the populace on the "damaging vs. harmless" front, and they haven't done it yet.
Radio Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
Bypassing DRM should not be illegal. Copyright law gives certain rights to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of the product. Slapping DRM on something does not automatically give the purchaser less rights, although it can make make it harder to exercise those rights. (At this point, both sides are using technology to go beyond what rights they are legitamately granted).
As far as the rest of your comment goes, making and distributing music cheaply means next to nothing. The power is in RADIO! I can write and record the greatest song in the world, and put it up on my website for free. No one would care. If I were to go through some expense to promote it, (maybe tour, etc.), I might get a few people to care, but nothing even come close to the power of radio. As long as there's a tight grip on radio the battle is next to hopeless. And with consolidation of over-the-air radio, and the death of internet radio, it's only getting worse lately.
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crap because it's all the same. Unless you have heard the song before, or are a fan of the artist, it is virtually impossible to tell who the artist IS. Truly distinctive sounds are few and far between, and original sounds are rarer still. All the music industry seems to be concerned with today is manufacturing an image so they can sell shoes and soft drinks, not promoting creative music.
The end result is that on all but the rare occasion, what gets palyed on the radio is trite.
=Smidge=
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much? (Score:2, Insightful)
The non-shitty bands are the ones out there without sucking dick and actually playing instruments. Until this changes, I know for certain I won't be buying any music.
The last CD I bought was in the summer of 2000. 4 years and 10000 downloads later, I've never been happier.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:1, Insightful)
Cracking it and distributing it are two different things. If I buy a copy of your DRM'd software and it doesn't quite do what I want it to do, it shouldn't be illegal for me to reverse engineer your code to add some of my own code to make it do what I want it to do. You still have the money I gave you for your product, and I am using it for myself and not distibuting it by giving it or selling it to anyone.
It should also not be illegal for me to put up a web site and exercise my right to free speech to tell whomever wants to know how I cracked your product and made it do something else that wasn't in your original design. This is what DRM and the DMCA does, and this is what I have a problem with.
Make all the DRM you want, just don't make it illegal for me to crack a product I bought and paid for, and to share information on cracking your product with anyone who wants it.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess... you didn't think the parent posters analogy through.
Do realize that when you have a device that can make atom-for-atom copies of ANYTHING [foresight.org] -- including food, clothing, diamond, cars, etc -- that "making a living" suddenly gets a LOT easier and cheaper? No need for artificial scarcity. Open source applies to real-world objects too.
If this kind of world of abundance (digital AND material), the only reason you could have to care if somebody copies your product design, is if you're a greedy control-freak bastard who's still in love with the structure of the old socio-economic hierarchy.
--
Re:Bad music? (Score:2, Insightful)
My friends pirate their most favorite music. They use arguments like, "someone else already paid for it." A couple of my friends are even now very pissed at me because I absolutely refuse to burn them copies of a couple games. As _they_ see, the game company has already gotten paid since I bought the game, so why should they have to pay for it too?
I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I do believe DRM and increased punishments are absolutely mandatory to get stop that sort of crap. I *DO NOT* believe that *MANDATORY* DRM or Federal-enforced laws are required, however!
So what is their dream again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds to me they just want to become filthy rich by making music and performing. Good luck to them but that doesn't make them to me real artists. Real artists would be real artist even if they got to keep their day job.
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Music is only susceptible to piracy while its copyright is in effect. Assuming Disney eventually fails to sufficiently bribe lawmakers to keep passing copyright extensions, the copyright on every piece of music in your CD cabinet will expire one day. It will then be perfectly legal, and not even slightly unethical, to make as many copies of those CDs as you like.
But if they're protected by DRM, you will be prevented from exercising that legal right, and the fact that it's illegal to break DRM schemes will mean that the music will have passed into the public domain in theory only.
That's the problem with legally-backed DRM.
But I agree with your main point about the radical change in the economics of the industry. Once enough artists clue into the fact that they'll end up with as much money, and much more creative control, keeping 90% of the profits on sales of 1000 self-promoted downloadable albums as they would with 1% of the profits on 90000 studio-promoted CDs, the labels are going to have a tough time attracting new talent, and they'll wither and die.
Re:Eat food? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen and thank you! The Republican Spin Machine's managed to indoctrinate a lot of otherwise-intelligent people into believing that Republicans care about your civil rights. They don't give a damn - they're in it for the money. Democrats care about your civil rights... Unless by "civil rights" you mean "ability to pound my fellow citizens into a pulp financially and steal their money through large-scale corporate fraud". (Enron, Haliburton, etc.)
Re:Bad music? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just stop listening to the Clearchannel stations and tune in to the local college or university station.
Re:Eat food? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pull your head out of the sand. Clinton balanced the budget and generated a small surplus that could have, under a competent President, been used to reduce national debt. Under the Governmental Oppression Party, the Federal Government's got a $500 billion deficit, and your taxes are going up, up, up! (Though at the local level, to make up for cuts in Federal funding, and through other insidious, behind-the-scenes means, like increasing payroll taxes and cutting rebates used by middle- and lower-class citizens)
Best Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
MTV needs to climb out of their teeny-bop ghetto, dust themselves off and get back to the business of new wave.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked peer-to-peer download stats, they reflected pretty much the junk ridden top ten billboard: mostly requests for Britney Spears songs and American Pie(?) by Maddona.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea with copyright is the balance of the human rights that say that people have a right to take part in the cultural and scientific advancements of society, and on the other hand, the creators right to be rewarded.
What you think that you need to take away, is the first groups right. You'll create a society where only one group has rights. That's not a society I want to live in, thank you very much.
With all due respect, this is a strawman.
Society needs to adapt to changing conditions, by finding new ways to reward creators. It means that you need to be creative. Those are the breaks.
It is my opinion that this statement is in direct conflict with human rights.
Re:FYI (Score:3, Insightful)
Music collections can be worth several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars(mine must be close to 10k), ergo, _any_ DRM is unacceptable.
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you buy a new CD for $15, because of a song or two you heard on the radio. But when you sit down and listen to the whole album, the rest of it is total crap. Then you might (justifiably) feel ripped off.
On the other hand, say you throw down the same $15 for a different CD. When you listen to the whole album you discover that the entire disc is amazing. You would most likely feel that the $15 was well worth the price.
The problem is that many times current CD offerings leave the buying unsatisfied at the purchase price. After repeated purchases leave the same unsatisfaction, the consumer is more likely to just say "screw paying for this crap, i'll just download it and see if i like it."
-- disclaimer: I don't want to hear "you should listen to the whole disc before buying it" because thats rather inconvienient, time consuming, etc etc. --
Re:Eat food? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eat food? (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't see how we can pay that back without raising taxes back or more, or lowering spending. I really doubt anyone from the major parties is going to lower spending (well not Bush or Kerry) - granted they will spend it in different places, but they will both spend as much I'll bet. Now - unless you believe that money can really come out of thin air, eventually someone will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's spending(well, the whole govt's spending).
I really think it comes down to where you want to see federal money go - coporate interests, business incentives and military - vote GOP. Environment, welfare, and "social programs" vote Democrats. Neither? You are SOL then I think.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:4, Insightful)
Word to the wise - after years and years of attending loud concerts, I and many of my friends are developing tinnitus. Think of experiencing the persistent ringing in your ears all the time.
It's not that you're getting old...it's that concerts are ridiculously (or is that rediculously?) loud and it's a great idea to wear earplugs to protect your hearing from long term damage.
And you might look like a dork, but just think about that guy from Mission of Burma who has to wear OSHA approved ear mufflers whenever he plays. You don't want to grow up to be like him.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes. But not necessarily. Let me illustrate with a true story.
When I was 11 years old, I was a rampant software pirate. I had an obscenely huge collection of games for my Atari 800. Any game I could get my hands on, I copied, even if it stank.
By your logic, I effectively stole tens of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of hundreds of developers.
Except... I was 11 years old. I had an allowance of about five dollars a week. If I had pirated no games at all, and had spent every last dime of my income trying to buy them instead, I would have contributed a whopping $260 a year to the coffers of the game industry.
As it was, I spent about half my allowance on games anyway, since I couldn't find a pirated copy of everything I wanted. So my piracy cannot, regardless of how one twists the numbers, have cost the total global population of developers more than $130 a year, because that's all the additional money I could have given them no matter how desperately I wanted their content. And of course, you'd have to spread that $130 in "loss" across hundreds of developers.
I will put this another way. After that $130, a developer whose game I didn't pirate would have gotten $0 out of me. A developer whose game I did pirate also got $0 out of me.
What, exactly, is the "something of value" that I was taking from the second developer? It's not "a potential purchase" because I would have already made all my potential purchases, and would have no money left.
Does the above make software piracy morally right? No, and these days my game collection is 100% legally acquired. I don't download music illegally either, so please don't assume otherwise -- the fact that I understand that there's a distinction between stealing and copying doesn't automatically require that I support either one.
But it's a more nuanced and complicated situation than "every copy of my creation is money out of my pocket." That is a zero-sum-game analysis and the nature of intellectual property is inherently non-zero-sum.
Why pay.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I pay for music I can freely download from the internet when I'm going to be treated like a criminal either way? At least in the latter case there's no pretense of legitimacy on either side, and I might save myself some cash. If I buy a DRM crippled CD or MP3, I'm basically supporting the record companies' assertion that music fans are criminals.
Here's a hint: As long as the RIAA views music fans as parasites, they'll never offer them anything of true value. The problem isn't DRM; the problem is that the RIAA has an adversarial attitude toward the public which engenders a spirit of retribution among music fans. After having seen themselves and their favorite bands treated like dirt by the record companies, it's easy for the average fan to justify downloading against the RIAA's wishes. Professional musicianship has now become a con game between the RIAA, the band, and the fans. The fans love the bands, the bands love the fans, and the RIAA hates them both. Is it any wonder people turn a blind eye toward illegal downloading?
Do you not get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you know Rolling Stone said the same thing about every Led Zeppelin album released? You're going on the assumption that your OPINION is suddenly a fact that everyone else must go by.
You may think it's crap. That has absolutely no bearing on what everyone else thinks of it (hint: most of the public likes today's music). I know the popular bands around here are either garage electronic acts or really old bands like The Who, but that doesn't mean your opinions are set in stone to cast judgement on us all.
You don't hate it because it's crap. You think it's crap because you hate it. How this simple fact escapes you, I don't know. But next time I hear my country music-listening neighbor driving down the street, I'll be sure to tell him his music is crap, and that I hate it because it's crap, and therefore it is crap.
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
I will not pirate anything - UNTIL DRM is everywhere. For me it will have the opposite of the alleged intended effect.
Bad music will never stop selling (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
First of all, the TMBG interview didn't talk about DRM technology. It just talked about the band holding onto their rights to digitally distribute the music. I suppose that if they wanted to, TMBG could still slap DRM technology and restrictions onto the digital content they give away or sell.
That said, as long as people keep buying up bad (unoriginal, uninteresting, trite, formulaic) music, the record companies will keep selling it. And the sad thing is that people will keep buying it up, because that music sounds original, interesting, and novel to the next upcoming generation of kids who haven't already heard it all before and who are more interested in image and style than in the actual music. Bad music will forever sell, because it will always seem new and interesting to stupid teenagers.
It's interesting to hear people talk about "the music industry" when what is being sold is not primarily the music but the image. For instance, most rap doesn't sell because it's great music. Most rap sells because of its stereotypical woman-as-objects, BLING-BLING bullshit imagery that, for whatever ridiculous reason, millions of black and latino kids (and plenty of race-confused fat white chicks) find appealing. The RIAA ought to be the Retarded Image Assosciation of America, and their industry is the image industry, not the music industry.
The real music "industry" doesn't try to sell image, but instead focuses on the music and message itself. This industry is arguably larger than the big evil "music" industry we all hear about, but it is composed mostly of independent bands and small labels that have nothing to do with the RIAA or the big studios. Bands like TMBG and Primus are more prominent examples, and they actually have more relation to the big RIAA industry than others... but for each independent band you've heard about, there are likely a thousand others that make great music you would enjoy if you could only find out about them. While they do each project their own image, it's not the entire (or main) point of what they do. The focus is on the music itself, and the substance actually exists to back up the image.
They imply by choice of formtat (Score:3, Insightful)