Continuing the copyright discussion...

[Jason P Bass]

Once we're at the point of having a fair marketplace for music, then we can have a meaningful discussion about perceived value in one piece vs. another. So long as it's all able to be stolen, it's all equally worthless, to that segment.

What's more fair than Tower Records and iTunes?

See, EVERY MARKET is actually a black market, but people would rather pay "big grocery store prices" for groceries rather than seek out cheaper, unregulated food. That's why there's no shady market for stealing food.

But when it comes to recorded music, people don't care about the poor quality of downloaded MP3s. They don't care about mislabeled files or garbled files. They don't care about the legal risks. They COULD buy their music in a "fair market" at Tower Records, but the market has spoken - they'd rather just go black market.

It is pure market economics at work. Good luck convincing people that 80 billion illegal downloads per year are a mistake. Good luck.

I'll be busy over here working on a different business model where I don't depend on profits from selling recordings...

 

[Jason P Bass]

Radiohead was already famous from the old music economy, they could afford to try something like that once - which they did, and opted against it for their subsequent releases.

When a hugely famous band with a worldwide audience tries that and finds it doesn't work for them, what does that suggest for musicians with far less resources ?

It suggests that the old model sucks, the "Radiohead" model sucks, and you should start following the examples of KISS and Jay-Z, where you don't depend on selling recordings as your only source of revenue.

I mean come on, it's as plain as day. Selling recordings for profit is an antiquated business model.

But by all means, feel free to change the world instead.

 

[UncleFluffy]

I am sure that Mr. Linux himself, Linus, would love to be filthy rich from his operating system. He, however, chose to give it away. But then again, it could be because he chooses to live in a country where it is much more socialist then here

... Portland?

I'm hoping someone comes up with a way to digitally encode a file that will not allow it to be shared without a permission or purchase.

Very, very difficult. Fundamentally, if they're going to be able to play it, the player needs the key to the lock. You can make it difficult to find where the key is, but eventually someone will find it. Every time.

 

[teleharmonium]

What's more fair than Tower Records and iTunes?

See, EVERY MARKET is actually a black market, but people would rather pay "big grocery store prices" for groceries rather than seek out cheaper, unregulated food. That's why there's no shady market for stealing food.

But when it comes to recorded music, people don't care about the poor quality of downloaded MP3s. They don't care about mislabeled files or garbled files. They don't care about the legal risks. They COULD buy their music in a "fair market" at Tower Records, but the market has spoken - they'd rather just go black market.

It is pure market economics at work. Good luck convincing people that 80 billion illegal downloads per year are a mistake. Good luck.

I'll be busy over here working on a different business model where I don't depend on profits from selling recordings...

We've been over this. Stealing is not a market, it's stealing. It is silly to read all of this stuff into the nature of the product. It's being stolen because it can be stolen; it has nothing to do with the product. No product can compete with free. Other industries simply have reasonable protection against theft, enforcement of applicable laws, and insurance to cover the gap.

If there was no stigma and risk associated with stealing food, people would do that too.

 

[teleharmonium]

It suggests that the old model sucks, the "Radiohead" model sucks, and you should start following the examples of KISS and Jay-Z, where you don't depend on selling recordings as your only source of revenue.

Well, I don't depend on selling recordings as my only source of revenue; but I would like to in the future.

I am not interested in endless touring or in selling t shirts and crap. If I wanted to do those things, I would have.

Kiss, of course, also got famous in the old music business, and Jay-Z benefits from the still relatively stable hard copy sales in his chosen genre. And both of those acts are far more commercial than anything I would do, so it's pointless for me to emulate whatever their business approach may be.

I mean come on, it's as plain as day. Selling recordings for profit is an antiquated business model.

I am not willing to accept recent developments being described in terms such as "antiquated". That's just not what the word means.

You're placing a lot of emphasis on time in your argument, however, the fact remains that the demand for music has not diminished, the recording industry still exists, and before this assault started on it, it enjoyed decades of prosperity that in fact have lasted a lot longer than the present situation. So your time-based argument is really a hypothetical one.

What the future really holds, of course, remains to be seen.

 

[teleharmonium]

Very, very difficult. Fundamentally, if they're going to be able to play it, the player needs the key to the lock. You can make it difficult to find where the key is, but eventually someone will find it. Every time.

Copy protection is not necessarily limited to encryption and the receiving app. Keys can be embedded to identify and block files at the ISP level. If you can't get the file except by direct connection to hardware, illegal downloading/copying is crippled (while not eradicated). If it's only for relatively high profile IP, still, it's enough of a pain in the ass to make a real dent in it. Nobody wants to spend time trying to get something and then having it not work.

There are newer encryption strategies based on quantum physics that have the potential to be robust for a long time (if not forever).

Invalid Link Removed

For recordings, there's always the possibility of going back out to analog and re converting, but that's a lot more trouble for most people, and a sufficiently widely cast copy can be identified (due to internal attributes, not just file name/size) and added to the blocked file list.

 

[UncleFluffy]

If you can't get the file except by direct connection to hardware, illegal downloading/copying is crippled (while not eradicated).

Not really, just negotiate fresh session keys for each transfer and implement an encrypted tunnel.

There are newer encryption strategies based on quantum physics that have the potential to be robust for a long time (if not forever).

Invalid Link Removed

Yes, but all crypto advances are at least as much help to the pirates as they are to the authors.

For recordings, there's always the possibility of going back out to analog and re converting, but that's a lot more trouble for most people, and a sufficiently widely cast copy can be identified (due to internal attributes, not just file name/size) and added to the blocked file list.

I don't believe that block lists are practical unless you completely ban end-user crypto. But that would break online banking and a thousand other important things, so it's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[teleharmonium]

It suggests that the old model sucks, the "Radiohead" model sucks, and you should start following the examples of KISS and Jay-Z, where you don't depend on selling recordings as your only source of revenue.

Here's a further thought on how what you're saying comes across to me. Not to pick on you personally - we've heard many different forms of the argument you are making and it's fair to call it a widely held position.

To me that sounds like a monologue in a Dickens-esque novel in which a pathetic anonymous author of what turns out to be the runaway hit play in London, after a long, twisted search and ensuing confrontation, is told by the man who lifted the script from his coat in their shared cell in debtor's prison:

"It's just not your lot in this world, son, to profit from these things. People like me, and like the theater owner, and the actors, and the beans on toast and ale and lamp oil vendors, and the guy that sweeps the floor, and the shop that prints the programs and tickets, and the taxi drivers, and the ladies of the night around the side door, and the several gentlemen that wrote plays very reminiscent of yours which will be opening soon in other theaters, we're the type that can profit from these things. And that's the way it's always going to be. You can't change it.

You should just be glad to have a roof over your head, and maybe you can put down some of your future ideas on paper, give them to me, and if I like them, I might buy you a nice supper. Perhaps if you made some short poems, you could read them in bars, and earn a few pennies that way. That would be nice. People like that sort of thing.

It should give you a great measure of satisfaction to know that so many people are enjoying your work. That's what it's really about, right ? It's not just about money, is it ? We had some good laughs together, didn't we ? Back in Wormwood Scrubs, yes, a lot of laughs. I would hate to think of you as a greedy person."

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I don't see the connection. To me, it seems as if Jason is saying that an artists needs to sell more than just songs. They need to sell an image, lifestyle, and service that cannot physically or digitally be stolen. It has to be experienced, and the only way to experience is to pony up the dough.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Well, I don't depend on selling recordings as my only source of revenue; but I would like to in the future.

I am not interested in endless touring or in selling t shirts and crap. If I wanted to do those things, I would have.

Kiss, of course, also got famous in the old music business, and Jay-Z benefits from the still relatively stable hard copy sales in his chosen genre. And both of those acts are far more commercial than anything I would do, so it's pointless for me to emulate whatever their business approach may be.

Uh, KISS and Jay-Z played a TON of shows and sold TONS of merchandise. Phish and the Grateful Dead sold a TON of tickets.

To be honest, in my opinion, it sounds like you're shaking your fist at the sky and cursing the rain.

You can want to depend on revenue from selling buggy whips, swords, and telegraph machines while you're at it. Best of luck and send a postcard.

To me that sounds like a monologue in a Dickens-esque novel in which a pathetic anonymous author of what turns out to be the runaway hit play in London, after a long, twisted search and ensuing confrontation, is told by the man who lifted the script from his coat in their shared cell in debtor's prison:

Yeah, it does. How does the novel end?

 

[Jason P Bass]

I don't see the connection. To me, it seems as if Jason is saying that an artists needs to sell more than just songs. They need to sell an image, lifestyle, and service that cannot physically or digitally be stolen. It has to be experienced, and the only way to experience is to pony up the dough.

That's exactly it. While illegal downloading is clearly illegal, it's an offense that happens approximately 80 billion times per year, and justice is served approximately 0 times per year. It is a tragedy.

I'm just saying that you can adapt to the reality we're facing, or you can adapt reality to be the world you want. Either way, good luck.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

That's exactly it. While illegal downloading is clearly illegal, it's an offense that happens approximately 80 billion times per year, and justice is served approximately 0 times per year. It is a tragedy.

I'm just saying that you can adapt to the reality we're facing, or you can adapt reality to be the world you want. Either way, good luck.

Exactly. Illegal or not, pirating music is here to stay - at least for a while. You can either adapt to the market and find new ways to make a profit off of your product, or you can continue to complain about how unfair things are and end up being left in the dust of those who do evolve and change their strategy. This is Marketing 101 to the T.

 

[teleharmonium]

Uh, KISS and Jay-Z played a TON of shows and sold TONS of merchandise. Phish and the Grateful Dead sold a TON of tickets.

I'm not sure why you're saying this, ie, what is it you think I don't understand about their approach ?

Lots of musicians go the route of going on the road on a constant basis for as long as possible. I don't think that's any way to live and it would never work for my music. Not all music is about or even relevant to live performance. 3 or 4 gigs a month is what I prefer, and I assume that will decline as I get older.

One of the good things about the internet is the potential out of that vast pool to cobble together an audience for music (or whatever) that just is not commercial enough to be picked up by a publisher or to find a sizable local audience anywhere other than a really big city.

Yeah, it does. How does the novel end?

I dunno, maybe a disembowlment with fireplace implements ? Then the actual author has to listen to a lot of crowing about the great literary loss of the other guy's career cut short, at his sentencing. Or it could just end with maniacal laughter ringing down cobblestone streets as the credit-taker watches the author disappear.

 

[teleharmonium]

Not really, just negotiate fresh session keys for each transfer and implement an encrypted tunnel.



Yes, but all crypto advances are at least as much help to the pirates as they are to the authors.



I don't believe that block lists are practical unless you completely ban end-user crypto. But that would break online banking and a thousand other important things, so it's not going to happen any time soon.

Well, this is where the law enforcement side of things could help. There's probably additional laws being broken if a person uses cryto tools to hide their activity online. It would be hard to argue that they thought it was legit if they took that separate step (which would be a jury appeal anyway, since ignorance of the law is no excuse).

A few examples of real penalties for some people on that basis - I don't know what, but it could be wire fraud, conspiracy or racketeering, potentially, above and beyond the actual piracy - and those tactics would get scarce in a hurry.

To flip a common argument around, what kind of fool would risk going to jail for something that they say isn't worth paying for in the first place ?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Lots of musicians go the route of going on the road on a constant basis for as long as possible. I don't think that's any way to live and it would never work for my music. Not all music is about or even relevant to live performance. 3 or 4 gigs a month is what I prefer, and I assume that will decline as I get older.

Well there's your 'problem'. You don't seem concerned with making as a musician - at least not as a performing one. If you want to make it as a performer you have to do all the things me and Jason have been saying to cut it these days.

 

[teleharmonium]

You can either adapt to the market and find new ways to make a profit off of your product, or you can continue to complain about how unfair things are and end up being left in the dust of those who do evolve and change their strategy. This is Marketing 101 to the T.

There's a huge assumption in there.

Why do you make music ?

If it's to make money and compete with other musicians, what you say makes perfect sense.

If it's to make the music you want to make, then what you say makes no sense.

Whatever approach leads me to make the most satisfying music - by my standards - is the approach for me. My best guess as to what that is, right now, is exactly what I am doing - playing regularly in several styles of music, doing a mix of things I am good at and things I need to work on, and writing and recording music at home, which is the part I enjoy the most.

Neither competing with other musicians nor making more money has a clear path toward improving the music, as far as I can see.

Being better than someone else really is not satisfying or productive.

The only enemy is within.

I could get more recording gear if I had more funds, but I'm a buddhist, my values have become more about doing a lot with a little and using what I have.

I know people with fantastic recording gear that make crappy music, or have it just gathering dust. I have pretty cool gear, relative to what I like, it's just not much of a bottleneck.

And selling out the music to make more money to make better music makes no sense. You don't make better music by pandering for a little cash (and I do mean a little). You make better music by keeping the music the priority and finding and doing the things that only you can do.

 

[teleharmonium]

Well there's your 'problem'. You don't seem concerned with making as a musician - at least not as a performing one. If you want to make it as a performer you have to do all the things me and Jason have been saying to cut it these days.

I thought I was clear that I'm a lot more interested in making recordings than in playing live.

What does it mean to "make it" as a performer ? I'd like to be really good and to have a satisfying range of experiences over time. This is unfolding not too badly I would say, relative to that ultimate goal thus far, so there is no problem on that front from my perspective.

For the (very) limited public exposure that I do have, I want it to be mutually beneficial and respectful. I wouldn't want any more exposure, if it is not on those terms. Getting screwed and disrespected by lots of people is not better than getting treated fairly by a few people, in my world.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

There's a huge assumption in there.

Why do you make music ?

If it's to make money and compete with other musicians, what you say makes perfect sense.

If it's to make the music you want to make, then what you say makes no sense.

Not true. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can't assume that all people looking to make money from music are willing to sacrifice their voice just to make a few more Benjamins. I'm playing exactly what I want to be playing and am making a decent part-time living from it. In fact, things might take off for my band pretty soon and we could have the chance to 'make it small' in and around our town. We're making it happen by putting on great live shows that are very energetic and up close and in person with our crowds. We're selling an experience. I mean heck, we don't even have recordings yet and we're doing well.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I thought I was clear that I'm a lot more interested in making recordings than in playing live.

What does it mean to "make it" as a performer ? I'd like to be really good and to have a satisfying range of experiences over time. This is unfolding not too badly I would say, relative to that ultimate goal thus far, so there is no problem on that front from my perspective.

For the (very) limited public exposure that I do have, I want it to be mutually beneficial and respectful. I wouldn't want any more exposure, if it is not on those terms. Getting screwed and disrespected by lots of people is not better than getting treated fairly by a few people, in my world.

Which is fine, but I don't think that's what Jason or myself are wanting to do. We are all approaching music from different angles and have different goals. Mine is to play music for a living and to be a performer, and to make that happen you have to look at more aspects of the music business than just the music and getting your royalties.

 

[teleharmonium]

Not true. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can't assume that all people looking to make money from music are willing to sacrifice their voice just to make a few more Benjamins.

I don't assume that. My intent was to describe the two poles, not to imply that there isn't anything in between them. But since I lean strongly toward one of them, it is more black and white for me than it is for a lot of musicians. And I definitely don't care about the competition aspect of it. It doesn't exist, it's an illusion (pronounced a la Lewis Black, if you please).

If your heartfelt tastes have a greater overlap with an audience, then that is a very fortunate thing.

I have nothing against making money, it's just a secondary or tertiary consideration. Nobody gets rich doing the kind of music I like to make, that's for sure.