Continuing the copyright discussion...

[Jason P Bass]

As a further example of my point, I think we can reasonably agree that jazz is an obscure type of high quality music - however you want to frame it. It's not commercially viable, and it's a style that musicians and connoisseurs admire.

Charles Mingus, one of the most prolific and proficient jazz bassists, would certainly sell tickets and profit from his performances if he were still alive. I mean, if ANYBODY can put together a profitable jazz concert, I think we'd all agree that Mingus can pull it off (except for the whole being dead).

Here's a link describing the plague of unauthorized published discs of his music (edit: Upon further review, I see that they gave up tracking the unauthorized discs because there are simply too many to track - now it is a list of the few authorized publications). We're not even talking about downloads here, this is rampant copyright violation in physical media for otherwise legitimate sale.

So, pretending for a moment that Charles Mingus is still alive, how could this guy, one of the most prolific and beloved jazz musicians in history, make a living by selling his recordings? Forget about digital downloads, they can't even control illegal PHYSICAL sales that violate his copyrights. This mission seems doomed from the start.

HOWEVER - he has this problem because he is IMMENSELY popular. Which brings us full circle - he could sell all kinds of tickets to his performances.

This is exactly the same business model I suggest for an undiscovered, unsigned rock band, without getting bent out of shape by the copyright violations - which are illegal, unethical, entirely out of your control, and unfortunately here to stay.

 

[teleharmonium]

I'm just saying that it sounds like you want to get paid for making recordings, but you don't want to live on the road, make personal connections with fans through your shows, sell merchandise, or do any of the legwork that everybody else goes through to provide for their musician life style.

Well, not exactly - I do play shows, make connections that way (I hesitate to use the term "fans"), and do various kinds of legwork - but strictly speaking, there is not a real association between the things you mention, and the principle of being paid for recordings.

I agree that you will sell more recordings the more you do those things. And I'm not really expecting to sell a lot of recordings... nobody does, for the music I am into... I just want that limited number of transactions to be according to the terms that I chose to make the music available.

For me it's about quality and nature of the exchange, rather than quantity of them. I don't want to get my stuff onto the largest number of hard drives possible regardless of method. I don't think people get much out of music when they don't pay for it, don't have any packaging, and don't have any real world positive experience associated with locating and obtaining it.

Those things - particularly the searching, finding, and the money - invest the listener in the music. They give them a reason to give the music that critical second or third listen. Without that, they aren't really hearing it. Most of the music I love, I didn't appreciate on my first listen. It would be even worse, if I only gave it 20 seconds through crappy computer speakers before I decided to move on.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that you could have this dream-come-true lifestyle IF ONLY it weren't for illegal downloads.

No, that's not my argument. On the contrary I have said several times that I have modest expectations due to the nature of the music.

Without the tours, merchandise, self promotion, cross marketing, and personal interaction with the fans, nobody will be interested in your product to begin with - and if they're not interested, they're not going to pay $10 for your CD.

As I mentioned, you misread my stance on those things, but to take the rest of this point - I am also, of course, a music consumer. The type that buys a lot of music, mostly of titles that do not exist in large numbers. I average over 1 incoming record per day, and have done so probably for the last 20 years. So I am in a very good position to know the mentality of the consumer for the music I like. "Crazed collector" would be a fair description.

As such a consumer, if I hear about something that strikes my interest sufficiently based on some association or description of an idea or the sound of the music, I will go ahead and buy it. I don't need to feel like I have a personal relationship with them, or that they are informing my lifestyle. I don't care what car they drive or what clothes they wear. I don't wait for them to come to my town - most never will, and why would they really ? The audience here for what I like is small and these musicians can be from anywhere in the world.

That's my market; the specialized fan of certain styles of music. Within my interests, I know what people look for, and I have personal connections which I have not yet tried to take advantage of, and won't until I have exactly the right sound and product. First impressions are very important, and no one likes a pest. So you see, my approach is not without strategy, different from other strategies as it is.

I just don't see what's stopping you, aside from illegal downloads, but that's only going to be a problem once you're successful and popular... so what's stopping you?

As for me personally, I am still at a somewhat early stage of making the music I ultimately want to make. I've put out a few things and I am as busy as I can possibly be at this time; I'm in 3 bands and have been playing shows about once per week, which is more than I prefer. So, nothing is stopping me; I believe I am on the right path and growing quickly as a musician.

My stance on the ethics and nature of music is not solely tied to my own personal situation of the moment. I would tend to place less value in such a position, because that would make it more about self interest. The topic here is the topic, not me personally.

 

[teleharmonium]

In my opinion, the idea that you can turn a profit by selling studio recordings is wildly unrealistic, and starts your journey with a step in the wrong direction.

I'm not expecting to turn a profit anytime soon. What I want is fair, ethical treatment, even on a very small scale.

I like the idea of being a small, quality craftsman. I figure, start with that and then grow it. That to me makes a lot more sense than starting out with unethical treatment or compromised work and then growing that.

I'm already taking a heavy loss, to the tune of low 5 figures each of the past several years, mostly due to acquiring recording gear and putting out a CD. So it's not like I am averse to up front investment.

 

[Jason P Bass]

I agree that you will sell more recordings the more you do those things. And I'm not really expecting to sell a lot of recordings... nobody does, for the music I am into... I just want that limited number of transactions to be according to the terms that I chose to make the music available.

Ok, thanks for the correction. But if you're trying to market off-the-map musical recordings, you're protected to a large degree by the obscurity. If it's not on TV, it's not on P2P, to a certain degree, I'm sure you agree, now I'm on a spree, haha shoot me.

From what I understand of your position, I don't see where copyright violations would be a significant hurdle to your goals. Are you just upset about the wider world in the abstract?

 

[Jason P Bass]

I'm not expecting to turn a profit anytime soon. What I want is fair, ethical treatment, even on a very small scale.

I like the idea of being a small, quality craftsman. I figure, start with that and then grow it. That to me makes a lot more sense than starting out with unethical treatment or compromised work and then growing that.

I'm already taking a heavy loss, to the tune of low 5 figures each of the past several years, mostly due to acquiring recording gear and putting out a CD. So it's not like I am averse to up front investment.

Ok, ok, ok.

Moment of truth.

Are you really losing your profits because of copyright violations? Or are you in the same boat as me and almost every other indie artist, throwing perfectly good money into a product that sadly just isn't as popular as you would like?

 

[teleharmonium]

The way the system was setup was to allow an idea originator to get a head start on the competition. After a set number years the idea was to pass into the public domain.

Right - basically, it's a semi organized way of society taking private work because it wants to and because it can. Creative individuals who have desirable ideas are rare and disorganized, they have no clout.

But I didn't ask where the practice came from - I'm asking why you think it's justified, and why it shouldn't apply to other kinds of work outside of IP.

As it stands, it's really a massive tax that only applies to creative people. But unlike other taxes, which have to be tied to a specific % of income, this one is time based, after which your property is turned into community property. Oh, and before that time expires ? Nobody is going to bother to enforce the laws that ostensibly protect you from theft of your work.

It's a class based screwing is what it is, and it's all because people are mostly thieves if they think they can get away with it, and want what we produce, and we are too disorganized and delusional to do anything about it.

If communizing property is good for creativity, by forcing creative people to do new stuff, then that would seem like an interesting argument for really, really high tax rates in the top bracket. So all people would have to keep being creative, in order to stay in the upper class. But interestingly, there is a lot of contradiction between what people think about tax policies, and what they think about copyright protection. Which goes to show, it's not about principle - it's just about who it is benefiting.

In which case, spare me the justifications, you know ? Just say you want stuff for free because you want it for free.

If really want to get into the debate about rearranging work. First you better go tell top 40 radio of the last 50 years that they've been ripping off Pachelbel's Canon in D. In all seriousness there is no original ideas in music.

I don't listen to top 40 radio - but, of course there are original ideas in music. Every idea you ever heard was original at some point, and new ones are created all the time. Most of them go unnoticed by the larger population, but that's a different problem.

 

[teleharmonium]

Are you just upset about the wider world in the abstract?

Yes - not that there aren't plenty of other things to be upset (or happy) about in the world, but on the topic of copyright and illegal downloading, I'm definitely not happy with the present situation.

 

[teleharmonium]

Are you really losing your profits because of copyright violations? Or are you in the same boat as me and almost every other indie artist, throwing perfectly good money into a product that sadly just isn't as popular as you would like?

I didn't say I was "losing my profits" - and it's notoriously hard to know the specifics - and my argument is, again, not about self interest in the present tense. And yes, I am in that same boat.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Well I get viciously angry about people who drive slowly in the passing lane.

I guess we're a lot alike, you and I.

 

[teleharmonium]

Well I get viciously angry about people who drive slowly in the passing lane.

You keep trying to make me the topic.

I'm not the topic.

Nor am I "viciously angry".

Take out the hyperbolic emotional claims from your posts, and what's left ?

 

[Jason P Bass]

You keep trying to make me the topic.

I'm not the topic.

Nor am I "viciously angry".

Take out the hyperbolic emotional claims from your posts, and what's left ?

Sometimes I am dissatisfied with things I cannot change about the world.

I guess we're a lot alike, you and I.

 

[teleharmonium]

Sometimes I am dissatisfied with things I cannot change about the world.

I guess we're a lot alike, you and I.

Getting there...

How do you know what you can and cannot change ?

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is something that you definitely cannot change personally, and yet, is changeable. Like, human behavior, such as violent crime (in general).

Does this situation mean you should no longer be upset by it or refrain from stating (when it comes up) that it is wrong or feeling that it is wrong ?

 

[kuys]

Right - basically, it's a semi organized way of society taking private work because it wants to and because it can. Creative individuals who have desirable ideas are rare and disorganized, they have no clout.

But I didn't ask where the practice came from - I'm asking why you think it's justified, and why it shouldn't apply to other kinds of work outside of IP.

As it stands, it's really a massive tax that only applies to creative people. But unlike other taxes, which have to be tied to a specific % of income, this one is time based, after which your property is turned into community property. Oh, and before that time expires ? Nobody is going to bother to enforce the laws that ostensibly protect you from theft of your work.

It's a class based screwing is what it is, and it's all because people are mostly thieves if they think they can get away with it, and want what we produce, and we are too disorganized and delusional to do anything about it.

If communizing property is good for creativity, by forcing creative people to do new stuff, then that would seem like an interesting argument for really, really high tax rates in the top bracket. So all people would have to keep being creative, in order to stay in the upper class. But interestingly, there is a lot of contradiction between what people think about tax policies, and what they think about copyright protection. Which goes to show, it's not about principle - it's just about who it is benefiting.

In which case, spare me the justifications, you know ? Just say you want stuff for free because you want it for free.



I don't listen to top 40 radio - but, of course there are original ideas in music. Every idea you ever heard was original at some point, and new ones are created all the time. Most of them go unnoticed by the larger population, but that's a different problem.

Stuff for free? I buy more albums and go to more concerts than 90% of the public. Probably even more than you. I can guarantee the former if not the latter.

I have over 900+ albums (in physical form - vinyl, CDs, cassette, even a few reel to reels) from hundreds of artists.

And enough ticket stubs to fill a large filling cabinet. Don't get me started on the amount of crappy overpriced band shirts and merch that fell apart after a single wash.

Did I pay $20 dollars for all these albums? Hell, no I didn't. I bought a large percentage used, will I make apologies for that? Not a chance. Most were out of print, artist was dead, or of an unknown quality. Hell, some of the rare vinyl was in the hundreds of dollars but still the band didn't profit. Bands in general don't profit from CD sales anyways.

Am I steeling since the artist doesn't get the proceeds of a used sale? Are you going to go give a lecture to the guy selling rare used disks?

Those are questions you should all be asking yourselves. What's the difference?

Hell, I gave $150 bucks to the band SkeletonKey so they could record their new album. I think I've made my point very clear already many of times.

Artists should make money on what they do but the market reality is that it won't be off CD sales. I genuinely believe that most people are in fact good and given the opportunity they will do the right thing. I see no harm if someone downloads an album to try out an artist to see if they like them. Most if given an easy path to give that artist money by either buying their albums or merch of even going to a show; will do it.

On the greater issues of philosophy and legally; I think that there should be a set time when music and art and ideas become public property for others to use to create new art not original art.

I will never give credence to the whole objectivism-Ayn Rand bent of your views. If you honestly think that there is such a thing as an original idea in music you aren't listening very closely or your are not digging deep enough.

There are no wholly original concepts and ideas in music. There might of been millenia ago when we were hunter's and gathers and music was taking form as we know it; everything since those days have been built on the backs of those millenia-old original ideas.

It's a tradition that I think should continue.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Getting there...

How do you know what you can and cannot change ?

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is something that you definitely cannot change personally, and yet, is changeable. Like, human behavior, such as violent crime (in general).

Does this situation mean you should no longer be upset by it or refrain from stating (when it comes up) that it is wrong or feeling that it is wrong ?

Oh FFS. On a scale from 0-100, I'd like YOU to rate YOUR chances of persuading me that your opinion is better than mine based upon the post I just quoted.

 

[teleharmonium]

Stuff for free? I buy more albums and go to more concerts than 90% of the public. Probably even more than you. I can guarantee the former if not the latter.

I have over 900+ albums (in physical form - vinyl, CDs, cassette, even a few reel to reels) from hundreds of artists.

And enough ticket stubs to fill a large filling cabinet. Don't get me started on the amount of crappy overpriced band shirts and merch that fell apart after a single wash.

Not the latter, I have approximately 8000 LPs, a couple thousand CDs, and maybe 1000 7" records and still a few hundred cassettes and open reel tapes.

Did I pay $20 dollars for all these albums? Hell, no I didn't. I bought a large percentage used, will I make apologies for that? Not a chance. Most were out of print, artist was dead, or of an unknown quality. Hell, some of the rare vinyl was in the hundreds of dollars but still the band didn't profit. Bands in general don't profit from CD sales anyways.

Am I steeling since the artist doesn't get the proceeds of a used sale? Are you going to go give a lecture to the guy selling rare used disks?

Those are questions you should all be asking yourselves. What's the difference?

That's kind of a different topic.

The differences are that reselling a physical artifact is legal, and it deprives the seller of the thing being sold. A copy by definition does not involve the loss of the original.

Direct support is an aspect of the debate, but not the entire basis for all ethical considerations.

This is sort of a rhetorical shotgun approach, which I notice happens a lot on this topic. You're getting into existential questions that are unrelated to your original statement that you think copyright should expire.

I genuinely believe that most people are in fact good and given the opportunity they will do the right thing.

I wish I could believe that. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.

I see no harm if someone downloads an album to try out an artist to see if they like them.

Even if the artist has not extended that privilege to them ? Isn't that like shoplifting a shirt to wear it around and decide if you want to pay for it ?

On the greater issues of philosophy and legally; I think that there should be a set time when music and art and ideas become public property for others to use to create new art not original art.

Again, why ? Other than people wanting free stuff, what benefit is there to the artist for such a policy ? How can that be characterized as a fair policy, to the people actually impacted by that ? Why should they not continue to be paid for their work, if it continues to have an audience ?

I will never give credence to the whole objectivism-Ayn Rand bent of your views. If you honestly think that there is such a thing as an original idea in music you aren't listening very closely or your are not digging deep enough.

I argue the converse. If you aren't hearing anything original, maybe you're listening to the wrong stuff ?

Based on the stated size of our record collections, it would appear I'm digging a lot deeper than you.

I'll put it this way; my current favorite musician is Philip Tabane. I've tracked down 6 of his albums in the last couple of months. He sounds "African" (which he is), and also sounds sort of like early 70s Miles Davis, and sort of like James Blood Ulmer. And yet, not like them.

You tell me; original, or not ?

There are no wholly original concepts and ideas in music. There might of been 300,000 years ago when we were hunter's and gathers and music was taking form as we know it; everything since those days have been built on the backs of those original ideas. Bluegrass wouldn't exist if not for Jazz, etc.

This is a bait-and-switch. Wholly original and original are two different things. Specific original ideas, sounds, associations, and methods appear in the context of music that is largely in some existing general style. You're reducing music to macro level attributes in order to define it as non original. But music has micro level attributes.

If something was literally wholly original, how could you even recognize it as music ? Because the idea of using rhythm and pitch for art has "been done", right ? And yet, there is music that bears little or no resemblance to music from 100 or 1000 years ago.

 

[teleharmonium]

Oh FFS. On a scale from 0-100, I'd like YOU to rate YOUR chances of persuading me that your opinion is better than mine based upon the post I just quoted.

0. Nobody can persuade anybody of anything, because we're all so damned amazingly smart and confident. That's something I've learned on the internets.

Nonetheless, human behavior is changeable. I take exception to human behavior being described as some force of nature like the inevitable death of a star or something. If you put up a sign that says "bridge out", people will drive another route. It's all about the details of who can change it and what it takes.

Most people are not going to keep doing something that they know to be illegal and that they can see people are going to jail for.

 

[Jason P Bass]

0. Nobody can persuade anybody of anything, because we're all so damned amazingly smart and confident. That's something I've learned on the internets.

Nonetheless, human behavior is changeable. I take exception to human behavior being described as some force of nature like the inevitable death of a star or something. If you put up a sign that says "bridge out", people will drive another route. It's all about the details of who can change it and what it takes.

Most people are not going to keep doing something that they know to be illegal and that they can see people are going to jail for.

Right answer, wrong rationale. Partial credit.

By the way, you DO realize that copyright violation is a civil, not a criminal offense, and (at least in the US) no person ever has or ever will go to jail for copyright violation. Right?

 

[teleharmonium]

By the way, you DO realize that copyright violation is a civil, not a criminal offense, and (at least in the US) no person ever has or ever will go to jail for copyright violation. Right?

You DID read my post before about possible secondary charges such as wire fraud, conspiracy, or racketeering, right ? People have gone to jail for those.

 

[Jason P Bass]

You DID read my post before about possible secondary charges such as wire fraud, conspiracy, or racketeering, right ? People have gone to jail for those.

I have to admit that I thought that was too ridiculous to take seriously. And there, unfortunately, is the rationale to support the answer of "0" on a scale of 0-100. I mean no offense, but this thread has become far too ridiculous for my taste.

"How do you know what you can and cannot change?"

 

[teleharmonium]

"How do you know what you can and cannot change?"

This is not a serious question to you ?

Don't you ever try to do things that you're not sure at the outset if they will work ?

If I was that easily discouraged, I would have just given up music long ago, you know ? And yet, here I am having a good time at it.

It's a good thing not everyone is discouraged from even trying things that they believe in but don't think can be done quickly or painlessly enough to benefit them personally.

Fairness in society benefits the whole society, so we all have an interest in it including in areas that don't affect us directly on a personal level.

The way you talk about it, this thing that been happening to a large (but not exclusive) extent for about 15 years sounds like something as unavoidable as death. But I have friends who are doing what I aspire to do - selling recordings and making an OK middle class living at it. Including some who play live never, or less than me.

So your perspective starts out as being the unrealistic one, based on what I have seen. The real world beats what people predict about the real world, every time. My target market is more loyal to hard copies and artist support than the general audience.

The significance of the illegal downloading issue to those goals is that when your business model is based on such small stakes, and a known, mostly finite audience, it's more of a zero sum game as to whether that audience is going to get your stuff legally, illegally, or not at all. You can't keep widening without changing the music, you've got to be efficient in a narrow space.