A devastating response to the "free music" generation.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by CrewsControl

I've looked at several other posts on that blog, and it's got a rather big axe to grind with "tech companies" and some vague, shadowy "Free Culture" movement they are supposedly backing.



ORLY?

Yeah ... it seems to move from the very reasonable "robbing grocery stores is wrong" (yeah, of course) to "someone should compensate the store owner" (ok) to something that looks very much like "Ford should pay because they made the getaway car" (that's a bit of a stretch) or "those guys giving away the vegetables they grew in their own garden are setting the wrong expectations" (screw you, it's my garden)

I agree with the author's complaint, but not the whole of his analysis of the causes or solutions.

Not that I have the answer either.

[Disappear]

After reading half that post, I almost wanted to stop downloading music. I came across a sickening fact somewhere in that response though, "Professional musicians down 25% since 2000" or something to that effect.

This got me thinking a couple of things: Do these figures factor in the economic recession, do these figures factor in the difficulty to get INTO the music industry, and with the artists that are big rich and famous, why the hell should I support them when I'm barely making ends meet (granted, endorsements would probably supply a lot of their income).

I can't help but think the mainstream music industry is just a bunch of greedy corporations who milk every cent they can out of artists. I've heard stories about Rush and Dream Theater (I know some of you don't like them but these are stories that prove a point) where the record company wants x kind of songs that can be played on the radio so they can make money. In doing so, they're squelching what music should be about: soul and creativity and exploration of human nature. Sure I suppose you can do it in a radio-allotted time frame but does the artist have the freedom to explore everything he wants to in the piece? Could this be the reason why there are less artists (i.e. the aforemetioned professional musicians) music being signed? How many popular artists actually have their own bands that play music live and say that there's less professional musicians, focusing more on a sound and on a look. I mean sure it comes into play but is music really about how people look?

Sorry about the rant at the end, I'm going to go listen to a legally purchased CD.

tl;dr
I don't like corporations and I'm sorry if you read all of it.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by XtheDeadPawn

in the future labels won't make their money on the artists' music but, rather physical items such as T-shirts, fan membership packages, posters, and other stuff not music. I think that that maybe will be the future in a couple years.

Do you not think we're already there?

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by Disappear

I mean sure it comes into play but is music really about how people look?

music?
or the music business?

[CrewsControl]

There are a lot of mixed messages from all sides of this issue. Everyone spins it to serve their own interests. Theft of a CD from Wal-mart is a petty crime, a misdemeanor at worst. But download that same album without license from the copyright holder, and you're potentially liable for a felony charge, and thousands of dollars of civil fines. It makes no sense.

[Disappear]

Originally Posted by UncleFluffy

music?
or the music business?

Yes.

[CrewsControl]

Originally Posted by Disappear

After reading half that post, I almost wanted to stop downloading music. I came across a sickening fact somewhere in that response though, "Professional musicians down 25% since 2000" or something to that effect.

But the income of the middle class as a whole declined during the same period. How much of the decline in musician's income is part of the overall decline in overall worker income, and how much is due to the public not having as much disposable income to spend on music?

[Jonathan1990]

Originally Posted by XtheDeadPawn

I thought it was stupid of her to pull "Aren't the artists rich?" card especially in this economy I mean everything is taking a hit the first things that do are the non essentials and unfortuanetly music and art is one of them.

She didn't! The author was commenting on commonly used pro-free music arguments, not Emily's. He stated that very clearly.

[Calebmundy]

An interesting counter-counter response: http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/135...ore-than-sense

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

True, but that's irrelevant to the topic of the article.

Yes and no. It was irrelevant until the author calculated how much she "owed" the artists, $2139.50. But that isn't the true cost of the music. 11,000 songs, assuming an average of 11 songs per album, is 1000 albums. If you bought those on iTunes, she'd pay out $10,000, not the $2139 that was calculated. This was an unfortunate excursion in the article. It undermined the authors point entirely. The author is advocating that it is OK to steal from the companies that release, distribute and sell, as long as you pay the artist, which is in direct conflict with his earlier statements.

[HolmeBass]

Originally Posted by dmusic148

Doesn't matter. The genie is out of the bottle and he ain't going back in.
The business model must adapt or die, simple as that.

Why is it that the implicit gist of a statement like this is that people will continue to steal music and somehow musicians must come up with "a new model"?

What if the new model is that people stop stealing music just because it's so easy?

What new model could ever replace the lost income from having your intellectual property stolen?

Your argument is lazy and hollow.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

Why is it that the implicit gist of a statement like this is that people will continue to steal music and somehow musicians must come up with "a new model"?

What if the new model is that people stop stealing music just because it's so easy?

What new model could ever replace the lost income from having your intellectual property stolen?

Your argument is lazy and hollow.

Yet its real all the same, unless a method is developed that can force people to stop stealing music.
The paradigm has already shifted, and it will not be easy going to shift it back. We must continue moving forward.

Your argument could be considered just as lazy and hollow.

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by gttim

I think I own 700+ CDs and have probably owned about that many more I bought and then got rid of. Lets not even talk about records. I do by the CDs of artists I like. I now try to by from artist websites when I can- thank you Michelle Malone for those personally signed CDs, even though I am sure you are doing it only for me! I also buy merch when I can.

A friend of mine just left a popular band that tours all the time, has several CDs out and is considered somewhat successful. I was shocked to learn the band is $100,000 in debt. It seems to be a crazy way to make a living now.

I remember in an interview with Pearl Jam where one of them said "a recording contract means one thing only; guaranteed debt."

[XtheDeadPawn]

Originally Posted by onosson

Do you not think we're already there?

No. The music companies are still pushing CDs which I don't mind but, if you notice the new computers from (Ironicly) Apple the new Mac Pro has no optical drive.
It's a death blow as well as a marketing ploy by Apple to CDs, and independent labels as a whole. Now in order for artists to make money they have to either stay out of the iTunes world and actually make money or be better known and take a huge percentage of sales out of your revenue from Apple taking a cut of each download.

Apple is claerly selling lots of iPods, CDs aren't selling at all compared to MP3s so it makes sense as a business model to cut out the competition (CDs, DVDs, Bluray) which will in turn boost profits (iTunes) while also cutting costs of production (No optical drive).

However I think this deathblow will be reisited by the record companies for atleast about a year at the most.

I've noticed trends in albums that I'm sure you all have noticed too.

1. To encourage people to buy the CD record labels have added extra track(s) and sometimes also a DVD.
While other times the artists themselves will put ina code of some kind to either download a track or temporarily join their fan club. The record labels like to title these products as "Deluxe editions" or "Limited Editions".

Conversly Apple also sells the same albums and offers their own bonus tracks as an incentive.

2. Bands now a days will have special packages avilable for those who pre order the CD. They often times will have exclusive merchandise and a code for a atleast a year of membership to their fanclubs.

Conversely iTunes as sometimes allowed you to stream the entire album for free once you preordered the album. While also emailing you the entire album on the day the album drops. Which imo actually is a good idea however now a days the entire album normally gets leaked before then.
Making a mess of the music industry after all why pay for something you already have? Oh, yeah excuse me YOU stole!

Originally Posted by Jonathan1990

She didn't! The author was commenting on commonly used pro-free music arguments, not Emily's. He stated that very clearly.

Then I apologize to the lady. I misread.

[CrewsControl]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

What if the new model is that people stop stealing music just because it's so easy?

If it were that easy, people would have been stopped from getting music they didn't purchase a long time ago.

How much legal force do you think needs to be brought to bear? What is the cost to society of applying that force?

Think of all the technical means that would have to be deployed everywhere in order to provide the capability of enforcing copyright in as strict a manner as the labels would want to. Recorded music is ubiquitous in most people's lives. What sort of society would we have if the copyright enforcement regime were as ubiquitous as music itself?

[XtheDeadPawn]

Originally Posted by CrewsControl

What sort of society would we have if the copyright enforcement regime were as ubiquitous as music itself?

The one in the novel 1984.

[MatticusMania]

Doubleplusungood

[superbassman2000]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Yet its real all the same, unless a method is developed that can force people to stop stealing music.
The paradigm has already shifted, and it will not be easy going to shift it back. We must continue moving forward.

Your argument could be considered just as lazy and hollow.

You took the words right out of my mouth (keyboard?)
My only problem is that there didn't seem to be any responsibility towards the artists. The current music industry gear seems to be on the throwaway single. If the artist isnt really putting a lot of time into the creation of the song, then how can the masses be expected to treat it any differently than the artist?

I know a lot of failed musicians who carry the attitude that they can just plunk down two chords and some mostly disconnected lyrics and be entitled to millions of dollars. That can really ruin the public's opinion of musicians as a whole and so the download 11k songs off limewire.

[CrewsControl]

I wonder what people here think of the ethics of downloading or copying music that is out of print and unavailable for purchase, though still under copyright protection?

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

Your argument is lazy and hollow.

Dude, I totally get where you're coming from. And I used to be in your camp. But it is what it is. There was a time when recorded music could have big monetary value. That era lasted approximately 50 years. It's over. Technology made it, and technology tore it down.
We are back to singing for our supper, and I believe this is how it will stay.
You can be mad about it, and try to fight it(how?), or you can get on with your life.