A devastating response to the "free music" generation.

[Alban]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Anytime a record label or publishing company or anyone other than a creator has a right to something, it is always because the creator transferred that right to them, usually in exchange for money. If an artist cannot transfer their copyright, what value does it really have?

Sure, there are rules and laws in place which enable people to trade copyrights. The point I am making is, is it ethically even possible to transfer a copyright in the first place? It seems as if you keep clinging to the business side of things here, and ignoring the ethical discussion.
I can't see how copyright was ever intended to be transfered in the first place; it was "invented" to protect an artists' assets in order to prevent potential loss of income from copycats and such. I find it very strange that you seem to be okay with buying someone else's ideas. I mean, you can license someone else's work, or adopt it (for a fee), or whatever, but there's just no way that you could ever claim intellectual ownership of the copyright to something that you never created yourself.

 

[FilterFunk]

Music isn't dying, but the ability to make a living doing it is.

^This.

 

[beggar98]

Sure, there are rules and laws in place which enable people to trade copyrights. The point I am making is, is it ethically even possible to transfer a copyright in the first place? It seems as if you keep clinging to the business side of things here, and ignoring the ethical discussion.
I can't see how copyright was ever intended to be transfered in the first place; it was "invented" to protect an artists' assets in order to prevent potential loss of income from copycats and such. I find it very strange that you seem to be okay with buying someone else's ideas. I mean, you can license someone else's work, or adopt it (for a fee), or whatever, but there's just no way that you could ever claim intellectual ownership of the copyright to something that you never created yourself.

I don't think anyone ever tried to claim intellectual ownership, as in "John Lennon wrote this song, I bought the copyright from him, so now I wrote this song." Copyright isn't really about protecting creators, it's about protecting owners. The creator is the owner, by default, unless they transfer that ownership. This is the basis of all "work for hire" creative jobs, which make up most of the creative work out there.

For example, two photographers go to the Super Bowl- one is freelance, one works for Sports Illustrated. The freelance photographer has to pay his own airfare, hotel, rental car, food, and apply for his own press pass. He needs to hope he gets good enough pictures that he can sell them to not only cover his expenses, but also make some money- he assumes all the risk. The guy from SI has everything paid for, plus is paid a salary for being there. He only needs to worry about the quality of his pictures insomuch as he wants to get the job again, but if his pictures are garbage he still gets paid- the magazine assumes the risk. The freelance guy owns his work, the SI guy does not. This is a pretty fair deal, either way, and any photographer has the choice of which road to take.

 

[pmchenry]

So not only do you think it is unstoppable, you actually believe it is morally right??? PLEASE try to justify that, I need a good laugh.

I've already told you, I don't believe that intellectual property rights are something that should be held above the distribution of beneficial material (whether culturally significant or helpful to society). Books, art, music, software, engineering schematics, and anything else that can be distributed in a digital environment should be made available to any who wish to seek it out. The wealth of free knowledge and culture available to people, and the resulting benefits of that availability are far more important than any profit margin.

I know this concept seems foreign to people born and bred in a neo-capitalist environment that praises the drivel of economic theory based on Ayn Rand and other "selfishness is a good thing" believers, but it's not really a new approach. Collective ownership of culturally advantageous material is as old as civilization itself.

Am I technically a criminal for downloading certain music without paying for it? Sure I am. Are all criminals evil people? No. Is the law always right? No. There are plenty of examples of cultural movements throughout history whose members were labeled criminals by the law, that we now call heroes. (Just illustrating a point there, not calling myself a hero because I click a button on my mouse...)

 

[pmchenry]

It's pointless to argue with him because he believes it's ok to "steal" it because you can't be caught, and despite the fact the law says its illegal he doesn't believe it. So by definition he is a criminal and the best we can hope for is that the people who do this get caught, although that won't happen until someone smarter, as he puts it, figures a way to catch them. Until then those of us who are honest will continue buying our music to support the bands we like.

I already stated that I pay for the music produced by the bands I like. The option of being able to listen to it first, for free, just enables me as a consumer to have more control over which bands warrant support and which ones don't. This is what scares the people that are against filesharing, the consumers having control.

The great myth in our society is that our economy and the markets behind it allow the consumer to have control. When a producer or a group of producers of a product holds so much sway over the choices that the consumer has, the way in which those choices are (dishonestly) marketed, and the individual value of those choices, then the consumer in fact has no control. By having information available freely, the consumer is allowed to determine the value of that information, and it's viability within the new market model. THAT is the benefit of free exchange. It takes the power away from the producer and hands it to the consumer.

As such, I understand why a producer of an intellectual property such as music would be against it. You're going to have less power over what the value of your product is... I get it, you don't like that. But as a consumer, I do.

 

[Alban]

I don't think anyone ever tried to claim intellectual ownership, as in "John Lennon wrote this song, I bought the copyright from him, so now I wrote this song."

Well obviously I wouldn't go that far either, but this is more accurate: "John Lennon wrote this song, I bought the copyright from him, so now I get rich while never having contributed anything to his music in my life."

...which is basically what Michael Jackson/Sony Music did with their Beatles catalogue joint venture. Two entities who had absolutely no prior relation to anything Beatles, but they somehow get to reap the profits of Beatles record sales.

Copyright isn't really about protecting creators, it's about protecting owners. The creator is the owner, by default, unless they transfer that ownership.

And that is where ethics fail, and commerce takes over. To me, the artist will always remain the moral owner of his/her creations. As soon as copyright is no longer used to protect the interests of an artist, but transfered to a 3rd party and used simply for making as much money as possible, then I think that some new rules should apply. Companies buying and abusing patents by sueing anything that moves are a clear example of why it's a bad idea to make copyright about owners and not about creators.


On an unrelated note, Don Passman wrote an interesting book about the music business in which it is stated who gets paid what; a typical band gets 13% of all income, distributors get about 24% and the record label keeps 63% for themselves.
The question is then, where would the damage from illegal downloads be noticable the most? Will it hurt all three parties more or less equally? Or will the record label suffer the most? I have no idea to be honest, it's probably hard to get some reliable data on that.

 

[punkjazzben]

Itsfunny how none of that is true. Are people playing less? Are people going to less shows? Cause I can tell you now, us young people are going to more shows than we can afford, and listening to more new music than we have time to play. Maybe you just haven't opened your eyes. Heard of EDM?

I'm just gonna say one name that shatters all of that. Skrillex. First album released for free made on a laptop in his apartment.

First off, I'm 24, so drop the assumption that I am an old nostalgic fart remembering the good old days. It's presumptuous and idiotic.

Now, to the point. Nothing you've said contradicts me. If anything, it supports the claim that consumers are better off while artists are worse off. The side you're not seeing is the artist's. Do you understand that most bands don't even break even when going on tour, and that the only good reason to do it is to promote album and merch sales? Do you understand that your easy access to music has come at a cost to artists? You can see all the shows you want and download all the music you want, but it's doing barely anything for the artists.

To repeat myself, listeners are doing just fine; it's the artists that are suffering. It's not an optimal market outcome.

Skrillex is not really a good example. Sonny Moore was well established in the music industry before he started under the name Skrillex. He was with a successful band that sold a lot of albums. Even when he quit to start his own band, Alternative Press had put him on their front cover while he was pursuing another project, so he wasn't exactly unknown. When he started out on his own, he had enough capital behind him to do special once off CD prints for the various tours he was going on. His mates at Bring Me The Horizon got him on board with one of their albums, and he hooked up on tour with Deadmau5, who signed him to his record label.

Basically, the guy had a good start in the industry before he put his EP up on MySpace for free. He had contacts and labels knew he was a pretty safe bet. It was business as usual, not some Free Culture success story. In fact, I've never heard a genuine free culture success story.

 

[Gaius46]

I already stated that I pay for the music produced by the bands I like. The option of being able to listen to it first, for free, just enables me as a consumer to have more control over which bands warrant support and which ones don't. This is what scares the people that are against filesharing, the consumers having control.

The great myth in our society is that our economy and the markets behind it allow the consumer to have control. When a producer or a group of producers of a product holds so much sway over the choices that the consumer has, the way in which those choices are (dishonestly) marketed, and the individual value of those choices, then the consumer in fact has no control. By having information available freely, the consumer is allowed to determine the value of that information, and it's viability within the new market model. THAT is the benefit of free exchange. It takes the power away from the producer and hands it to the consumer.

As such, I understand why a producer of an intellectual property such as music would be against it. You're going to have less power over what the value of your product is... I get it, you don't like that. But as a consumer, I do.

Consumers have choice. Consumers can choose to not buy what they don't like. There are plenty of avenues to sample music before purchasing it. And If it turns out you don't like a cd you purchased you can sell it. It's a myth that consumers have no control. No one is putting a gun to your head and making you buy something you don't like or want.

Even so I'm curious. Do you always delete stuff you realize you don't like and always pay for stuff you keep?

On your comments that beneficial - whatever that means - material should always be free. I'm wondering if you'd sung the same tune if you needed the income from the beneficial material you produced to feed your family.

 

[beggar98]

I've already told you, I don't believe that intellectual property rights are something that should be held above the distribution of beneficial material (whether culturally significant or helpful to society). Books, art, music, software, engineering schematics, and anything else that can be distributed in a digital environment should be made available to any who wish to seek it out. The wealth of free knowledge and culture available to people, and the resulting benefits of that availability are far more important than any profit margin.

I know this concept seems foreign to people born and bred in a neo-capitalist environment that praises the drivel of economic theory based on Ayn Rand and other "selfishness is a good thing" believers, but it's not really a new approach. Collective ownership of culturally advantageous material is as old as civilization itself.

Am I technically a criminal for downloading certain music without paying for it? Sure I am. Are all criminals evil people? No. Is the law always right? No. There are plenty of examples of cultural movements throughout history whose members were labeled criminals by the law, that we now call heroes. (Just illustrating a point there, not calling myself a hero because I click a button on my mouse...)

It isn't about selfishness. Do you really see it as a black and white choice between everything is free or everything is only done for profit? That may be great in theory, but in the real world, where real people have real bills to pay, this idea of collective ownership is ruining people's lives. I know you like to think of record label CEOs seeing their bonuses shrink, but the damage is felt a lot more sharply at the other end of the ladder, where support staff are just laid off.

And your free content utopia makes no mention of access. In some areas of the country, as many as 30% households have no internet access. As newspapers fold or publish less frequently, these people will be increasing ill-informed. As movie theatre chains go out of business these people will lose access to films. As radio profits are narrowed and playlists become even more homogenized, these people lose access to anything but Top 40 (and, most likely, country and Christian music). Your free content idea creates a sharp separation between people who have access and people who don't.

Finally, if musicians can no longer profit from recording, why record? A generation that doesn't value recorded music will not view making a record as a goal. Why not simply focus on performance? Now you've really limited access to just the people in the room. Ticket prices go up and you end up with what you had before the advent of recorded music: performances of adventurous, interesting music for rich people and pop music for the masses.

 

[punkjazzben]

This is what scares the people that are against filesharing, the consumers having control.

But this has no bearing on whether you should pay for music. Technology has allowed consumers to hear music that record companies wouldn't have given us otherwise. The internet has opened up the options for consumers to listen and for musicians to be heard. We agree on this, yeah?

Now, imagine if you couldn't download music freely. I don't know how it would work, but just imagine that's the case. Consumers still have access to a more diverse range of music thanks to the opportunities created by the internet; it's no longer in the hands of the record companies. But even if consumers are paying for the music, they are still in control, and they still have more control than if all of our music was still provided by a select few record companies. We're still letting the market decide who is successful or not, but we're opening up the playing field to allow in a bigger range of products. Simply having a price on music downloads will not alter the fact that the Internet makes it easier to have your music heard. Indeed, if everyone's music was paid for, more independent artists would be building capital, paying for better recordings, going on tour, and so on. The internet represents a huge opportunity for independent acts to stick it to the record labels if they want.... But no, paying for music is just too much to ask, isn't it?

 

[pmchenry]

Even so I'm curious. Do you always delete stuff you realize you don't like and always pay for stuff you keep?

Yes, I always delete the stuff I don't like. Obviously, everyone does that, why would I want music I don't care for? As for paying for everything I keep, it get's more complicated. If it's a local or regional band that I know is just barely making it, or just getting started, I always make it a point to contribute full price(a lot of our local bands do name your own price in which case I usually pay $1.50 per track). If it's a national act there are several other scenarios I consider. For instance, if I find the album to be overpriced for the tracks that are on it, I'll sometimes pay for that one but not the next one(from the same band). Or if their merch is overpriced(nobody NEEDS to sell a t-shirt for $40...) maybe I'll buy the merch but not pay for the album. But as a rule I try to contribute to artists what I think is fair.

On your comments that beneficial - whatever that means - material should always be free. I'm wondering if you'd sung the same tune if you needed the income from the beneficial material you produced to feed your family.

I don't think free exchange and being paid for your work are mutually exclusive. Obviously, several major albums have been released, legally, for free and have still gone platinum and sold millions of copies. Any major track you can think of right now is available, illegally, for free and still people make it in the music business. Is it harder? Sure it is. Is there less money to go around for the bands? Maaaaybe(though I'm not convinced of that). But then, there's not a rule that says you have to be a musician for a living either. Some of my favorite bands are weekend warriors. Nor is their a rule that a musicians income has to come from his recordings, and until records were invented there were plenty of professional musicians who fed their families without a single pence from album sales.

 

[beggar98]

Yes, I always delete the stuff I don't like. Obviously, everyone does that, why would I want music I don't care for? As for paying for everything I keep, it get's more complicated. If it's a local or regional band that I know is just barely making it, or just getting started, I always make it a point to contribute full price(a lot of our local bands do name your own price in which case I usually pay $1.50 per track). If it's a national act there are several other scenarios I consider. For instance, if I find the album to be overpriced for the tracks that are on it, I'll sometimes pay for that one but not the next one(from the same band). Or if their merch is overpriced(nobody NEEDS to sell a t-shirt for $40...) maybe I'll buy the merch but not pay for the album. But as a rule I try to contribute to artists what I think is fair.



I don't think free exchange and being paid for your work are mutually exclusive. Obviously, several major albums have been released, legally, for free and have still gone platinum and sold millions of copies. Any major track you can think of right now is available, illegally, for free and still people make it in the music business. Is it harder? Sure it is. Is there less money to go around for the bands? Maaaaybe(though I'm not convinced of that). But then, there's not a rule that says you have to be a musician for a living either. Some of my favorite bands are weekend warriors. Nor is their a rule that a musicians income has to come from his recordings, and until records were invented there were plenty of professional musicians who fed their families without a single pence from album sales.

Free exchange and being paid for your work are absolutely mutually exclusive. They can co-exist, but by definition they cannot be part of the same transaction. If you download something without paying, the artist is not paid for that work. If you pay for the work, it is no longer a free exchange.

 

[pmchenry]

It isn't about selfishness. Do you really see it as a black and white choice between everything is free or everything is only done for profit? That may be great in theory, but in the real world, where real people have real bills to pay, this idea of collective ownership is ruining people's lives. I know you like to think of record label CEOs seeing their bonuses shrink, but the damage is felt a lot more sharply at the other end of the ladder, where support staff are just laid off.

Simply having a price on music downloads will not alter the fact that the Internet makes it easier to have your music heard. Indeed, if everyone's music was paid for, more independent artists would be building capital, paying for better recordings, going on tour, and so on. The internet represents a huge opportunity for independent acts to stick it to the record labels if they want.... But no, paying for music is just too much to ask, isn't it?

Again, I don't think free exchange and paying for music are mutually exclusive. By giving people the option to download what they want for free, you're not taking away their right to support the artists they like. You're just giving them the option to decide how much support they wish to give, financially at least, without taking away their ability to listen to the music.

Are there people that will download for free whether they like the band or not? Never paying for a single mp3 on their harddrive? Of course there are. But honestly, those people don't make up even half of the free exchange population. There will always be scumbags who are just out to get theirs while screwing everyone else over, but they are in the minority. I just did a quick browse of piratebay's music section. Of the top 10 most popular music torrents, 7 of them have been posted with the message "Always remember to buy the albums if you like them. Support good artists!" or something similar. This is the idea behind free exchange.

 

[beggar98]

Are there people that will download for free whether they like the band or not? Never paying for a single mp3 on their harddrive? Of course there are. But honestly, those people don't make up even half of the free exchange population. There will always be scumbags who are just out to get theirs while screwing everyone else over, but they are in the minority. I just did a quick browse of piratebay's music section. Of the top 10 most popular music torrents, 7 of them have been posted with the message "Always remember to buy the albums if you like them. Support good artists!" or something similar. This is the idea behind free exchange.

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive.

 

[pmchenry]

Free exchange and being paid for your work are absolutely mutually exclusive. They can co-exist, but by definition they cannot be part of the same transaction. If you download something without paying, the artist is not paid for that work. If you pay for the work, it is no longer a free exchange.

I apologize for the incorrect semantics. They can co-exist is my point.

 

[pmchenry]

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive.

Haha, no, it's NOT. That's just it. There is this stigma to the pirate community that they're just a bunch of freeloading criminals who don't give a damn about the people behind the music they're "stealing". A stigma created by people who have never been a part of the community, don't understand the goals or motivations of the community, and add their own cynicism to an entire group of people that they don't know. It's further reinforced by the real enemies of free exchange, the record company CEO's that you keep mentioning and suddenly it's a known fact that we're all just a bunch of scumbags.

 

[beggar98]

I apologize for the incorrect semantics. They can co-exist is my point.

They can, but that puts a lot of faith in people voluntarily re-directing the money they used to have to spend on recordings back to the bands they want to support. I don't think this is happening as much as you think it is.

 

[pmchenry]

They can, but that puts a lot of faith in people voluntarily re-directing the money they used to have to spend on recordings back to the bands they want to support. I don't think this is happening as much as you think it is.

I think enough money gets back to the bands. You do not. On that, we will just have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Pacman]

I think enough money gets back to the bands. You do not. On that, we will just have to respectfully disagree.

Haven't put out a CD, have you?

 

[pmchenry]

Haven't put out a CD, have you?

No offense, but who's to say your CD was worth any money?