TMBG on DRM 473
scootr1 writes "John and John from They Might Be Giants speak to Newsweek about, amongst other things, digital rights management. My favorite exchange? 'How would you eat, then?' 'That's my problem.' When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?"
Experimental Film (Score:5, Informative)
Bad music? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know lots more people who do like today's music. People claim bad music is the reason for increased piracy, which doesn't make sense. Why are people pirating music they don't like?
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Funny)
Quite frankly, after hearing Hoobastank's "The Reason" for the 157th time in a week, I am tired of hearing it. Or any of the other "we must play this song every couple of hours" hits.
And if there's one good song on an album, and the rest of it sucks liquid monkey ass through a straw, then there is damn little reason to buy the entire CD. And unless that one good song is available through iTunes or any of the other legitimate music download services, I don't honestly expect most people to pony up $17-$20 for one song.
Just because he hates it doesn't mean it's bad music. But it doesn't make it good music either.
Kierthos
Re:Bad music? (Score:2)
Again, you need to step out of your own perspective. Why is it crap just because you don't like it? I guarantee a lot more people do.
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you need to step into his perspective, then you can both call it crap. Why should he be the one to change if you're the one who finds the existence of differing opinions so painful?
Why is it crap just because you don't like it?
Because that is what it means for something to be "crap", that I don't like it. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from ever expressing judgments? Or is it only ones that you disagree with that are the problem
Re:Bad music? (Score:2, Funny)
rd syrings: "Why is it beautiful just because you like it? Huh? Huh? You looking for a fight?"
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crap because it's all the same. Unless you have heard the song before, or are a fan of the artist, it is virtually impossible to tell who the artist IS. Truly distinctive sounds are few and far between, and original sounds are rarer still. All the music industry seems to be concerned with today is manufacturing an image so they can sell shoes and soft drinks, not promoting creative music.
The end result is that on all but the rare occasion, what gets palyed on the radio is trite.
=Smidge=
Do you not get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you know Rolling Stone said the same thing about every Led Zeppelin album released? You're going on the assumption that your OPINION is suddenly a fact that everyone else must go by.
You may think it's crap. That has absolutely no bearing on what everyone else thinks of it (hint: most of the public likes today's music). I know the popular bands around here are either garage electronic acts or really old bands l
Re:Do you not get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking for myself: This is my opinion and I do not speak for anyone else because I understand other people may feel differently.
It's not crap just because I hate it: I do not like most modern music. (The "most" part I explicitly stated later in my post, so don't even go there.) However I recognize that this is my opinion and that does not automatically make it universally the worst music ever.
I then go on to explain the reasons why I feel it's crap.
To turn your own argume
Re:Bad music? (Score:2)
What's the air like on the planet where you shop? Unless it's in the rack with The Eagles Greatest Hits, most stores charge about 17-20.
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have you or your friends waited for an averageish game to drop to bargain bin prices and then bought it because you didn't want to pay the initial retail price? Same idea.
If the music lables produced things people really, really wanted and they have high enough perceived value to justify the price then they would sell more, but in the absence of this and in the presence of cheaper supply mechanisms they aren't going to get anywhere.
Re:Bad music? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you buy a new CD for $15, because of a song or two you heard on the radio. But when you sit down and listen to the whole album, the rest of it is total crap. Then you might (justifiably) feel ripped off.
On the other hand, say you throw down the same $15 for a different CD. When you listen to the whole album you discover that the entire disc is amazing. You would most likely feel that the $15 was well worth the price.
The problem is that many times current CD offerings leave the buying unsatisfied at the purchase price. After repeated purchases leave the same unsatisfaction, the consumer is more likely to just say "screw paying for this crap, i'll just download it and see if i like it."
-- disclaimer: I don't want to hear "you should listen to the whole disc before buying it" because thats rather inconvienient, time consuming, etc etc. --
It's the price (Score:3, Interesting)
I could easily name a half dozen CDs I'd literally buy tomorrow if I could get them for $10 or less. All regular stuff I've seen for sale, but the stores want $16 or $18, and I won't pay that. I haven't pirated the tracks either; I just listen to other stuff. I check the discount racks regularly.
Mute records reduced a load of their back-catalog releases to $10 or less, and that
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad music? (Score:5, Interesting)
Radio used to be great for artist exposure. Well, it still is, for sufficient values of $artist as determined by the RIAA...
GTRacer
- Needs an in-car MP3 changer BAD!
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be far more sympathetic with the RIAA if the return of music was opened up to 'satisfaction guaranteed'. One big reason why anybody'd download music instead of buying it
John didn't say that (Score:2, Informative)
I thought so too, but I went back and double checked the article. (See, it pays to RTFA.)
Stealing bad music? (Score:5, Interesting)
My solution to only liking one or two songs on an album is to set my price point for buying it lower... I won't buy it at full price. Others just download the song(s) they want. I have one song in my MP3 collection that didn't come from a CD I own - it was encoded from an HBO concert, because I didn't want to spend $18 for the two-CD set the song is found on, which was full of, well, CRAP.
Even the artists themselves are realizing that they've been selling albums that consist of one or two songs, plus filler. This information was gleaned from the recent Frontline show, "How the Music Died".
Not "bad" music (Score:4, Insightful)
Some music just isn't good, or not good enough, to warrant the price it is set at. So really, the issue really a relation of quality vs cost. A really good CD might warrant purchase at a higher cost. An average CD might not warrant purchase until cost has declined.
Oh, and we're not really claiming piracy as the sole cause by any stretch, as many people wouldn't even pirate music that's really bad, and many others (such as myself) just don't pirate but rather wait for an item to end up in the "Used CD" rack.
Re:Bad music? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is not correct.
The record industry claims that "increased piracy" i.e. filesharing, is causing the record industry to lose money through lost sales.
In response, people claim that the record industry is losing money because lost sales due to poor product, i.e. "bad music", and that the RIAA's current argument is a red herring.
There are a great many people who, although they agrre that filesharing is a copyright violation, don't believe t
Re:Experimental Film (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks TMBG! (Score:5, Interesting)
The show was great. Even the songs I didn't recognize were great. My only complaint was that they were a bit loud and my left ear is still ringing seven days later).
I support TMBG like I would any other band that supports the freedom of music. They allow their live shows to be traded freely (according to FurthurNET) and I was happy to purchase two tickets to see them and help them.
They were a lot of fun and I really love their comment in the NewsWeek article:
Record companies are certainly scared.
They should be scared. They're hemorrhaging dough.
Damn straight they are. I have said it 1,000 times here before. While the music companies complain about them losing money they are losing it because they sponsor shit music and treat their customers like shit. At least there are bands, who support freedom of music, that care about their fans/customers. While it might not mean much to TMBG they just made their percentage of the $30 ticket prices I shelled out for them and I was thrilled to do it.
Perhaps we need more bands that love their fans to speak out against the RIAA. Maybe then other bands will see how you can survive for 20+ years by caring for your fans and them caring for you back. I'm pretty certain the RIAA doesn't think about THAT when they come up with contract terms for their cookie cutter noise machines.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not, like some have supposed, in it for the long haul as far as any one band is concerned. Older bands do not make as much money off albums as do newer bands (generally speaking), because they can't tap into the market that spends the most--teenage kids.
The teenage kids buy more cds, go to more concerts, and purchase more paraphenalia than other demographics. This is because they aren't generally paying any bills, and are rarely saving money (if they even have a job--many recieve an "allowance", which just makes folks lazy).
Thus, from the marketeers perspective, it makes sense to engender one craze after another, because these are what make money. Granted, they will squeeze every penny they can from every artist they can, but the big money isn't there for bands like TMBG.
That said, I do agree that in the long run, bands that care about their fans, and that care about making music, are the ones that I generally enjoy listening to more.
Think about the difference in attitude illustrated by, "I want to be a rock star", compared to, "I want to play music". The one is focused on being rich, famous, and having lots of neat toys. The other focuses on playing great music, and if the other (money, fame, etc) comes to them, great.
Brittney Spears is not around for the long haul because she doesn't care about the music the same way that TMBG.
FWIW, I love their music, but am far from up to date on their latest stuff.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:3, Funny)
If it's too loud, you're too old.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:4, Interesting)
I felt the same way when I saw them very recently, but they were promoting songs from their new album which just game out Tuesday this week. Don't feel too bad, I suspect most people in the audience didn't know more than half of the songs they played.
I have to say, though, having mostly listened to "Flood" and other CDs of that era from them, that their concert was significantly louder and more "rockish" than I had expected. Apparently they are typically like that in concert, and their new album reflects that tendancy.
On the other hand, they played "Older", which has to be one of the strangest songs I've ever liked. They (well, John Linnell at least) looked pretty bored playing "Birdhouse in your Soul" and "Particle Man". I guess you can't fault them for getting sick of the same couple songs over 14 years.
As a final note, I thought their ticket prices (we paid something along the lines of $20-25, don't remember), T-shirt prices, etc. were all very reasonable. You get a sense that they were really excited to be releasing a new CD and enjoyed playing new music.
A story, if I may... (Score:5, Interesting)
What does this have to do with DRM/Music Labels? I'm getting there.
Back when I was an aspiring musician I was introduced to Lawrence and invited to one of his shows. He was a always-smiling, one man band. Lawrence embraced any technology related to music and getting the sound he wanted. He'd sit, surrounded by 4 or 5 keyboards with a little Steinberger guitar slung over his shoulder. Having played in bands for years, he decided that he could be his own band - one that wouldn't make mistakes, one that would always show up on time and not be intoxicated.
Every bit of his music was sequenced by him - and he used his own bizzare midi settings (I think as to confuse anyone who might try and steal a few of his backup discs). His voice was one of those given to you by God himself - an impossible, deep range.
But he was unlucky in a few other areas. You see, Lawrence wasn't much to look at - physically. He stood no more than 5'2", and always managed to look somewhat disheveled. He also had Type I diabetes - had it since childhood. It eventually killed him at 35 years in 1998.
In short, Lawrence was hardly MTV material - he simply didn't look the part. But... He was a musician's musician - a master. He had a great local following and he managed to meek out a decent existance right up until weeks before he passed away.
Now, here's the point to all of this. Lawrence didn't bitch that he wasn't a star. Sure, he would've liked more exposure, but he did what he did because it was all he knew how to do. Being a musician doesn't mean you have to starve, but certainly aren't any guarantees. If you suck, you suck, and no amount of promotion by a label is going to change that fact. If you want to eat, you have to prove yourself to people.
Lawrence's fans would travel from miles away to see him perform. He always kept the venues and customers happy wherever he played. He didn't expect the RIAA or anyone else to bail him out - he did it for the sheer love of music.
What I personally took away from his death was that although I enjoyed playing and singing immensely, I could in no way live the life he had chosen. I simply wasn't that good (well, few are!) and so I stayed in the computer field where I think I've done fairly well for myself.
I guess I just get a little pissed off when I hear about DRM and/or musicians spouting off about piracy - especially when it's world famous musicians who should have the least to complain/worry about.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:4, Insightful)
Word to the wise - after years and years of attending loud concerts, I and many of my friends are developing tinnitus. Think of experiencing the persistent ringing in your ears all the time.
It's not that you're getting old...it's that concerts are ridiculously (or is that rediculously?) loud and it's a great idea to wear earplugs to protect your hearing from long term damage.
And you might look like a dork, but just think about that guy from Mission of Burma who has to wear OSHA approved ear mufflers whenever he plays. You don't want to grow up to be like him.
Re:Thanks TMBG! (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the really neat thing was they pulled out a radio and started running through the dial. It was the real deal, you could hear all the crappy local stations. When they came across a song, the band picked up and started playing it. It was very amusing, but also, it showed some real musicianship to be able to do that.
That's what's missing from
Eat food? (Score:4, Informative)
How would you eat, then?
That's my problem. Being a musician is an unreasonable idea anyway. The life expectancy of a professional career in music is five or 10 years. That would be a long run.
More interesting really:
Record companies are certainly scared.
They should be scared. They're hemorrhaging dough.
Best thing about TMBG? They're huge Homestarrunner.com fans [homestarrunner.com].
We live in a split world--people who know about Homestar and people who don't... Now we have this "Experimental Film" video out. It's a video directed by [the Homestar character] Strong Sad.
Worst thing?
They're working with MoveOn.org. Oh well, they might be giants, but I guess that doesn't mean they're perfect.
Re:Eat food? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Saying MoveOn.Org is a hate group because it makes comparisons of politicians that that politician's party would not make is rediculous.
If you were to hold MoveOn.Org to the same standards as the Right-Wing activists (some of whome say s
Re:Eat food? (Score:3, Interesting)
That MP3 is damned funny. Thanks.
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Re:Eat food? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, I'll say it... and my face is as straight as they come.
MoveOn.org is NOT motivated by their hatred of Bush.
Sure, many MoveOn.org members hate Bush and what he stands for. But it's not like he hasn't given them ample reason.
MoveOn.org is motivated by their members' common love of personal and social freedom. Something Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft at al are systematically and carefully trying taking away from anyone whose opinion differs from theirs ("you're either with us or against us" remember).
I guess if you only have a "half a brain" your view may be a little skewed. I have a whole brain, and I know the truth.
Re:Eat food? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen and thank you! The Republican Spin Machine's managed to indoctrinate a lot of otherwise-intelligent people into believing that Republicans care about your civil rights. They don't give a damn - they're in it for the money. Democrats care about your civil rights... Unless by "civil rights" you mean "ability to pound my fellow citizens into a pulp financially and steal their money through large-scale corporate fraud". (Enron, Haliburton, etc.)
Re:Eat food? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eat food? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pull your head out of the sand. Clinton balanced the budget and generated a small surplus that could have, under a competent President, been used to reduce national debt. Under the Governmental Oppression Party, the Federal Government's got a $500 billion deficit, and your taxes are going up, up, up! (Though at the local level, to make up for cuts in Federal funding, and through other insidious, behind-the-scenes means, like increasing payroll taxes and cutting rebates used by middle- and lower-class citizens)
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Here's a little test. Find the example(s) of hate speech from the following:
1) Any n___ers who refuse to move back to Africa should be hanged.
2) George Bush is the most conniving, underhanded President since Richard Nixon.
3) Let's tie this f___ot to a fance and beat him up for flirting with us.
You still don't see the difference do you?
Your ignorance and stupidity is amazing and your choice of options ridiculous
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Please, if you're going to attack a group, be specific. We've waded through a 15 or so post thread without a single bit of specifics about "what is wrong with MoveOn.org" being presented.
Re: Eat Food (MoveOn ads) (Score:4, Informative)
LMAO, yes, the ads are in bad taste, but you make it sound as if MoveOn MADE those commercials.
They were submitted to one of their ad contests. As a submission it was available for viewing. Just like the stuff over on ifilm and sites like that. It was submitted for consideration.
That would be the same as holding slashdot accountable for GNAA posts and our lost beloved goatse.cx posts. Or holding slashdot accountable for some maniac ranting and opinion that occurs in these threads (not that it ever happens LOL)
Re:Eat food? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Eat food? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn right!
...Hitler was actually elected.
(It's just a joke!)
Re:Eat food? (Score:2)
Who is proposing to jail people for hate speech, for example?
Bad music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad music? How about DRM isn't going to help sell more of ANY music. At all. Ever. The less you give, the less you empower your customers, the less they trust you, the less you make.
FYI (Score:4, Interesting)
DRM, if kept to a minimum, isn't so bad - it merely prevents people from filesharing the music they just bought. The fact that RIAA is evil doesn't justify IP theft (which filesharing pretty much is).
Re:FYI (Score:3, Insightful)
Music collections can be worth several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars(mine must be close to 10k), ergo, _any_ DRM is un
Triangle (Score:5, Funny)
Triangle, man
Triangle man hates DRM man
They have a fight, triangle wins
Trinagle man
Re:Triangle (Score:5, Funny)
DRM, man
DRM man hates the audiance man,
They have a fight, nobody wins
nobody man
nobody man.
-Joe 2-Keg
i AM (fat) person man!
Re:Triangle (Score:2)
DRM man
DRM man hates person man
They have a fight, DRM wins
DRM man
Where's Universe man when we need him?
Concerts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Concerts. It's how artists make their real money anyway....
Re:Concerts. (Score:4, Informative)
bands might play a show every other night. Depends where and when they get there, if they own a touring van, and what nights will yield decent dough. As as idea, clubs usually take an obscene amount of 'the take' of a concert. After traveling and paying monkeys to set up their stuff, bands are lucky to come out on top. TMBG has a good draw, and earned it from trucking around and playing for 20+ years. But honestly, only a small subset of artists will make real money performing professionally. Most major artists tour to promote the album, not release an album to promote the tour.
Re:Concerts. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your music is good, I will pay to see you in concert (I saw TMBG for the big July 4th party in Columbus, OH and brought about 8 friends with me) and I will pay for your albums (I legally own every TMBG album). If your music is average, or bad, then you should get a real job.
Re:Concerts. (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's actual hard work! Artists would be forced to keep on working, like a plumber or a programmer, in order to continue earning a living. That's just absurd!
Artists (read: LABELS) should naturally have the Right To Profit(TM) from artificially scarce old "intellectual property" for life+(next_copyright_extension) years.
--
Re:How would you eat then? (Score:2)
They are selling the new songs, US$1 per, in addition to concerts and assorted materials. If they were giving away all the songs for free I would see the relavance of the question. Currently, I do not.
___________________________________________
A musician is making sense about DRM? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A musician is making sense about DRM? (Score:4, Funny)
Now, if it was a major record executive making sense about DRM, then my head would 'a-splode' too.
Kierthos
Re:A musician is making sense about DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
They ARE Giants. (Score:5, Insightful)
America needs more TMBGs. I'm sickened by the greedy, self-important jackholedness that passes as 'American' these days. We used to be people who cared about each other; we used to ask what we could do for our country. Now, we're a bunch of jugular-sucking opportunists who take pride in bending the rules, running through loopholes, and shouting louder than the other guy.
Bring back humility, honesty and generosity! Those are real values! Carry that torch, TMBG!
Re:They ARE Giants. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going down to Cowtown
The cow's a friend to me
Lives beneath the ocean and that's where I will be
Beneath the waves, the waves
And that's where I will be
I'm gonna see the cow beneath the sea
Here in the first verse, we are told that we are entering the realm of Eris herself, The Void, or 'Chao'Town, based on the eternal symbol of Eris, The Sacred Chao. Obviously, the writer feels kinship with her sacred symbol, since "The 'Chao's a friend to me."
Now what of the next lines? If you examine the cover of the Holey Principia Discordia, you will find that the Sacred Chao is centered beneath the title, placing the "Chao" beneath the 'c'.
The yellow Roosevelt Avenue leaf overturned
The ardor of arboreality is an adventure we have spurned, we've spurned
A new leaf overturned
It's a new leaf overturned
First, we have a fantastic example a Discordian statement. Words hidden within words, "The Yellow Rose" "Roosevelt Avenue" and "A new leaf overturned" are mashed into a single sentence, hidden between the actual words written. A wise reminder to never believe what we read (In this case what we hear and what we read are different).
The Ardor of Arboreality, of course refers to the "Love of A bor(ing) reality" something which is spurned by the Discordian, who prefers overturning new leaves and exploring different realities.
We yearn to swim for home, but our only home is bone
How sleepless is the egg knowing that which throws the stone
Foresees the bone, the bone
Our only home is bone
Our only home is bone
This verse contains two seperate esoteric messages:
First, we see that the writer sees his life as "egg" to "bone" or birth to death. There is no escaping this, for our only home (our final home) is 'bone' or death.
Of course, there is also the idea of creation, for bone can refer to the bone of Osris. Osris, of course was killed and reborn, killed and reborn again (though this time without his bone, which probably meant he had to get a strap-on for Isis). The egg would obviously refer to the Great Mother Isis. Thus we have the story of constant rebirth and life, couched in words that speak of the unavvoidable end of our lives.
The stone, may be a reference to the stone which was rolled away from the tomb of Jesus (another "Dying God" like Osirus).
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
&
Sjaantze, Harbringer of Distraction
Re:They ARE Giants. (Score:2)
A) They are damn fine musicians.
B) They have integrity.
C) They fill a niche.
The bad music... (Score:5, Interesting)
This era in music is so depressing because the bands that are out there for the music are being drowned out by the bands out there for the money and sex, which is what the corperate machine would like to have people hear, in order to push a less-regulated business world into the mass mindset. This country suffers from severe groupthink, as has been demonstrated several times. The media companies want this. We, the music fans, just get screwed.
For What It's Worth... (Score:5, Interesting)
How would you eat? (Score:2)
Spam (Score:2)
Great to see Realistic Musicians ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad that TMBG is realistic about the future of digital media. My money is on the future where musicans realize that their bread and butter lies in making life performances and distributing merchandise like t-shirts, posters, etc.
The record industry, specifically the RIAA, are holding onto an anachronism ... they don't create the music, they help to distribute it. Unfortunately what they don't understand (and some artists do) is that free distribution gives people the chance to get into an artist's music. And when an enthusiast is serious, they'll pay for the quality that comes from having a clean and attractively packaged CD.
Good job, TMBG! Now the rest of musicians need to fire their record labels ...
Sorry. No way. (Score:4, Insightful)
When are you going to realize that complaining about the quality of the music you then download only makes it sound like you are trying to justify criminal activity?
DRM isn't bad. If a vendor produces DRM products and you have a problem with that, don't buy them. It's just another option available to content producers and distributors. It has value, and it has its place.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
I say let them use DRM to their heart's content. Let them put in all kinds of nasty, horribly restrictive DRM in everything they sell. It will only accellerate their decline, though it might prop up their profits a little while longer.
The inevitable trend for music is away from wealthy, centralized music and towards a much smaller, decentralized, community supported scheme, where the indie bands have much more a chance of breaking even, and hardly anybody really "makes it big" anymore.
Just as with software, the Internet is re-writing the rules of the marketplace. Just as Open Source software marches to the drum of inevitability in the marketplace, so do unrestrictive music distribution models.
It's been a *long* time since the expense of recording quality music was beyond what could be achieved with some thrift-store mattresses, a garage, and a computer with a $200 sound card.
In other words, in 1955, quality, good-sounding recording equipment was very expensive. Today, it's less than a thousand dollars.
In 1985, it was very expensive to distribute music in bulk. Now, a commercially hosted website can get you going for $15.95 per month.
That's the marketplace of today. That's what's going to do these guys under. Not DRM. Not "crappy music". (that people download and listen to anyway)
If there's an area with legitimate concern about intellectual property, it's with copyright law and patent law. Sorry, but copyright law is no longer in alignment with its original purpose of promoting the development of literature and the arts. Neither is patent law, in its current incarnation, truly a socially healthy way to encourage invention and creativity.
Work to change the real evils, and quit whining about people who try to prevent you from stealing.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:2)
The CD by Velvet Revolver has DRM. It keeps legitimate users from making copies. However, the CD was readily available for illegal downloading weeks before it was released. Thus, legitimate buyers cannot use it on their iPods and piracy was NOT stopped in anyway. Can you please explain to me where this value is?
"It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses.." But it is NOT illegal to make copies of the music we buy. In fact, it's perfectly legal t
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM is bad. While we may have difficulty making it completely illegal, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to grant copyrights only to those artists that don't use DRM, and to revoke their copyrights if they ever do use it.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
That's precisely why DRM is bad. Music _IS_ different. We grant copyrights, but those copyrights are limited in scope; it is perfectly legal to engage in fair uses of music. It is perfectly legal to reproduce music within the scope of AHRA. It will be perfectly legal to reproduce music for any purpose we arbitrarily make legal tomorrow. And the Constitution requires that copyrights expire -- so when the term is up, anyone can do anything with the music and it is totally legal.
These sorts of limitations that benefit the public are a significant difference as to ordinary personal or real property. Copyright is expressly and deliberately designed to benefit the public -- not the artists, not the publishers. DRM interferes with that, because it is a lock that does not ONLY protect against illegal uses, while allowing ALL legal uses, and because it does not magically evaporate when the copyright expires, and because the law can change all the time, and DRM already applied to a work will not.
I would rather have the law be the ONLY protection on works because it is the only one that can even slightly be trusted to fulfill the public interest and incorporate those limits are as necessary for the public to be the most satisfied.
Using DRM is like putting up a wall around a public park; maybe the park is only open at certain hours, but the wall closes it off all the time, and is therefore intolerable. It needs to be destroyed.
Radio Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
Bypassing DRM should not be illegal. Copyright law gives certain rights to both the copyright holder, and the purchaser of the product. Slapping DRM on something does not automatically give the purchaser less rights, although it can make make it harder to exercise those rights. (At this point, both sides are using technology to go beyond what rights they are legitamately granted).
As far as the rest of your comment goes, making and distributing music cheaply means next to nothing. The power is in RADIO! I can write and record the greatest song in the world, and put it up on my website for free. No one would care. If I were to go through some expense to promote it, (maybe tour, etc.), I might get a few people to care, but nothing even come close to the power of radio. As long as there's a tight grip on radio the battle is next to hopeless. And with consolidation of over-the-air radio, and the death of internet radio, it's only getting worse lately.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Music is only susceptible to piracy while its copyright is in effect. Assuming Disney eventually fails to sufficiently bribe lawmakers to keep passing copyright extensions, the copyright on every piece of music in your CD cabinet will expire one day. It will then be perfectly legal, and not even slightly unethical, to make as many copies of those CDs as you like.
But if they're protected by DRM, you will be prevented from exercising that legal right, and the fact that it's illegal to break DRM schemes will mean that the music will have passed into the public domain in theory only.
That's the problem with legally-backed DRM.
But I agree with your main point about the radical change in the economics of the industry. Once enough artists clue into the fact that they'll end up with as much money, and much more creative control, keeping 90% of the profits on sales of 1000 self-promoted downloadable albums as they would with 1% of the profits on 90000 studio-promoted CDs, the labels are going to have a tough time attracting new talent, and they'll wither and die.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess... You are either a kid, or a wage slave. You *might* be in college. You've never produced your own intellectual property, and you've certainly never tried to make a living at it.
I have, and I do. I'm a big advocate for Open Source software. I use Linux. I give away lots of source code and documentation entries, mostly in the area of PHP programming. I'm a heavy user of php-gtk [php.net] and love the community.
I also make my living writing software. Much of what I write I'll never give away without a price tag attached.
Distributing some of my software with DRM enabled allows me to *afford* my other contributions to the community. It pays my bills, provides food for myself and my 5 children, and lets me live comfortably.
Would you *really* want to take that away? Would you *really* want to take away my ability to help the hundreds of teachers in California that my software assists?
DRM technology is available, and I should have the right to use it. You certainly have the right to not buy it.
But, if you were to, in some way, crack my certificate-protected software and distribute it, I'd most definitely have a problem with that.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess... you didn't think the parent posters analogy through.
Do realize that when you have a device that can make atom-for-atom copies of ANYTHING [foresight.org] -- including food, clothing, diamond, cars, etc -- that "making a living" suddenly gets a LOT easier and cheaper? No need for artificial scarcity. Open source applies to real-world objects too.
If this kind of world of abundance (digital AND material), the only reason you could have to care if somebody copies your product design, is if you're a greedy control-freak bastard who's still in love with the structure of the old socio-economic hierarchy.
--
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Greedy"? "Control-freak"? Strong words.
How about just being a 30-something man trying to provide a comfortable existence for his family? Somebody who really wishes his children grow up to be engineers, scientists, or teachers?
Somebody who home-school
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Informative)
Never Say Never [nanofactory.com] Nanofactories such as those made by this link are already a reality, and every year they master more elements. Diamonds are easy- food and clothing is hard in comparison, but it won't be very long before we have EXACTLY such a device. Your grandchildren probably won't even know what a STORE or
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Informative)
Both of us have our rights, and as long as we are fighting against each other, both parties will be pissed off.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea with copyright is the balance of the human rights that say that people have a right to take part in the cultural and scientific advancements of society, and on the other hand, the creators right to be rewarded.
What you think that you need to take away, is the first groups right. You'll create a society where only one group has rights. That's not a society I want to live in, thank you very much.
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Informative)
Would you *really* want to take that away? Would you *really* want to take away my ability to help the hundreds of teachers in California that my software assists?
Selling drugs to children and running guns for terrorists *affords* my other contributions to the community. It pays my bills, provides food f
Re:Sorry. No way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes. But not necessarily. Let me illustrate with a true story.
When I was 11 years old, I was a rampant software pirate. I had an obscenely huge collection of games for my Atari 800. Any game I could get my hands on, I copied, even if it stank.
By your logic, I effectively stole tens of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of hundreds of developers.
Except... I was
movie (Score:3, Interesting)
______________________________________
DRM is a slap on the wrist (Score:5, Insightful)
If I pay to download a track, or pop my new CD into my CD-ROM, it comes complete with DRM. I can't play it on my other PC. Forget about playing it on my Mac at all. Can I transfer it to my NetMD portable? Good luck! No, I can only play it on my stupid computer on my crappy speakers. Not on my portable, not on my stereo. However if I just don't bother to pay for it, and download the track/album in mp3 format from any number of questionable sources, I can play it on whatever device I want. In other words, if I pay for it, the Label treats me like a criminal and restricts my ability to use what I paid for. Steal it, and I can do what I want.
The day emacs became sentient (Score:4, Funny)
They all began working most diligently
creating programs which behaved intellegently
But these programs were lacking still.
For when prompted they would only say or .
Yet a researcher in the great white north continued on
Feeding song after song into to his very own atomiton
Then at last one tiresome night in 84
he played a track he never played before.
And queried the program: To which it responded /wanting to work that last line into a joke for years
rights to digital music DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Did the submitter even read the article or was he just dense?
They're not talking about DRM! (Score:5, Insightful)
The question from the interviewer was "Is this the way you see things going in the future--artists securing digital rights?"
This is a question about getting the rights to distribute their work online, not about DRM. Record companies usually own the exclusive rights to distribute an artist's work in any format. The answer John Flansburgh gave speaks to the difficulty they had in securing (in the sense of "obtaining") the rights to distribute TMBG's music online themselves, independently of their label and distributors:
Now, TMBG doesn't bother with DRM (their music has been available for years in unrestricted MP3 format on emusic), but this interview doesn't really speak to the question of DRM.
-Isaac
They imply by choice of formtat (Score:3, Insightful)
EMusic (Score:3, Informative)
Since they mention EMusic specifically... here's the EMusic TMBG page [emusic.com]. Nine albums for download as high-quality VBR MP3s. Not a DRM in sight...
(To explain my sig... EMusic went through a period of severely sucking. They're back to being a pretty good site IMHO, worth a look).
Struggling artists (Score:5, Interesting)
My sister and her husband are aspiring Country&Western artists/songwriters. Yeah, I know, but that's their dream.
They're having trouble getting people to buy their music. Yeah, I was shocked, too. I suggested that they give it away. They didn't like that idea -- no money in it.
"Why not?", I asked, "No one wants to pay for it. Why not generate some demand?"
I think they're afraid the first song they give away might be the one that would have made them filthy rich if they'd just held on to it.
So what is their dream again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds to me they just want to become filthy rich by making music and performing. Good luck to them but that doesn't make them to me real artists. Real artists would be real artist even if they got to keep their day job.
Re:Struggling artists (Score:4, Interesting)
Differning Choices: (Score:3, Interesting)
- Don't buy a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a freinds CD
Napster Era / Kazaa / etc- Don't buy a CD
- Download a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a friends CD
Post napster (lawsuit era)- Don't buy a CD
- Download a CD
- Buy a CD I really really like
- Copy a friends CD
Guess when I stopped buying CD's (except one's that I really liked)....I think it was 1991 or 1992. What stopped my from buying?Usually, I would hear a song on the radio, decide that I liked it, then go buy the album. If this album was good, I would usually buy a subsequent album from the same artist. If the first album was Crap, then no more albums from that artist. If the second album was crap, then no more albums from that artist.
Everything right now is not art it's a pre-planned fad. Fad's never last, i.e. time to create a new boy band. But quality endures, even if it is truly overpriced - people will pay because it is quality. Look at any of the long lasting Artisans of watches, jewelry, etc. Sure you can buy knockoffs that look exactly the same, but people still buy the actual items.
Best Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
MTV needs to climb out of their teeny-bop ghetto, dust themselves off and get back to the business of new wave.
Why pay.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I pay for music I can freely download from the internet when I'm going to be treated like a criminal either way? At least in the latter case there's no pretense of legitimacy on either side, and I might save myself some cash. If I buy a DRM crippled CD or MP3, I'm basically supporting the record companies' assertion that music fans are criminals.
Here's a hint: As long as the RIAA views music fans as parasites, they'll never offer them anything of true value. The problem isn't DRM; the problem is that the RIAA has an adversarial attitude toward the public which engenders a spirit of retribution among music fans. After having seen themselves and their favorite bands treated like dirt by the record companies, it's easy for the average fan to justify downloading against the RIAA's wishes. Professional musicianship has now become a con game between the RIAA, the band, and the fans. The fans love the bands, the bands love the fans, and the RIAA hates them both. Is it any wonder people turn a blind eye toward illegal downloading?
I paid 13 dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Rush just came out with a new mini-album called Feedback. I looked for it on iTunes, but couldn't find it, so downloaded it from bittorrent. But I kept looking for it on iTunes, and as soon as I saw it, I paid for it. Totally worth the 8 bucks.
Support artists!
Bad music will never stop selling (Score:4, Insightful)
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?
First of all, the TMBG interview didn't talk about DRM technology. It just talked about the band holding onto their rights to digitally distribute the music. I suppose that if they wanted to, TMBG could still slap DRM technology and restrictions onto the digital content they give away or sell.
That said, as long as people keep buying up bad (unoriginal, uninteresting, trite, formulaic) music, the record companies will keep selling it. And the sad thing is that people will keep buying it up, because that music sounds original, interesting, and novel to the next upcoming generation of kids who haven't already heard it all before and who are more interested in image and style than in the actual music. Bad music will forever sell, because it will always seem new and interesting to stupid teenagers.
It's interesting to hear people talk about "the music industry" when what is being sold is not primarily the music but the image. For instance, most rap doesn't sell because it's great music. Most rap sells because of its stereotypical woman-as-objects, BLING-BLING bullshit imagery that, for whatever ridiculous reason, millions of black and latino kids (and plenty of race-confused fat white chicks) find appealing. The RIAA ought to be the Retarded Image Assosciation of America, and their industry is the image industry, not the music industry.
The real music "industry" doesn't try to sell image, but instead focuses on the music and message itself. This industry is arguably larger than the big evil "music" industry we all hear about, but it is composed mostly of independent bands and small labels that have nothing to do with the RIAA or the big studios. Bands like TMBG and Primus are more prominent examples, and they actually have more relation to the big RIAA industry than others... but for each independent band you've heard about, there are likely a thousand others that make great music you would enjoy if you could only find out about them. While they do each project their own image, it's not the entire (or main) point of what they do. The focus is on the music itself, and the substance actually exists to back up the image.
Funny you should ask.... (Score:5, Funny)
For the same reason they keep coming here, despite the overwhelming flood of crap posts like this one. In other words, there's no accounting for taste. People like what they like.
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking for myself, I like TMBG because they're interesting. Their music is well-produced and crafted, their song lyrics can range from nonsensical to literate, and they sing about topics ranging from nightlights (Birdhouse in Your Soul) to obscure presidents (James K. Polk). Interesting music that is well done will catch my interest, regardless of the genre.
They also usually produce catchy hooks regardless of the material, treat their fans with respect, and put on a tremendously entertaining live show as well. TMBS are fans of technology (Dial-a-Song, their wax cylinder recording for the Edison Museum), like Slashdotters are, and they used to tour with just backing tapes for a rhythm section. The musicians they've worked with on records have been a virtual "who's who" of the "alternative" genre, so their skills are obviously appreciated by their peers.
And finally, they've managed to keep at it for about 20 years now, making a decent living in the music biz without becoming the type of band/people we all rant about here online. I've met them both on a couple of non-concert occasions over the years, and a good friend of mine actually was a classmate of theirs in high school. I also worked a little bit with a band (Mark Cutler & Useful Things - I did the design and CD booklet for their first album as a favor to another friend who produced their record) back in the late '90s whose drummer had played with John Linnell in another band (The Mundanes) before TMBG. Nobody (including me) who I've ever seen to meet either of them have had a bad word to say about them - even the ones who aren't nuts about their music. From all accounts (not just the few I mentioned), they're a couple of good guys who make music for a living.
So that's at least part of why I like TMBG - my cousin first put me on to them back in '86 or so, and I've been buying their albums, going to the occasional concert, and downloading their live shows ever since.
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much? (Score:4, Funny)
Then how come Metallica, Brittney Spears, Madonna (or whatever she's calling herself these days), etc. are against giving their music away for free?
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked peer-to-peer download stats, they reflected pretty much the junk ridden top ten billboard: mostly requests for Britney Spears songs and American Pie(?) by Maddona.