MP3: On Artist Protection And Copy Protection 418
I think that if you spoke with most musicians, you'd be surprised to find out that we hold big record labels in very low regard. Big record labels, owned by larger companies, run by stockholders, are interested in only one thing, and it ain't music. And it ain't musicians, neither. It is, quite simply, profit, and whatever they can do to maximise that profit, they'll do it. I know I'm sounding like Jon Katz here, but in truth a lot of what he says about corporatism fits the music industry perfectly. At the top are rich fat white guys churning out pablum, or thinking up new and creative ways to turn good acts into pablum, because pablum sells more records.
The problem with record labels is, quite simply, that in order to ensure that they make the kinds of money they want to make, they won't take chances. And because they happen to control all the methods of physical music distribution, they're the only game in town. When the only game in town won't take chances, that means that if you want to play, you have to play their game, and you can't take chances either.
Before the Internet, it wasn't even possible to compete against the major labels -- but in the 80s there were still plenty of minor labels willing to cater to your needs. In fact, once upon a time there was a thriving indie music scene -- there were bands able to make a living doing what they did by working with labels who didn't mind challenging music. But something happened: the big labels found out about these small labels, thought they could produce more pablum, and bought most of them out.
Meanwhile, the record industry lumbers merrily along, stepping on all the talent it can find, robbing them blind, making them sign ridiculous contracts that give up most of their rights and bleeding them dry. And a few musicians get fabulously rich in the process -- that's the carrot -- but the rest of the musicians wonder what the hell happened.
That's the problem with the record industry. And one of the biggest problems with a record label is that, despite how much they suck in general, they are phenomenally good at distribution. They know how to get the word out to record stations, they know how to put your CDs in stores, they know how to schedule you on talk shows, they know how to promote -- and they can reach a much, much larger area than you can. One of the biggest selling points a record label has is saying "our distribution network can put your CD in stores worldwide." Every musician wants his music heard worldwide, even if he tells himself he doesn't care. It's part of being a musician.
Here's the theory: the Backstreet Boys have thousands upon thousands of fans in every town they stop in. The Baptist Death Ray, on the other hand, does not. The Backstreet Boys play music that is likely to be played in every city and every town all over the world. The Baptist Death Ray, on the other hand, is a more cultivated taste. So while thousands upon thousands of people in every town might like the backstreet boys, only fifty to a hundred people in every town might like the Baptist Death Ray.
With the Internet, however, this can cease to be a problem. No longer does the Baptist Death Ray have to worry about finding 100 fans at a time. The Internet is distributed, which means among other things that although in reality all of the Baptist Death Ray fans are scattered across the globe, the perception is that they're all hanging out at the Baptist Death Ray's Web site, the Baptist Death Ray pages on Listensmart.com, Mp3.com, MusicBuilder.com, Riffage.com, and Garageband.com. In effect, the Baptist Death Ray has found a viable audience for his music over the Internet that he could not necessarily find via geography.
That is what the Internet should do for independent musicians. And this, my friends, is a genuine threat to the big record labels.
So right now you have musicians like me who make some of our music freely available. We say "listen to this! This is what I sound like. If you like it, why don't you buy the CD?" Pretty simple, not sophisticated, but all new movements start out simple and unsophisticated. In time, this could grow into something the major labels can't stop, and that scares them a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot. Once upon a time MP3.com talked a lot about this, before they tried to become another music label themselves. They called it a revolution. They were right, but then they went public and stopped talking about it.
But here's the truth: to support yourself on the Internet all you need to do is sell 10,000 CDs a year at $8 a CD. If you're selling through a model like MP3.com's, you can make 40K a year -- not bad for a musician! 10,000 CDs is nothing to a major label. 10,000 CDs sold in a year means the label drops you and never talks to you again. Your album doesn't even go aluminum at 10,000 CDs.
This means that if the public could get used to buying music online, the major labels would be screwed. They're not willing to sell CDs at $8 a pop, and plenty of musicians are willing to sell them for less. That is a revolution -- a revolution where musicians are suddenly supporting themselves based on whether or not their audience likes what they do and buys their work.
Then there's Napster. Napster seems to follow the model where the plucky indie musicians put their music online and compete against the big labels toe-to-toe. The problem is, Napster doesn't compete against the record labels. Maybe the record labels don't know this, but it's true... Napster doesn't compete against the record labels, it competes against those plucky indie musicians.
It's no secret that despite the "rampant piracy" of people trading MP3s last year, the big labels sold more CDs than ever before. People tend to like buying CDs; there's a psychological difference between downloading an MP3 and going to a store and buying a CD. Consumers aren't buying music -- they're buying CDs, with cover art and liner notes and a little poster inside and a few hidden tracks and a few spoken tracks and perhaps a limited edition signed thingie wedged in between the cover art and the CD itself. The record industry makes big stars, and owning the things that a big star sells is part of the job of being a fan. Trading bootlegs is also part of the job of being a fan, but buying the posters, the CDs, the T-Shirts, all that stuff is as well. Record companies will always make lots of money from CDs, DVDs, and any other physical format that comes after.
So yes, while there may be a billion people trading Metallica songs online, Metallica's fans will still buy Metallica CDs, because to their fans, Metallica is the greatest band that has ever lived. Despite piracy, record labels will be able to make money, gobs and gobs of it. Napster doesn't compete with the major labels -- Napster promotes them, whether either side wants to admit it or not.
Who Napster does compete with, however, are the independent musicans. While independent musicians are trying to convince people that they don't need to buy from major labels, that they can buy direct (for less!) instead, Napster is showing people that they don't need to buy music at all. So on the one hand, you could buy ABCDEffigy at MP3.com, on the other hand, you could scour Napster for all the MP3s and have it anyway. After all, the Baptist Death Ray doesn't sell CDs, he sells music. CDs are freakin' expensive. Liner notes and posters and colored cds and limited edition doodads are the kind of promotional, artistic things that record labels excel at, that they use to justify jacking up the price.
Meanwhile, the consumer looks at a Web site where he or she can spend $8 for a CD, and then looks at Napster and sees the entire contents of the album online, free. Pay, or free. It's entropy, people, it all depends on what requires less energy. Right now, maybe spending the $8 is more convenient than waiting two days on a 33.3 modem. When high bandwidth lines are commonplace, however, that will no longer be the case. The worst part is not that Napster makes it easy to pirate music -- No, the worst part is the overwhelming feeling among Napster users that pirating that music is somehow morally justifiable. Most of the arguments I see say that they're not stealing from artists, they're stealing from record labels who don't pay the artists enough anyway. Well, I have news for you, the artists, even if they don't get the amount that they deserve, still get something with every music sale.
So how does the artist make money? Well, the common response from the free music movement is "touring." But you all need to know about touring. Touring is not a good way to make money unless you have a core audience of a certain size. A "core audience" is an audience that of fans who love your stuff, and will go out of their way to see you play. Now, go back to the top of this article and read the bit about the geographical limitations the Baptist Death Ray has, versus the geogrpahical limitations the Backstreet Boys do not have.
Ideologically speaking, the people who defend Napster may very well be on stronger ground than I am. Perhaps copyright and intellectual property has run its course. Perhaps its abuses call for the complete and absolute revocation of any claim that any artist has to his or her work. Perhaps pirating music through Napster is the just the kind of direct action that we need in order to show the labels who, in fact, is boss.
What I see, however, is the death of a revolution before it even had the chance to get off the ground. I feel that even if Napster loses its court case, it's too late to stop the way things are going. Napster and its supports will, one way or another, win. However, the result of that victory will be that artists will depend more than ever on rich sponsors, which is all that a record label really is. You thought mainstream music sucked now? Wait a few years after you've won. It'll suck worse.
Signed,
The Baptist Death Ray
(bdr@baptistdeathray.com)
And in related news, ewhac writes: "CNet reported about a week ago that AOL has announced it will incorporate copy-protection measures into an upcoming release of WinAmp, the hugely popular music player (upon which XMMS is modeled). The copy protection technology, intended to deter music "piracy," is to be provided by InterTrust Technologies, and is also intended to be part of the upcoming AOL 6.0 release. WinAmp was developed by NullSoft, which was acquired by AOL a little over a year ago for about $100 million in stock.
Personal Observation: May we now conclude that AOL is no longer a customer-driven company? Because I can't imagine a single user actually asking, "Please take away my ability to share stuff with my friends." Sounds like it may be time for a Windows port of XMMS ..."
Napster hurts Baptist Death Ray? (Score:2)
If people don't know he exists, he sells no CDs. Until ten minutes ago, I didn't know he existed. How would I find out? By going to a store and seeing what's on shelves or watching MTV or Much Music. Assuming he's indie, that's not going to help. So even if I did feel like buying a CD, he still wouldn't get any money.
MP3.com and other sites may help, but they lack the draw of full albums of something you like. Napster provides this.
And while searching for one thing (with Napsters lousy search capability) you always get other results. I may see BDR in there and decide to listen to it, and upon listening, get more. Then, and only then, if I want to buy a CD does BDR have any chance of getting that sale.
Metallica doesn't need this advertising, they have a label doing it for them and tons of fans for word-of-mouth. Baptist Death Ray doesn't have a million dollar propoganda machine and needs whatever help it can get.
I think the benefit of being discovered would outweigh the drawbacks of being pirated a bit.
Think of it like the software world... If I (broke) pirate Photoshop, can Adobe honestly claim to have LOST money? No. They have lost a potential sale, that's all. And if you do it correctly and multiply the cost by the likelihood of me coughing up $1200 or whatever for the full version, you're at like $0.13 oportunity cost lost. Not a lot. If anyone loses out, it's Jasc Software, makers of Paint Shop Pro who sell their software for around $100 (I'm guessing) and have a realistic chance of selling me a copy. Not only this, but being that they sell direct, they make more. Adobe sells through retail channels and can't make as high a fraction of their purchase price in profit.
So, apply this to MP3s and CDs. The traditional view is that BDR loses the purchase if I pirate their album. The 'new' view is that BDR loses nothing if I pirate their album. I suggest that unless I knew about them anyways and was willing to buy their album, they don't lose anything and potentially gain a new fan.
And I'm not saying that Napster is a service. People don't use Napster to help musicians, they just want something for nothing. But I don't think Napster hurts the musicians all that much because broke teens (the biggest Napster demographic, IMHO) don't buy many CDs.
Courtney Love follows up rant with free MP3's (Score:3)
Re:I just want to clarify (Score:2)
* People desperate for access to more and better music than the radio and stores offer;
* People curious about the technology;
* People (often students) without the cash to spend on CD's if they wanted to;
* People who won't spend money if they can get what they want without cash.
The lost sales only fall in the last group, and if you think about it, these people aren't big spenders on CD's to begin with, with cassette copies, CD-R copies and used CD's already available. The first group (and potentially the second as well) represents new sales. From what I've seen, the first group is larger in both numbers and dollars than the fourth.
If you hear someone saying that the artist has no right to make money off of their work, by all means argue against them. I just don't agree that sharing music removes the right or ability of the artist to make money off of their work. There will always be people willing and able to pay for good creative works.
----
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
My point was that they do turn out tons of crap for the sole purpose of making money.
Music is art. There are tons of starving musicians who won't sell out, same as there are starving painters, writers, sculptors, etc. Music is entertaining, but it should have a purpose. And that purpose shouldn't be greed, or lust for fame.
Sure, the great musicians and composers were often commissioned, but they were commissioned because of their talent, not because of the media machine.
Manufactured Music is, IMHO, no higher on the music food chain than advertising jingles. It makes me sick.
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
If however they wanted to encrypt it in some other format which I needed some kind of 'key' file or such or some special player to listen to it, that's entirely different. It's not much good for me with my MP3 player and they would be restricting MY use of what I have bought.
The former is very much like the privacy you mention that is advocated by many slashdotters not the latter. Once I decrypt a message from a friend, I then have the plain text of the mesage to do whatever I want with. If people sent me messages that it was impossible to extract the plain text from, I would tell them to bollocks.
Re:Sound Quality (Score:2)
D
----
How to host an MP3 site and also pay bands. (Score:5)
First, you set up a site to host MP3's, with a collaborative filtering system like others have mentioned. This provides some value to draw people in.
Then make all of the users on the site sign up for PayPal [paypal.com] (that's why you'd want some value to draw people in). This is they key factor - without an easy way to pay artists, no one will. Then you could let users download songs, and either throw a bit of money at the artist as a way of saying thank you, paying for higher bitrate encoding, or just buying a CD from the artist online by clicking on a link that would generate a PayPal payment through you to the artist.
On the backend, you offer the artists a choice - you'll be happy to host the MP3's for 10% of any money sent to them, or if they want to host their own music you provide a nice framework and links (and possibly caching) for only 1%. This would encourage bands to build their own websites, which is better for the band and for you.
If the site was really successful, perhaps you could offer artists with a lot of downloads and fan support some use of studio time in different cities across the country.
Re:Where the money could be in a few years... (Score:2)
Generally this is true, but not always. I have utmost respect for bands like the Dave Matthews Band, the Greatful Dead, and Phish. These bands built a fanbase by playing shows, and appealing to their audience. Not by buying a 30second slot at EVERY commercial break (this pisses me off). Their fans are dedicated to the band, their show changes every night of the tour, and it's very easy to tell the difference between a live show and their latest CD. And they're huge.
My roommates are driving from Moncton, NB, Canada for 11 hours (each way) to Foxborough, Mass. this weekend to see a DMB show where there will be 60,000 people. The show will be amazing. We watch the Listener Supported DVD on a regular basis, but we know that the show will be so much different. You can't get that with manufactured music. The show will sound exactly like the CD because often, it IS the CD.
Manufactured music is (obviously) one of my biggest pet peeves.
Anonymity (Score:2)
$1 per song (Score:2)
--
Hasn't Emusic Stopped Funding FreeAmp? (Score:2)
Why shouldn't artists make money? (Score:5)
Making music does take skill, and time, and effort. Like every other profession out there, it requires that you practice and improve in order for your skills to be worth the time of other people.
How is it somehow ideologically WRONG for a musician to be able to try and making a living off their work, but it's ok for a teacher, or a programmer, or an automobile manufacturer to DEMAND that they be compensated for their time?
And how is it that it's ok not to pay for music but it's not ok to steal a novel or a painting? Writers, musicians and painters are all artists... some are just more "respectable" than others.
Q: What is the difference between a musician and an actor?
A: The actor gets paid.
Sure, I know that a lot of people "do music" just because they want to become filthy stinking rich, but why do you assume anyone who would like to make a living from their work automatically has that attitude?
+----------------------------------------------
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
Yes, but screening is the easiest part of the whole equation to replace. The classic example of this is this website. /. is little more than a News screening service for nerds. They don't make the news, they generally don't even write the articles, they simply act as a filter (and a place to discuss).
What is needed is a website (or series of websites, one for each specific genre of music) where a group of dedicated music lovers sort through all of the newly available MP3's and sort the wheat from the chaff. They could support their site via advertising and could probably even sideline in selling the CDs that they promote. What makes /. work is precisely the same magic that would make these types of music review sites work. /. readers (for the most part anyway) trust CmdrTaco and crew to pick out interesting geek topics on a regular basis. So we show up and discuss. They make a living using the judgement as to what is truly "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
There is nothing stopping someone else from taking the Slashdot engine and making "Music for Goths, Indies that don't Suck," or perhaps "Tunes for Cowpokes, Not Your Same-Old Big City Country." Sure, some of these sites won't know good music from a hole in their head, but some of them probably will know what they are talking about. There will probably even be one that almost exactly matches your own particular music tastes.
It's something to think about anyway.
Time for my RMS style rant on FREE SOFTWARE (Score:2)
Re:I'm afraid not... (Score:2)
Re:Boo-hoo. (Score:4)
Nah, it doesn't make any sense this way either.
My Personal Actions: (Score:2)
Favorite Musicians? Well....
There's Monte Montgomery. He is the next great guitar god....
Then there's Phil Pritchett. His latest minor-acoustic-release kinda sucks, but his earlier stuff kicks ass!
I need to get the new Cowboy Mouth CD....
Re:Boo-hoo. (Score:2)
Apparently, Time-Warner.
http://metalab.unc.edu/team/fun/birthday/
Happy Birthday to You, the four-line ditty was written as a classroom greeting in 1893 by two Louisville teachers, Mildred J. Hill, an authority on Negro spirituals, and Dr. Patty Smith Hill, professor emeritus of education at Columbia University.
The melody of the song Happy Birthday to You was composed by Mildred J. Hill, a schoolteacher born in Louisville, KY, on June 27, 1859. The song was first published in 1893, with the lyrics written by her sister, Patty Smith Hill, as "Good Morning To All."
Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)
In 1988, Birch Tree Group, Ltd. sold the rights of the song to Warner Communications (along with all other assets) for an estimated $25 million (considerably more than a song). (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)
In the 80s, the song Happy Birthday to You was believed to generate about $1 million in royalties annually. With Auld Lang Syne and For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, it is among the three most popular songs in the English language. (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)
Happy Birthday to You continues to bring in approximately 2 million dollars in licensing revenue each year, at least as of 1996 accounting, according to Warner Chappell and a Forbes magazine article.
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
It does not have to be this way of course. It just too bad that the record labels do not have enough competition amongst themselves for the good artists to be able to achieve goal 8.
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
Sometimes the people don't do what they know is good for them. That is another driving force for laws. Think of speeding. I contend that most people in this country speed at least 5mph over. Should we stop writing tickets because obviously the will of the people is go as fast as we want? Another example is seat belts. When that started taking effect, people bitched and complained. "You can't make me do something I don't want to do!!". The law was enforced, people got ticketed, death rates in accidents went down, and everyone went, "hey, that's not so bad."
The will of the people doesn't always take into account the rights of other people. Let's assume that people trading mp3s over napster are taking sales away from indie artists (big assumption, I know). The traders want to continue trading free music, that's their "will", even though it is hurting someone else. Do we abolish copyright laws? Of course not.
The people's will only has a part to play in law-making. To make a "good" law, one must step back and see things from all angles, including saftey of the people (hence seat belt laws), and other things.
Re:Why shouldn't artists make money? (Score:2)
You clearly don't know many actors and how little they get paid. The difference may be better characterized as how actors are at least starting to unionize and demand better compensation. Perhaps it's time for musicians to form their own guilds.
News Flash! (Score:2)
I'm sure Baptist Whatevertheyarecalled has some loyal fans, but I'm getting a little tired of virtually unknown artists trying to get noticed by "taking a stand" on a hotbutton issue that gets their name in the press.
I don't like Hole's music, but when Courney Love went on her rant about the big labels and MP3's I had to respect her cred on the issue. She sold a buttload of music as an independant artist, then got signed to a major label and had even more success, so it was not like she was starved for media attention. Having worked on both sides of the fence, she had a perspective that the average working "bar band" lacks.
With or without MP3's, you will never, ever, ever sell 10,000 CD's without finding a way to expose people to your music.
A few bands have gambled on net radio and MP3.com as one way to get heard. Others choose to see the Internet as a threat, and continue to glue posters to utility poles like they did in the 80's. Time will tell which model works best.
But what makes you think I should PAY you? (Score:3)
There are many fallacies in the arguments put around by the various parties in this dispute. Record companies push reports which show that CD sales in college town record stores have been declining. Problem is, the decline happened before Napster (a more credible explanation is college kids having access to ethernet, credit cards, and online stores). Napster claims that is enabling file sharing rather then bootlegging. Problem is, these concepts are tied to ideas of property and its sharing which predate the Internet, and the scale at which it now enables music to be shared. Then musicians claim that they are losing income because of Napster.
Baptist Death Ray state, 'Meanwhile, the consumer looks at a Web site where he or she can spend $8 for a CD, and then looks at Napster and sees the entire contents of the album online, free. Pay, or free.' What is wrong with this statement is that it is NOT a case of pay or free. It's a case of free, or I don't listen to the song. There is no guarantee that if BDR's songs were not available for free, then I would pay for them. Reason? Why should I PAY for BDR's music, if there are better alternatives? I'm not saying that BDR's music is bad, but that there might be people doing better things.
I don't have enough money to buy every CD that is averagely competent. In other words, if I download a BDR mp3, BDR have not necessarily lost $8 on a CD I might not have wanted to buy in the first place.
I've had this discussion with a number of musicians who think that, just because they are somehow 'artists,' then anything they produce should automatically have some kind of value on the market. Wrong. I have a limited income, and I try to spend that on CDs I really like. I like to reverse the musician argument of "I'm producing something, you should pay me" to read instead "I'm spending my money on your product and I expect you to deliver a certain level of quality." Which is advice a lot of them could heed.
$0.02. Ker-chingg!
Sound Quality (Score:2)
Even if I hooked up my computer to my Adcom system, I'm pretty sure most sound cards are garbage. Until and unless that changes, the quality you can squeeze out of a MP3 file is not going to even come close to a CD.
Of course if I'm wrong, I'm happy to hear recommendations for exceptional sound cards that would work under Linux.
D
----
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
Intellectual property law has always been a compromise between incentive to create on the one hand, and the rights of people to do whatever they want with their (physical) property on the other. Advances in technology have changed the balance between these two needs, and a new, sensible compromise needs to be reached. It is only natural for the record companies to put forward as strong a case as they can to protect their interests; we, the public, must similarly look out for our own interests because often they do not coincide with those of the established music industry.
-rpl
Re:$1 per song -- but how? (Score:5)
But it's theft.
There's a profound difference between someone willingly giving something away (as in open source software) and someone thinking that they can take whatever they want, regardless of the author's wishes.
Too many people here are confused about this. To them, Open Source means "I get to take whatever I want". You can see it the way they bitch at people who put something out there that took a lot of work, free of charge and free for the usage. Pure selfishness. They should be thanking the authors for their work, not castigating them for trivial failings.
The music belongs to the musician. Not you. And while we may all applaud the musician that gives away his or her music for free, we have no right to demand they do so. That's selfish. It is the attitude of a spoiled little child.
And spoiled little children soon find that no one wants to give them anything. People will work for free if they get gratitude in return. If all they get in return is ingratitude, they'll just say "fuck it" and quit.
It is the difference between sharing and theft. Sharing is good. Sharing is people willingly giving what they have to others. We should encourage it. But encourage theft, and we devalue the producers. Do that, and they'll simply stop producing.
Re:Music should be free, too (Score:2)
Musicians are the human equivalent of a code compiler. We read in the source, convert it into instrument code, and out pops the binary album. Sure, you can plug it into a sequencer and play it through your synth, but it hasn't been optimized for the human-performed instrument.
The only way I could see your idealized "survive on concerts alone" becoming a reality in today's world is for the studios to stop producing personal-copy media and move to a "pay per use" streamed model - each use is your own personal concert. You then make it cheaper to listen to one song a hundred times from anywhere than to buy a single blank recordable physical media. The personalized radio model. That way, even if you do decide to capture a copy for yourself, at least you've paid a token amount.
Yup, that might work. We need to take the commercialization process a step further, so that theft of product is inherently more expensive and inconvenient. As that Negroponte fellow over at MIT has said and written many times, atoms cost more to move than bits. The industry needs to take atoms out of the personal picture.
how to compensate artists (Score:2)
and stopping napster won't work since an mp3 is a file at the end of the
day and there are almost as many ways to share files as there are files!
in fact technology won't solve the problem at all.
repeat: technology won't solve the problem.
it can help though. mp3's could have an additional field added (or
an agreed format in an existing field) that would be the "support this
artist link." mp3 players would show it prominantly, and mp3encoders
(or tools like mp3info) could update it. in addition cddb could be
adjusted to support it.
i'm sure people would love to pay money for their favourtie artists -
where do we pay it to? mp3 players, encoders could offer that info.
no, it's not encryption or a copy protection scheme. it depends on the
fans to support their favourite artists. in a way it's more personal
and demands that fans and artists respect one another or at least have
dialogs with one another.
MP3/.com (Score:2)
Mythological Beast
Philips Expanium Portable MP3 CDR/RW player (Score:3)
(I'm going to regret saying this here since it will decrease my chances of being selected, but...)
Until July 17th, you can sign up to be one of 50 members of the general public to get a beta version of the player by going to their website [philips.com].
Music isn't overpriced. (Score:2)
Compare this to the $ 25 novel - for the most part, read it once or twice and that's it.
The cost per play of purchased music makes it probably the cheapest form of entertainment there is. What's so bad about paying $ 16 for that?
D
----
Please explain "Professional Musician" (Score:2)
In the not-so-distant past, even the most popular musicians and artists held full-time jobs, creating music simply to express their own passions and creative juices. The wealthy, full-time rock star is a by-product of the age of recorded music, a creation of (major and independant) the Recording Industry.(tm)
Opening the music distribution system (Napster, Gnutella) is simply taking down the tollbooths on the highway. Quit trying to find a convoluted model for a revenue stream, because there isn't one. Instead, re-evaluate why you decided to make music in the first place, and what you hope to acheive with your art.
Begause it ONLY inconvinences joe consumer... (Score:4)
For an example, take the MPAA vs DeCSS.
We ALL know how unfeasable DVD piracy would be for joe consumer. But the MPAA has all their DMCA-enforced "access control" causing all inconvinence. Whilst REAL piracy rings are ignored...
For instance... in Hong Kong, Taipai, or even on the streets of San Francisco, Boston, or New York, if you know where to look, you can get substancially cheaper, PIRATED, DVD copies of just about every movie released on the format... and quite a few that haven't. Those that you can't get on DVD, you can get on VCD with little trouble. Hell, you can get a DVD of Episode I if you really want (it was released on Laserdisc in Japan... and promptly converted to DVD by enterprising pirates. Not as good as a REAL DVD, but better than VHS). These are professional piracy rings, who lay out the capital to produce these copies on a massive (economic) scale...
However, all of this is ignored by the MPAA. Instead we get crap like:
Regional encoding
Macrovision
Contractual ban on firewire output
Legal harassment of DeCSS authors/distributors
No japanese track on anime DVDs!!!
etc.
None of which combats REAL piracy rings.... But all of which are a hassle and inconvinence to *ME*, the average consumer, who just wants to view the DVDs that I bought LEGALLY; whenever, wherever, and on whatever hardware I like.
And you can bet your sweet ass that the RIAA regrets the existance of the red book standard which makes it impossible for them to pull that crap... unless they force some propietary format like DVD-Audio on us...
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
There is a 3rd category as well. Data filtration. This is not about going to Macy's (or whatever) and walking away with a brand new sweater.
Radio is the prime advertising venue for record labels. Radio stations (at least in my city) are controlled basically by very few companies. They all play the same CRAP. Song rotations are set for 2.5 hours. They have their wonderfully modelled playlists(A,B,and C lists) and you get such a diverse range of options with these stations.
A)Bubble gum pop
B)Classic Rock
C)Hip Hop/Rap
D)"Alternative" (commercialized)
E)Easy Listenting/Soft Rock
Since my music tastes dont fall into any one of those categories I have to go elsewhere to find music that appeals to me.
This is where .mp3 comes in. I can download 1 or 2 songs of a band I've never heard of, and make my decision then on whether or not I think they are great or suck.
If they are great, I buy the CD. If its just okay, I will probably burn it to CD and play it at some point in the future as background music or something, like a radio station, but I'm picking the music.
And I DO buy the CD. Some things are so good, they are worth the money. Antiloop, Innocence Mission, and Trailer Bride are NOT bands your going to hear regularly on your local radio station (at least not around here), but they are now a part of my cd collection and its all because of MP3. The same is true with software. I download ISO's of crap all the time, but the really good ones, get rewarded with me going out and buying the CD. OpenBSD, BeOS, and Starsiege Tribes fall into this category.
I have a hard time trying to label this as pure stealing, maybe you feel differently. In the end however, my money is going to the musicians/developers that are truly inspiring and offering of real value. The rest is crap I wouldn't being buying anyway so the money they are "losing" is money I wouldn't be spending.
rosie_bhjpMy music (Score:2)
No I wouldn't. Consumers don't like them for the same reasons. Do you think I enjoy the musical equivalent of eating spam when I buy a CD? Most of the music I like isn't available through the big labels.. that is, unless I happen to like pop music. I don't like it, but until recently I didn't have a choice - that's all there was.
Now I have an alternative - the web and Napster. I have been exposed to music I never would have just listening to the local radio or following "the charts".. alot of what I listen to isn't even available in places like Best Buy or other major retail outlets.
Nobody likes the big labels or the RIAA. They, unfortunately, have a monopoly on alot of things.. they are gatekeepers and they are holding all the keys. MP3's are great for sampling music, but I think the quality sucks for a variety of music.. it is a lossful compression scheme and it shows. I put up with it only because the alternative is worse - feeding the money-hungry record industry.
micropayments _are_ viable! (Score:2)
My reasoning is here [boswa.com].
Hell, I'm trying to make a go of it myself [boswa.com], as an entertainment/education software producer (I haven't made any money at it yet, but that's to be expected; I'm still working on the stuff I expect people will like enough to pay for, though I'd appreciate getting a few bucks for the little utilities and learning projects I've been released so far).
Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:4)
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
"How does the fact that laws are unjust make it OK for you to break them?"
Freeamp (Score:3)
Or freeamp [freeamp.org], which is already there for W32, and most likely won't be pulling any of these stunts, either.
---
The problem is that people suck (Score:2)
People pirate things that they should be paying for.
I have customers (teenagers) who have discovered Napster; I overheard one of them complaining because in order to get stuff off of Napster, he had to have his own collection available for download. (These are the same kinds of guys also apparently burn copies of PC and Playstation games for each other without giving it a moment's thought -- they've asked me if I could burn copies of the games I have installed on my store's PCs.)
I was listening to my favorite radio morning show today and they ran a caller poll on "have you ever stolen stuff from work"? There was a guy who used to worked at a deli who decided that "since they can't pay [him] more than minimum wage, they're providing [him] with free food." And this wasn't "making himself the occasional sandwich", either -- he was taking food home to fill the fridge with. Another guy bragged about stealing sound cards and video cards from whatever electronics store he worked for, and selling them to his friends.
I don't think I've ever been so disgusted with humanity as I was after the show.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
It's more of the "beating the system" mentality -- like the skript kiddies IRC logs from the other day. Odds are D1cK and J4Ne don't know the first thing about the systems they break into, or the tools they use to do it; it's the thrill of "doing something they oughtn't be" that pushes them on.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
As a business owner, it sucks to come to the realization that I can't trust even some of my long-time customers. But as I've told those customers, "when you come in and brag about stealing shit from other people or other stores, why should I trust you to be around my stuff unsupervised?"
Jay (=
Cheaper? (Score:2)
But still, the prices would be comparable to a CD... $1/song * 15 songs == $15/cd.
I think the record companies would be best to try to hurry up and embrace this instead of spending so many of their resources trying to fight it.
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
Well, did you read/hear Courtney Loves rant [salon.com] about the major record labels and how they screw over artists?
Did you read that the Big 5 Music labels settled [ftc.gov] a case with the FTC basically showing that they were guilty of price fixing?
How about the fact that the Canadian equivalent to the RIAA, the SOCAN, got the Canadian government to institut a blank media levy [canthetax.com] because they claim all citizens are evil beings who "pirate" music.
Really, if you want to look at this in a religious light, think of Napster as karma, comming back to kick the music industry in the balls.
-- iCEBaLM
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
If it's easy and legal to copy and sell a work without the author's, or the copyright holder's, permission, then that eliminates a huge incentive for people to make copy-able things in the first place.
It's nice to think that people will still write games in their free time, instead of doing it as their 9-5 job. But the fact is, 9-5 is a lot of time. If you send a former programmer off to bake bread (or whatever) for 9 hours a day, you've just cut out most of his waking hours and probably most of his energy. The volume of new works will plummet, as a few hobbyists take over what millions of professionals used to do. The quality will also plummet, as there will be no economic incentive for people to gain higher education in these fields; you don't find many people with degrees in coin collecting or bicycle repair - why ? Nobody bothers offering a degree they know nobody will pay to get.
Copyright laws foster professionalism in areas where it's easy to copy the finished product. They ensure that the author can except to make something on his efforts (assuming, of course, that his efforts have produced something for which there's a demand). Take them away and we're all brick layers.
-c
Music should be free, too (Score:4)
In Jazz music, there's a tradition similar to the Open Source movement - musicians will take one song and start to modify it to their own whims. Charlie Parker used to take other songs and make riffs on them. (He also had to often had to modify a section, usually the bridge, to avoid paying fees!)
It's sad that modern music has gotten so commercial, but unfortunately, modern music lacks the same spirit that music once used to have. But we can remember that music once used to be different, and that an artist can survive on concerts alone. They used to do it, and if we turn the spirit of music back into sharing, they still can.
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
Your argument cuts both ways. Just as people who copy music do not take into account the needs of musicians when they make their copies, so, too, the record companies do not take into account the needs of the public. Some sort of a compromise is necessary. The compromise we've been using up until now has worked reasonably well, but changes in technology are beginning to necessitate a new compromise. As it gets ever easier to make and transmit copies of music, people are going to want to do so; people like sharing good things with their friends. Any attempt to `compromise' by forbidding people to share is doomed to fail; instead we have to find a way to compensate musicians for their work while still allowing people to copy and share music that they like.
Of course, it may turn out that the new compromise, whatever it turns out to be makes it possible to make money as a musician, but not possible to make money as a middle man standing between musicians and their fans. There are some established interests that aren't going to like that very much, but in the end it is the will of the public that matters. If record companies end up going the way of gaslight manufacturers and horse-buggy builders, well, that's progress for you.
-rpl
Re:$1 per song (Score:2)
Of course, they also sell whole albums for $9, but they also sell on the song-by-song basis. They Might Be Giants [tmbg.com] have gotten into the sale of mp3's rather heavily thanks to Emusic. These places are out there, it's just that they're not as popular as Napster due to issues of price. (it's cheaper than CD's, but more expensive than free)
BDR and Napster (Score:2)
Bullshit on that. (Score:3)
If you're SAG or Equity (that is, in a union), you get paid. You're also at that point not allowed to work on non-union shoots/shows. Sux for you if yer in an area where most of the work is non-union.
If you're not in one of the unions, you *might* pick up some paid gigs if you're really lucky/good/connected.
I speak from a background in theatre and film, and I've worked on all kinds of sets (as a techie - acting's not my calling).
Actors and musicians both get no pay at the low end because, well, there's more supply than demand down there. At the highest end, they can both do well if they're smart w/ their money, but don't think for a minute that all or even most actors get paid. Most actually work for free in the hopes of getting noticed, especially in independent films and regional/community theatre.
OK, a SAG actor on a SAG shoot gets paid. Once, for the day they work. Forget residuals. They've gotta keep working, it's not like they can resell the same performance over and over. Why should it be the same for musicians?
-Isaac
Re:$1 per song -- but how? (Score:2)
There are some experiments toward it, but as of Right Now, BDR has a point when it comes to a certain segment of musicians. Fair use is one thing (hey, I want to be able to listen to early a disk of Sea Shanties I've got while I'm in the car) but were I to download that music from Napster (not that it would be there), by what efficient means could I pay the artists so that we would all be satisfied?
I visualize a thinning of the crowd when someone steps up and says "OK, now you can assuage your guilty conscience and pay 10 cents per track for the 6 GB of MP3s you've downloaded.Here's the hat, step right up, don't be shy ..."
I'd like to see record companies compete on this basis, rather than stick together like a cowardly pack of losers demanding government protection, but maybe that's just me. There is a HUGE amount of money to someone who can sell good music on a satisfying, cheap, per-track, reduced-middleman basis.
Hopefully, this is something that the small labels will sneak right under the nose of Big Banal Music Incorporated. timothy
Record Labels Scare Me (Score:5)
I think it has a few major roles:
1) The label serves as a distribution channel, paying for the actual, physical media, the physical packaging, shipping to its retail outlets.
2) The label pays for artwork. The intellectual property that apears on the traycard, cdlabel and jacket.
3) The label pays for studio time and recording media for the band to actually get their music down into a reproducable form. This includes
production, engineering, mastering, mixing, etc.
4) The label pays for advertisements, television, PoP displays, radio spots, free distributions of singles to media outlets, internet ads, etc.
5) The label promotes and pays for tours, and special events/appearances which in turn, sell more CDs. They find sponsors, venues, do bookings,
arrange transportation, and all the other fun stuff that comes with touring.
6) The label pays for other media production such as videos, websites, and CDRoms.
7) The label provides management and public relations for the band.
8) The label serves as a screen, filtering out the music that won't sell, and contracting that which will. This gets rid of a lot of crap, but filters out some really good stuff.
(I might be missing something...)
The real kicker is #8. The others are a matter of money. #8 is a matter of function.
I think you mentioned mp3.com in your post on
pathetic musicianship and vocalization. When a label functions as a screen, it gets rid of these 'musicians' who think they're great, but are actually terrible, and promotes music that sells.
Now, this has always worked for a label. It's great that a label can screen, but there has always been an element of greed, which usually
produces a mediocre product, at best. This has always been a theme that has plagued the music industry, but has become more dominant in recent
years. Think of the Monkeys and the New Kids on the Block, Milli Vanilli (sp?). Those bands were money makers.
If labels were eliminated, who would serve the function of filter? The role of the label will CHANGE in the near future. Perhaps they won't
even be called a label.
It's also very expensive to lay down tracks in the studio. Studio time is REALLY expensive, but this is a matter of money, so it isn't as
important to me.
---
[end excerpt]
The person who figures out how to make money from recordings without selling the music will be very very wealthy. There is already a great distribution infrastructure (the net) in place, but I believe that the key is filtering the crap.
Why should we support outdated business models? (Score:2)
The question is what happens when technology makes it infeasible to make money off music (or any other field of endeavor). The legal means by which profitability could be retained also fundamentally affect our rights to communicate and share non-copyrighted information with each other.
So, should our society put draconian restrictions on the rights of people to exchange information so that musicians (actually, mostly the major record labels) get a guaranteed return? Or should we accept that certain occupations simply become obsolete because of technology?
We don't force people to ride horses (to give blacksmiths and horsefarms work) or run around in handwoven, coarse cloth (to allow the weavers to support themselves). Why should we force people to listen to music on outdated, copy-restricted media? Technological progress causes lots of people to lose jobs, but it also creates lots of new jobs. That's the road we have chosen as a society.
Even if there were no limitation on music copying, many people would still continue to go to live performances, and the Internet would be a great way to promote that. It would also get rid of many people who were in it only for the money and who produce merely formulaic stuff designed to appeal. Getting rid of retail distribution with its star system, marketing, and limited access may well turn out to be overall good for music.
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
Do you beleive it is morally right for you to obtain a product or service for free when the artist producing said product has made clear they wish to be payed for their work? In obtaining their work for free, you are not only expressly going against thier wishes, but depriving them of thier livelihood. How is this in any way right?
He contradicts himself (Score:2)
It's no secret that despite the "rampant piracy" of people trading MP3s last year, the big labels sold more CDs than ever before. People tend to like buying CDs; there's a psychological difference between downloading an MP3 and going to a store and buying a CD. Consumers aren't buying music -- they're buying CDs, with cover art and liner notes and a little poster inside and a few hidden tracks and a few spoken tracks and perhaps a limited edition signed thingie wedged in between the cover art and the CD itself.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along and I agree 100%
Who Napster does compete with, however, are the independent musicans. While independent musicians are trying to convince people that they don't need to buy from major labels, that they can buy direct (for less!) instead, Napster is showing people that they don't need to buy music at all. So on the one hand, you could buy ABCDEffigy at MP3.com, on the other hand, you could scour Napster for all the MP3s and have it anyway.
So which is it? How can it be that MP3s are promotional vehicles for big label consumers, but piracy vehicles for indy music cans? His core argument appears to be that Baptist Death Ray fans are less moral then Metallica fans. He shouldn't really be making that argument -- it's insulting to his fans, and even worse, it's probably not true.
After reading this article, I went and downloaded the most recent BDR MP3 and listened to it. I didn't really care for it, and won't be buying the album, so I just made your download to sales ratio worse. Sorry. That's the reality
I mean, now that indi bands can use the internet doesn't mean that they now have an advantage over the big labels. The big labels are still pouring money into promotion, and if you want to compete with that, sorry to say, you have to do the same. About all you can say is that the internet helps level the playing field a little more. In that sense, the notion that the Internet has completely levelled the playing field is false. The internet can provide a distribution system for little or no cost, but not a promotional system. You can use a web site to promote your album, but if Metallica can spend thousands of dollars on an advertising blitz for their new album, they are likely to do better then you, because, after all, you said it
bandwith may help, not hurt (Score:4)
Right now, maybe spending the $8 is more convenient than waiting two days on a 33.3 modem. When high bandwidth lines are commonplace, however, that will no longer be the case.
Higher bandwidth may help the unknown artist more than it hurts. Right now, it's a risk to spend a half hour downloading something you've never heard of and might not like. I've often taken the chance and been disappointed, and felt like I wasted my time. So right now, it's a safer bet to download a song by a band I've already heard. But if that same download took 3 seconds, then even if I listen to the song and hate it I won't care as much. I'll keep sampling until I find a band I like, then I'll order the $8 CD from the artist.
Napster competing is good, nap is not controlling (Score:2)
The more indies create services that work with napster the more indies will show up on Napster.
The most important thing to note is: You cannot make more money than exists in your market. If there's 200 buyers with 150 for mainstream and 50 for weird rock, the mainstream musicians will reach 100% of the 150, they'll never get the other 50. If weird rockers want to take avantage of Napster they will reach 100% of the 50.
Each gets the intended market. Where's the injustice?
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
People want music to be available on the web, but they only want it in MP3 format. But if it's offered in MP3 format, it is immediately shared, so less people will buy it. The only way to offer music on the web is in a way where it can't be easily shared, and MP3 sure isn't it.
Re:Yeah, every once in a while (Score:2)
What an overrated crock. Those other stories that you mention were nothing like this one. Only a small portion of the stories have touched on the point of view of the musicians, and none of them brought up the idea of how sharing could have a different effect on mainstream versus indy.
You don't think that music making a transition from a physical object (CD) to a file that can be copied (MP3) is a big deal, and doesn't have interesting consequences? How narrow minded.
---
Re:Bad logic. (Score:2)
Anyway, frankly, no, people won't tip, they won't pay, they won't do anything for *free* music. If they don't have to, they won't. Do you realize how few people make money at shareware? *NONE* are making a living on shareware that doesn't have an effective nag screen, and that's despite the relative sanity of a market where an individual consumer can pay someone to add a much-valued feature to a piece of software.
I continue to believe that many people make music because they can make a living at it, and would not make much music if they couldn't make a living
at it, and I continue to believe that, if we do not provide a reliable framework for them to do this within, we are unlikely to see them succeed.
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
A lot of the record companies and film studios don't have the best copies of their work, because they allowed their masters to be abused and damaged, or lost track of them.
But to directly answer the question, it only takes one Ellington/Armstrong collector with a mint copy of an original pressing of an original release, to collaborate with one person with access to high end sound processing hardware and software, to create a new recording that can be enjoyed by millions, if that work is in the public domain.
So long as that work is still under copyright, the only entity that can do that is the record company, and they don't always have the best source material to work from. Record and movie studios don't tend to work well with private collectors of preprint materials. Mostly, they tend to sue them and drive them underground.
The best examples are from the world of film, although many recording companies have the same problems. So I'll talk about films instead. There are many films, especially Technicolor films, that only exist in private collections. The studios made up hundreds of beautiful 35mm prints, sent them back and forth from theatre to theatre, and at the end of their theatrical runs, dumped all but a few of each film in landfills or had them shredded. Once there were only two or three existing prints of a film in the movie studios' hands, the studios wore out their last existing prints by making copy after copy for television sale, either from the original negatives, or from the few library theatrical prints. Now many movies are not available from the studio libraries in any form.
There's the entire "Dr Who" story. The BBC had 16mm film prints of each and every episode of Dr. Who. That is, until one person decided to clear out some storage space, and ordered that those piles of old black and white films be incinerated. As a result, hundreds of episodes were lost, and even after an intensive effort to track down the lost episodes, over 100 episodes are still missing. It is rumored that many of those lost episodes are actually in private hands -- that a few people who happened to be around at the right time realized what was happening and "diverted" some of those prints.
As for the labels having access to the original masters, you are right there. If Disney were to put out a DVD of Snow White, and some other company were to put out a DVD of Snow White, taken from a beat up, red 16mm print, the Disney product would win in the marketplace.
On the other hand, in 1972, ABC ordered a brand new, Technicolor dye transfer print of Vertigo for the Sunday Night Movie. They projected the film once, then threw it away. It was retrieved from the garbage bins by a collector, and, having only been run a few times, is most likely the best copy in existance -- NOT owned by the studio that created it.
That's just one example. How many more "best" recordings and films exist in private hands that would "reappear" if the works were allowed to enter the public domain?
Hard to say, but Richard Haines, in his book, "Technicolor Movies", offers the following:
Film collectors were very supportive of this project and allowed me to screen their private collections of rare 35mm and 16mm dye transfer prints in the various formats. It was encouraging to discover that a large percentage of the U.S. features printed in the stable dye transfer process exist in excellent condition through these collectors although few copies exist in studio vaults. Film collectors may turn out to be the unofficial curators of our color film legacy since many dye transfer prints will outlast the negatives they were made from.
Back to the world of audio
Somewhere out there, there are probably collectors with mint, unplayed or only-played-once copies of the original pressings of each and every Ellington and Armstrong record, who treat those records like gold. Not necessarily so for the studios, who used THEIR copies as production tools.
You also said:
And there's still the point of the mainstream artists offsetting the costs of introducing new artists who may or may not become wildly popular.
You greatly underestimate the importance of reissues in financing new projects. A reissue is lucky if it breaks even. The market for reissues is a tiny fraction of the market for new albums. How many reissues go gold?
Ah! The ones that include never-before-released material, whose copyright starts when they are first published.
Besides, if some collector were to put out a fantastic release of a public domain Ellington work, what's to stop the record companies from taking that version, adding their own unreleased material, and selling their own compliation?
philosophy vs. stealing (Score:5)
The problem is in our nature as humans (Score:3)
People pirate things that they should be paying for.
It's very simple. I pay for EVERYTHING I own. I consider getting on Napster and downloading a CD's worth of MP3s as equivalent to walking into the label's manufacturing plant and stealing a CD. (I don't say store, because then the store loses, not the record company)
Sure, record companies exploit artists, but if you don't pay for your music, neither record company NOR artist gets paid. If you are so worried, then send money to their fan club or something, and get their MP3s, but these people are selling their music so they can eat and get someplace to live. Admittedly, many of them are mega-wealthy, but as the article points out, NAPSTER KILLS SMALL TIME MUSICIANS. This particularly applies to those who sell their music in MP3 form on the internet.
And if you think that $15 a CD is too much, you have absolutely no right to go steal that music and pay nothing. You try working in a job where you aren't paid by the hour, but by your success as a celebrity.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Boo-hoo. (Score:5)
If you were trying to make a living as a rock star, you had to expect hard times to begin with. Well, the market is changing, adapt.
Finally. What are the implications of fewer musicians? Well guess who we're weeding out? The ones who are in it for the money alone. again, Boo-hoo.
Sausage King of Chicago
Fans versus listeners (Score:3)
BDR has a lot of valid points, but I disagree with some of what s/he says. I think there has to be a distinction made between fans of a band, and listeners. The distinction would be this; Fans tend towards rabidity. They go see the band any time they tour, several times. They buy the T-shirt, the CD, the CD singles, the promo stuff, the posters. They might get the MP3's as well, but they want something tangible that ties that band to them. Ever hear "I dont like insert band name here; they've become too commercial." That would have been a Fan who discovered 'his' band wasn't just known by the select few anymore. But up until that point, they have shares in that band, shares they can wear, listen to, show off about. All tangible. All collectable, saleable, profitable. In the days of (ick) 'Madchester' in the UK, James and the Inspiral Carpets probably were making more money from T-shirt sales than albums, and probably to a lot of folk who'd never heard the bands at all. All you need is a good logo, a hip slogan, and sod the CD sales...
BDR sounds like he's talking about Listeners. Listeners are different. They tape albums, borrow them, mooch MP3s, all sorts. Their loyalty doesnt really exist, they just want background music, summat off the radio. It'll always happen. Forget them. Concentrate on the Fans. As long as you don't make the Big Time, they'll still be there in ten years...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
If the record companies hadn't bribed Congress to steal the public domain wholesale, by unconstitutionally extending old copyrights again and again, those exact recordings would be regularly entering the public domain, as they should be, and anyone could publish reissues and anthologies, or make the material available on web sites for free.
Another subtle point that I think a lot of people miss.
If it works for CD sales ... (Score:2)
Face it, most musicians start off making money with the tip jar, private (for hire) performances, and hawking tapes and CDs on street corners. Seeing as that tape isn't in most if not any stores, if I want someone else to hear it I might copy it for them - cutting the originator out of a sale.
So why not encourage a good micorcash ewallet open protocol that can be dropped into any damn browser. Then I can buy one song or a set, and maybe even toss a bit of cash into the online tip jar (hey - Ebuskering - patent it quick!).
And continue to remind people that if the creators of music and art can't earn a living at it, they'll have to take Real World Jobs such as CPAs, used car salespeople, or handing out samples of DeathWheeze cigarettes. So it's more CPAs and elevator mussic, or pay the folks who make it, which do you want?
SkaPunx.net has the right idea (Score:2)
Filtering: Amazon's Model (Score:2)
Now pair that with a good feedback modifier (I bought it, but it really stank!!!), and you've got a winner. My SO is a singer. I've been working on setting up independant distribution for her latest album in my spare time... web site with 30 second track samples, contacts with genre (very specific... Jewish album) stores and chains, that sort of thing. We're setting up an MP3.com listing, but...
I went through all the Jewish music on MP3.com. Yes, the #1 track's band is sort of good, and catchy, but... there's no real user rating system. It was jumbled and there was no profiled association. Rather discouraging.
I'm starting to get pissed at the socialist attitude on
I know I've written for-sale software - hey, I have to eat, damnit, and I'm not a uni grad student anymore, and I don't live in a world where the government (you know, the government we all love to hate) pays me for my services to society with money from taxes (which, honestly, I'd aprove of, if I could somehow be assured of a honestly benevolent government, which I can't), so I have to extract payment from society in sales. Which is why, damnit, when I sell you a commodity, I'm selling you everything that went into it. My 3D rendered MMPOG with advanced simulation and presentation capacities is damned well worth more than the price of the CD-R I sent it to you on, and I damned well deserve more for it that just your payment. Just because you payed for the media does not mean you payed for the distribution rights. Sure, I'll grant you that you payed for the right to use it on any platform that supports it, and the right to keep using it, but if you get upset because I don't want you burning copies and giving them to your friends in exchange for a few of those herbal brownies they baked, and take steps to nuke any rogue copies that try to access the server, well, fuck you. You're a thief, and I'm not signing over the rights to resell my blood, sweat, and code.
...whew...
And the same goes for musicians. Which is why, ethically, I won't keep any MP3s I haven't paid for the album of (though buying it used, just as buying a book used, is a different story. That's still a copy that the artist was compensated for, on a per copy basis), and I won't tolerate those who do.
Re:Not exactly a contradiction (Score:2)
You want to sell albums. People who are not already fans are not going to buy your album in numbers unless they have somehow become familiar with at least one song on your album. The record companies get the public familiar with one song per album -- the "radio song" -- by saturating the airwaves with those few songs. It takes a few listens, but eventually people start to learn the riffs, and recognize the song, and now they might want to pick up the album.
You don't have the option of saturating the airwaves with your song, because you don't have that resource. However, in order for people to want to buy your album, they are still going to have to hear your music somehow.
MP3s of your songs start to pop up on Napster, and you find out that thousands of people are trading your songs around. How do you evaluate this?
Remember, downloads are NOT a count of your potential market. They are a count of your overall exposure.
Lots of people are going to download your songs and not like them. They were never part of your target market. Lots of other people are going to download your songs, stick them in their directory, occasionally listen to them, but never buy your album. This is the internet equivalent of people who listen to radio stations, but don't buy albums. In your case, they're free riders. But they were never part of your market. Your market is people who, as we both agree, gain enough psychological satisfaction from buying a physical album that they are willing to spend actual money to do so. This is a tiny percentage of the population for you, but that's true for radio also.
Napster is nowhere near as efficient as radio. With radio, you're song would be injected into the subconscious of literally millions and millions of people at once. With Napster, you're talking tens or hundreds of thousands at the most.
The question is, how are you doing relative to how you would be doing if you had a radio campaign going for you?
Well, first off, If those people who are downloading your songs from Napster didn't first hear your songs from Napster, where on earth would they have heard from? I mean, you're not getting radio exposure. What else do you have? In one sense it CAN'T drive the album-buying-candidate sliver of the napster-using population away from your music, because without MP3s and without Napster, they probably never would have heard your music in the first place. The big labels have the radio stations and you don't.
I don't have any sort of market research, so I'm going to make up some numbers here.
Let's say you get 100,000 downloads and 100 direct purchases. Is this realistic?
Ok, that's 1/10th of 1%.
Assume that if you had a radio song, maybe 2/3 the people in the U.S. would, at some point, would be exposed to your song, either by listening to the radio, or being in a place where a radio is playing, at some time or another, or being stuck on hold, or sitting in a waiting room. No one escaped the Macarena.
That would be 2/3 of about 275,000,000 people, say about 200,000,000 people, for the sake of having a nice, round number. If a band that is exposed to 200,000,000 people sells 1,000,000 records, that means that they have sold music to approximately 5/10th of 1% of the people who have been exposed to their music.
If you think of it that way, you are doing 1/5th as well on Napster as that million-seller band is doing on the radio at selling albums.
But you didn't have to sign your rights away to a label, and you don't have a promotional advance to pay off out of your royalties. You bypassed all the middlemen and won a respectable percentage of a very, very tiny pie.
So what benefits indi artists?
To shut down Napster, which is uncontrollable by the labels, and return to the system where people learn about music from the radio and TV, which are controlled by the labels?
To scale Napster up to increase the exposure of the bands with music on Napster so that they reach a large enough percentage of the population that that 1/10th of 1% hypothetical purchase rate becomes substantial? If downloading from Napster is found to be fair use and not copyright infringement, it will probably explode in popularity, so this might actually happen.
Or to replace Napster with something that pays royalties? I simply can't imagine that a royalty based internet music distribution system wouldn't be dominated and controlled by the labels.
Not surprisingly, the 3rd option is exactly what the labels want. What do you think their agenda is? Protecting artists' rights, or regaining control of the runaway gravy train?
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:2)
Thus, we have a "perfect" pay-per-view technology that nobody can circumvent by any means.
Nope. The only way you can have un-copyable information is to wire it directly into a person's brain -- and even then, you could probably get a copy of it if you're willing to undergo a second operation to install a black-market neural-signal interceptor.
If you can listen to it, you can record it. Worst case, just set a microphone next to the speakers. Second worst case, tap the speaker wire. If it's a computer-based player, the "plaintext" digital data has to be sent to a sound card at some point, so you can intercept the signals in the soundcard itself, or from the bus. If it's Linux-based (for example) then the unencrypted data probably passes through a kernel device driver, before being sent to a sound card. You could intercept the data in the kernel. If you're using Linux+esd, then you could intercept the sound data in userspace, with a modified esd.
The possibilities are virtually limitless.
The same applies to video data. Worst case, put a video camera in front of the CRT. Second worst case, intercept the analog signals being sent to the CRT. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Invalid parallel (Score:2)
"How does the fact that laws are unjust make it OK for you to break them?" This is not a valid parallel. The artists are not ripping us off, I don't think many contest this fact. I think the price of a CD is fair. Admittedly, record companies may be a bad idea, but if you're really worried about your so called revolt, why don't you tell artists that you will continue to support them if they leave their label? Why don't you start a campaign to free them from their bonds?
If you want to draw the parallel your way, a revolt would consist of killing random citizens and government leaders in order to free the people. Stealing from artists is not the way to bring about change.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
You're Thinking Like a Label (Score:2)
What I'd pay for (Score:2)
Say a cent per 5 minutes. That's 12 cents an hour. For the amount of music I listen to, that's around $160 per year. Which is the same as 13 albums (ish). Which is about what I buy (give or take). And the money would go straight to the people who make the music. so every time I listen to a song by REM, REM get a cent (or thereabouts). And I get to listen to any song I like at any time.
I'd pay for a streaming service like that.
Re:BDR and Napster (Score:3)
As for the multi-millionare vs. working stiff thing. . . never seen it. Most people I know who have no reservations about downloading Brittany Spears also have no reservations about downloading the Baptist Death Ray, or the Velcro Pigmys, or any other small name band. A lot of ethics discussion goes on about it on
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Slashdotters being hypocritical? Maybe not. (Score:3)
I use encryption, sometimes.
But there is a difference in using encryption and using encryption to prevent someone from exercising their fair use rights (DECSS). Or using encryption, then litigation, to prevent people from talking about screwed up products (CPHack).
Re:Filtering: Amazon's Model (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe a possible alternative is for a cooperative "purchase" mechanism - the artist puts up a really low bitrate version of their song, people listen to it & everyone who likes it can contribute a little bit until they meet some kind of "reserve" price which the artist has such (presumably high enough to recoup their expenses, including labor), then the high-quality version of the work can be released (and will presumably be immediately distributed far & wide to adoring fans).
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
That's the key. You SHOULD be free to decide, but, being very general, society loves being told what to buy and how much to buy it. The idea of falsely overpopularising music and pretending that this fluff has purpose, for the sake of profit, is repulsive.
If you sincerely enjoy [insert genre] music, then, by all means, go buy the CD. But if the only reason you enjoy this music and are buying the CD is because you've been drawn in by some HUGE marketing campaign, then you're merely a pawn in the record companies' collective hand, helping them turn huge profits from commercial music.
People don't think for themselves anymore.
Maybe we should go back to patrons (Score:3)
Maybe we should go back to that model. Maybe Baptist Death Ray should try to get Bill Gates to underwrite them while they make their music. Bill could then put the music up on the net (At www.microsoft.com?) in MP3 format for all to listen to, perhaps with a little "Brought to you by Bill Gates" in the MP3 headers. Wouldn't be too hard, I don't think.
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
Just use repuatation managers - ala slashdot and preference managers ala amazon - thus you quickly can get the cream of the crop to the top (although I would certainly use a more sophisticated and powerful rep manager than that used by
Thus it is a really simple problem to solve, hopefully something that will be added to Gnutella or some such...
LetterRip
Who's really paying for the expenses? (Score:5)
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that labels spend a lot of time screening in order to find what's most likely to sell. It's a process that's guaranteed to generate mediocrity, really.
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
Re:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:5)
All true, although there is of course some great stuff to be found on mp3.com. So who could serve as the filter? How about all of the visitors to the site?
Two words: collaborative filtering. You find a song you like or don't like, click somewhere to tell mp3.com your opinion. Soon, you can filter down to stuff that's enjoyed by people who share your love of Power Pop, your hatred of Smooth Jazz, etc. Works like a charm at moviecritic.com, et al. Hell, build the rating buttons into a branded player.
-paulRe:Record Labels Scare Me (Score:2)
You're right
In any event, even if the studios only own a few, they still own them and would not release them if the (almost certain) losses were not covered by the promotion of mainstream artists.
Ok
Reissues often serve a different purpose. Besides the direct profit from sales of the record, an important product of a reissue is corporate prestige and recognition. When RCA/BMG spends lots of money and studio time to restore and reissue a Duke Ellington album, they are saying, in effect, "Look at us
And what's the problem here? The studios made the recording. What's wrong with publishing it and holding the copyright? That's what copyright is for.
There's no problem. The point that I failed to make is that a recording company can still make money on works once they have entered the public domain, by bundling those public domain works with previously unpublished works, and selling the package.
That's what public domain means. I don't see a problem here. Can the collector copyright the release if sufficient sound processing has been done to create added value?
I believe that the answer is restorations do not qualify for new copyright because they are recreating something old, not creating something new -- the primary criteria for copyright. The point I wanted to make is that if a Ellington work was in the public domain, for example, and an Italian company were to release an absolutely phenomenal recording of that work, RCA could turn around and use that recording for their own release, so they aren't necessarily harmed by the competition created by the work entering the public domain. And they always have the ability to write new liner notes and obtain a copyright on the packaging.
I have nothing against the public domain. As a matter of fact, I'm a huge fan of the public domain. That doesn't mean that I am opposed to copyright. I have no problem with the concept of copyright, and with reasonable, well designed, functional copyright laws. Taken in moderate measures, they do promote progress -- their only legitimate purpose.
However, I think that many aspects of our current copyright laws -- especially the DMCA and duration of copyright -- are seriously out of balance and are working against the public interest.
I think we agree more then we think
Bad logic. (Score:2)
Hmm... Funny thing, you don't make any argument to support this premise that the variety of music comes from the oppressive domination of the distributors.
I happen to think that the variety is due to improvements in technology: mostly being able to communicate and travel inexpensively over long distances and increased leisure time due to automated production.
Most musicians can't afford to do this professionally if we don't provide them with a mechanism to make money at it.
Circular logic: they aren't professional if they aren't in it for the money, they won't be in it for the money if there isn't money to be had.
Most music that is produced does not make a net profit. For every song that does become popular and makes a fortune, there are a hundred or a thousand that are ignored.
It isn't because it's "better music" either; do you really think Kenny G, Brittney Spears, and the Backstreet Boys make better music than the typical garage band? How about Milli Vanilli? It's all about promotion and image, about training a captive audience to like something, then telling them to pay for it.
The truth is that most musicians don't have an adequate mechanism to make money. They have a carrot held out of reach by a network of distributors and promoters.
I think a busking model is most appropriate. It removes the necessity of the brainwashing step; people will find what they like and share it with their friends. If it's made easy enough (and between paypal [paypal.com] and e-gold [e-gold.com] it certainly can be easy) and it is explained that this is their primary source of revenue, people will pay, just as they tip when it's expected of them.
Re:Music should be free, too (Score:4)
While I agree that what Parker and most other Jazz musicians have done is okay (Even metallica has done it, listen to Dont Tread on me, then listen to America from west side story) I don't agree that copying and redistributing a performance is an exceptible and desirable practice.
--
Mike Mangino
Sr. Software Engineer, SubmitOrder.com
contribution and support (Score:4)
On the surface, what it missing is some form of micropayment that isn't yet technically feasible. Perhaps an EFT routing number stored in the MP3 tag information along with the artist name and song title, so that if I like the tune, I can send a buck directly to that artist's account. Maybe some other nifty low-overhead method.
But here's the catch -- it has to be voluntary. The reality that the music industry is unwilling to face is that the genie is out of the bottle. MP3 is a high-enough quality format for most listeners, so there's very little incentive for the listener to switch to an encrypted or otherwise limited format. SDMI is stillborn, and other copyright-control methods haven't even pierced the consumer sphere of awareness. Any near-future encryption and control technology will be quickly decoded and rendered irrelevant.
What will save the indie artist is a culture of contribution and support. A culture of control and enforcement doesn't just play into the existing music industry's hands, it IS them, it creates a NEED for them. On the other hand, a culture of support takes away the thrill of 'screwing the man' from music piracy, and promotes indie artists by sending the message "If you want to hear more of this, send a buck for this song to 325077763:765364:4." You have to focus on the culture surrounding the business before the business model will change, and have people WANT to pay.
Re:Slashdotters bieng hypocritical? (Score:5)
Second, and even more troubling, is that it is infeasible to enforce copyright through technological means. Any copy protection can be broken by someone sufficiently motivated to do so, and somewhere out there on the internet there is bound to be someone who is sufficiently motivated. All it takes is one person to break the protection scheme, and then the cat is out of the bag. Consequently, copyright enforcement turns to laws and the tools of law enforcement. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we have to ask ourselves, if a law is widely violated by a majority of the citizens, then is that law really an expression of the will of the people (the ultimate force from which the law's authority is derived)? And if not, then should we really be enforcing legal penalties on those who violate this law that does not derive from the will of the people?
-rpl
Re:Invalid parallel (Score:2)
The point is that "stealing" for artists hurts THEM very little, but the RECORD COMPANIES a lot, because the record companies are getting fat off exploiting artists.
The CORRECT analogy would be not to buy sweatshop labor-produced clothing, to which your rebuttal would be "Stealing from sweatshop employees is not the way to bring about change". Poor sweatshop employees, they don't deserve their $0.01 / hour *stolen* from them. Sure. The way to make change IS to defy the status quo.
What kind of a cut do artists get off their music? (Score:2)
Is this situation that bad? How much does an artist get vs. the record company?
Again, there is a minor error in this parallel. Each sweatshop worker is not producing a unique good with their name on it whose sales reflect their individual work. Also, I don't know about the relative pay difference between what the record company makes vs. the artist, in comparison to the sweatshop analogy.
Again, if your quest is really to kill the record companies, you should try to have the decency to get money to the artist somehow. If you download Metallica songs, and listen to them with frequency, then to me, you are morally obligated to go to paylars.com and send some money his way.
I'm all for Napster and the like, because of the fact that they CAN make record companies either more responsible or obsolete entirely. I just feel that people misuse them, and they are not going towards helping artists and helping society.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Ah, but what are you trained to like? (Score:2)
It's hard to like unknown bands when their recordings are poorly mixed with cheap equipment, and the most consistent quality of the music you've liked in the past is high production values. I'm not saying you should, but perhaps this explains your preference, rather than the actual bands you like (in other words, perhaps if the obscure bands you don't like had access to the same studios as the bands you do like, you'd like them as well).
There is no question that there are some things that only appear in expensively produced music, and represent significantly different content. For example, the typical garage band can't get an orchestral backup, whether it improves their music or not.
Personally, I like novelty, extremes of complexity and simplicity, and unusual themes. I like them because this is what I decided I should like when I was a teenager. I no longer care about what I should should like (aside from a conscious effort to learn and understand what appeal different entertainments have), but the early self-training based on superficial judgements has remained.
Others decide they should like music that is difficult to produce, or that has some deeper message, or what other people they admire like. Most simply learn to like what they hear most often.
There is no arguing about tastes, but you should understand where yours come from. Would you accept being manipulated by distributors to like their music? Would you resist it if you recognize it? Would that change your tastes in music?
Re:What kind of a cut do artists get off their mus (Score:2)
Yes it is. Read Courtney Love's ?a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/1
"Each sweatshop worker is not producing a unique good with their name on it whose sales reflect their individual work."
Which is basically the opinion of record labels of artists' work. It's "contract" work. Like migrant strawberry pickers.
"Also, I don't know about the relative pay difference between what the record company makes vs. the artist, in comparison to the sweatshop analogy."
Well, most artists have trouble breaking even. Sure in this country our average quality of life is so high that just breaking even or being broke is totally incomparable to any person in a third-world country, but still MOST are not raking it in.
"Again, if your quest is really to kill the record companies, you should try to have the decency to get money to the artist somehow. If you download Metallica songs, and listen to them with frequency, then to me, you are morally obligated to go to paylars.com and send some money his way."
I agree with you 100%. We SHOULD get the money to the artists some how. But right now the record companies are the big fat middle men we have to go through. Why? Let's buck the status quo and show them that artists and fans don't NEED the middle men. Hell, if I could buy CDs or music *directly* from the artist, do you really think I'd pay more to a record company instead?
"I'm all for Napster and the like, because of the fact that they CAN make record companies either more responsible or obsolete entirely. I just feel that people misuse them, and they are not going towards helping artists and helping society."
Yes, I have a whole separate rant about Napster. Everybody is bitching bullshit about how Metallica are some "corporate whores" or something. Utter bullshit. Metallica's whole point is that Napster should be talking to THEM. THEM. The artists. NOT the record companies. Napster should have approached *them* and asked if they wanted to do some deal or something. This needs to be done to *start* the process of direct artist-to-fan distribution. What Napster did though is go over to the record companies and say "Hey, those indentured servants of yours make some good music. Let's get richer mutually exploiting them in opening a new market all for ourselves." Napster should be talking to the artists not the record companies.
Re:What kind of a cut do artists get off their mus (Score:2)
Collaborative filtering? You're looking at it. (Score:2)
Yeah...Slashcode. No joke. Think about it: what is moderation but a form of collaborative filtering of comments? With a little hacking, it shouldn't be too hard to turn Slash into a collaborative filtering system for MP3s on a website.
We all know how broken moderation is, and how it can be abused. But it's still remarkably effective at weeding out the garbage.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
collaborative filtering (Score:2)
Re:philosophy vs. stealing (Score:2)
My point is that a library purchases a single copy of, or a small number of copies of as many copyrighted works as it can afford, for the sole purpose of making them available to the public without payment of additional royalties to the copyright owner.
How is this different from a person who purchases a Metallica album, makes MP3s, and and puts them on Napster?
There are technical differences based on the physical constraints of libraries, but what is the philosophical difference that makes the library a moral, desirable institution and the Metallica fan with a Napster upload directory an immoral thief?
the new rip off artists (Score:4)
the Baptist Death Ray pages on Listensmart.com, Mp3.com, MusicBuilder.com, Riffage.com, and Garageband.com
These are the new record labels, and they are ripping off artists just like the old record labels. They want musicians to post songs to their sites, and keep ALL the income the generated. It's just a matter of time before they start buying physical record labels. Oh, wait. AOL already did that.
They all offer to sell musicians CD's, but no one is buying them. Plus, the musicians have to create pages at all the sites. Upload their songs over and over again. Re-type all their bios, etc. What a waste of time, not to mention doing self-promotion on all the sites, keeping track of all the message boards, multiple mailing lists, etc.
The best way for the musicians is the keep their mp3's on their own site where they can control the content and look and feel of the pages, keep track of downloads, and run one mailing list. Then have the new record labels link no them - and NOT deep link directly to the mp3 files. The band can then set up a system for micro payments if people like the music they download, and put banner ads on all the pages.
- daniel
Re:Sound Quality of MP3 vs CD (Score:2)
Yeah, every once in a while (Score:5)
Music | Posted by timothy on Friday July 07, @11:00AM
Every once in a while, it's good to have someone slap you with a reminder [...]
Yeah! Every once in a while is good! Like last week [slashdot.org]. And the week before that [slashdot.org]. And a few days before that [slashdot.org] And the day before [slashdot.org]. And the same day [slashdot.org].
8 articles in June alone [slashdot.org] regarding MP3's, 17 about Napster in the last two months and 7 YRO articles [slashdot.org] in the first 7 days of July. Everyone is turning the MP3 topic into their own personal martyr for whatever cause they think is worthy. It's not a revolution of freedom of speech, it's not a culture revolution of the record label owners vs. the bourgeoisie everyman artist, it's not even about the UCITA and whether or not my license to my music gives me various rights, or doesn't. Let's not forget what MP3's are about: portable music. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Re:Not exactly a contradiction (Score:3)
No one -- not you nor the big labels have figured out how to make the music itself into the product. On the radio, you give away the music and sell the advertising. People hate pay-per-listen and other micropayment systems. If anything, Napster has driven into the dust the illusion that the future of music is in selling music files on the internet. Your point is well taken that this hits you harder then it hits the big labels, but Napster isn't the problem. Napster illustrates the problem. The problem is that any copy protected music file format is intrinsically less valuable then the same music in an unprotected format. An encrypted music file is an inferior product. There is less you can do with it. Napster is good in that it demolishes a flawed product theory, so smart people can stop wasting their time on it.
The end result is that you still have to convince people to come to your concerts and/or buy your albums, which is as hard as ever. Probably even harder, because every indi band in the world is setting up a web site these days.
Big labels still sell CDs because the CDs aren't so much considered "music" as they are "something that a big-name band is selling" -- like a t-shirt that you can play on your stereo.
Or they still sell CDs because people like the product. They like the visual and tactile sensation of buying a CD, opening it, looking at the art, listening to the disc, filing it in their collection, playing the t-shirt on their stereo
Small bands, however, don't have the hype behind them for their music to be considered anything other than music.
Or, alternately, small bands don't have the resources required to efficiently and effectively turn their music into product, market it, and distribute it. I mean, that's what you're expecting when you sign with a label. That doesn't mean that your music isn't considered product
If nothing else, your essay and this discussion will probably create some interest in your music and generate some downloads. You probably have a terrible download-to-purchase ratio, but everyone has that. What is the listener-to-purchaser ratio of a radio song? The big labels beef their odds by repeating the same songs over and over. They are playing the $100.00 slot machine. You're playing the penny slots. They have bigger wins and bigger losses.
But hey, you'll probably pick up some fans from this. If you do, though, it'll be on the merits of your music, not on the hype in this slashdot thread surrounding your essay. So that's good, right?
Slippery slope... (Score:3)
Unfortunately, that tendency does exist.
People, the question is not "is Napster even distributing BDR". The question is, are people who get used to Napster less likely, or more likely, to be willing to pay BDR for their music?
The answer is: Less likely.
1. We are being told that it is an aberration for us to have to pay for music. True enough. It is also an aberration for us to have the quantity of music available to us that we do now; perhaps we should go back to the situation where we cannot, in general, just decide to hear a given piece of music and do so.
2. People who are saturated with big, well-marketed bands will not waste time looking for obscure indie bands.
I think it's horribly hypocritical of people to complain about how unfair and unusual it is for music to be restricted and controlled, while gleefully taking the results of this control - lots of music in a variety of genres - completely for granted.
Most musicians can't afford to do this professionally if we don't provide them with a mechanism to make money at it. Before we yank this mechanism away, let's think about whether or not this matters. It does to me, and I'm still paying for CD's, whether they're $10 one-shot CD's sold to me by a friend whose band finally got a CD cut, or $17.99 overpriced crap.
(This isn't to say I charge money for the crap *I* write, which I give away freely at this point. But I'm not a professional musician, and my music isn't that good, and I'm certainly not about to try to do it full time.)