The bigger question: Why isn't art/music free?

WERE once used to...

http://www.boblog111.com/images/trike.gif

I don't know anyone else, but that's only because they're all closed up in their bedrooms or garages with no platform to display or share their creations because the whole system of idea distribution has changed -- mostly, within the last 100 years.

if someone wants to share their creations for free, for no return whatsoever, more power to them. but it is certainly not something that should be demanded. and referring to musicians who earn money as 'whores' is as ludicrous as stating the same about anyone who works for a living. For some people, being creative is as much their occupation as washing dishes is your idea of a career.

Some may also argue that prostitution is a reasonable career choice, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

art and music are still used to freely educate people. like in elementary school, remember? it's just that i enjoy passing money across the counter at the record store.

as for the marketing and profiteering architecture, the same used to be true of fruits, vegetables, wood and pet rocks. it's not like music is special in that regard.

I know. My convictions usually fall to pieces when I'm forced to argue the philosophy behind them.

(free, that is)

BUT ONLY IF

youre quite happy to do your job for nothing

Several of my favourite musicians create without the expectation of getting paid, or at least without any expectation of earning a living from their music. It seems to bring a certain amount of freedom from pressure-to-create which is a good thing. It can also involve terrible time pressure and a sense of frustration that the art has to take a back seat to paid work sometimes.

The world would be a significantly better place if I had the cash to be a Medici-style patron of the arts, obv.

That's why you'd have to pay the same for http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000003H4.01._PE25_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg as you do for http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002LGL.01._PE_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg.

File sharing technology means people WON'T pay for it. Certainly they don't want to pay to support an industry. And some won't pay even the artist. (Who here always tips buskers?) So artists will see a gradual decline in income. Whether the collaps happens slowly (because the music biz needs to make over a certain threshold to keep going) or whether they negotiate a steady decline; the payment will keep going down. And we have no reason to think that there's a bottom limit to the downward curve.

The curve could bottom out at the point neessary to sustain enough music making. But there are already millions of people around the world who do make music for love, or fun, or stupidity. They may dream of getting rich, but they don't stop making music just because they don't. And once the commercial product dries up, they'll keep the file sharing world topped up.

Music will be amateurized.

for every dipshit that thinks they deserve to be entertained for free, there's another who's just as happy to throw another coin in the slot for the fun to continue. as much as you seem to want musicians and other artists to go hungry, there are others who don't. live with it.

hahahahahaha my god i've never laughed so much in my life

I just think it'll happen.

Do I want it to? Yes, in certain ways. I want to have access to a lot of music; and I don't want to be denied access to that music because I can't pay. So I'll support the existence of file sharing to the hilt.

Do I think that a file sharing system can become ubiquitous without doing damage to the existing music distribution system? No, the two are rivals. And for my purposes the P2P system has the potential to be better. If P2P works, the music biz is doomed.

Do I think artists will suffer if the recording industry as we understand it is destroyed? Yes, but not so much. I think the idea of poor artists starving is off. The current crop of professional artists who live off royalties are likely to go on as before. But as the industry shrinks fewer artists will sign on as "professionals". Either they'll be on indie / boutique labels who pay small royalties. But they'll combine being "signed" artists with other jobs.

And many more won't be signed at all. They'll just be people who do ordinary jobs, and make music for the love of it, and the attention it brings them on the net. People will donate money to the artists they like. Some artists will get relatively rich from this.

Serious question, Paul: are you still unemployed and getting checks from your retired father in Florida to cover your expenses? Because if you are....

No. I hold a well-paying job now which, on occasion, is relaxed enough to allow me to sit around and dwell on things like this to the point of not really making sense anymore.

I still think that siphoning the money out of the music industry would separate the wheat from the chaff; allowing those who truly merit the attention they get to thrive.

get in line- ya fucking suits.

And oh yeah, the new director of programming for every single radio station in the world, Bob Log III

http://www.boblog111.com/images/helmet.gif

Seriously, thinking that today is such an evil age where *GASP* artists ask for fair compensation for what they do is ludicrous. Would Paul prefer that we go back to medieval artisan times, when an artisan working on a cathedral got paid a nominal amount and remained anonymous?

And that's how many small labels are already working. These days there's an unprecedented amount of limited edition, handnumbered and specially packaged CD's on the market. Probably 25% of my CD collection actually is made up of (numbered) limited edition items.

Oh for motherfucking christ on a crutch's sake''

and what's yr prob dave: some ppl might not be able to afford as much music as other ppl. its perfectly reasonable that they might want to download the thing.

Quite so. I've mentioned Burning Shed before as an example of this kind of cottage industry -- got every release. It's a great way to take chances based on what I already knew and to know where the money goes and etc.

Tell that to Matthew Barney.

I think I'm different from average in the following senses :

1) I'm a heavy and reasonably competent internet user

2) I buy maybe more CDs than the average (approx 100 a year)

3) I have no "guilt" about copying music. I don't actually think it's stealing or wrong. I believe I have a right to do it.

So these may make me atypical, but I think that the demographics are moving in my direction. More people are becoming like me, rather than less.

Another thought. Unlike books, music recording media are part of a network of interdependent devices. (You need players for media and media for players.) That's why media can flourish or die very quickly due to "network effects". The persistence of CD buying as a habit depends partly on CD buyers, but also on the recording industry to make the CDs, and the electronics industry to make the players.

Currently CD is a standard which has succeded in this network.
Another standard which seems to succeed in terms of availability and availability of players is MP3. NONE of the other mooted standards, such as music files with DRM (digital rights management) etc. have taken off.

Even if we ignore the issue of selfish consumers avoiding paying; launching a new format, say one with DRM, is hard. Most new formats fail quickly or are subsidized by wealthy companies (eg. mini-disc)

The recording industry themselves are sceptical about technical solutions to piracy; AND the chances of the market selling DRM based technical solutions rather than unprotected ones. Hence their recent flirtation with trying to get the legal system to legislate DRM (I know they just gave this up)

So ... without a DRM technology (ie. MP3 / unprotected CDs are likely to dominate) casual sharing through the P2P networks and sneakernet of CD copying, is likely to increase.

There is certainly a momentum within the whole system of user habits, record shops, distributers, etc. of users buying CDs ... and that will take time to run down. But consider we started from a point only 5 years ago of almost no casual copying of digital files, no P2P sharing etc; the trend has grown enormously.

If there is no counter-force, such as legal opposition to P2P, (or a record biz run, perfect P2P) there seems no reason to assume this trend will start to decline, or reverse. So how else could this play out?

Oh for motherfucking christ on a crutch's sake

dave q : I take it you mean "phil, you selfish cunt, stop trying to win our sympathy for your music stealing" But I really wasn't. I was just telling how it is.

How it is, is this. When I'm in a CD shop I often buy music. When I'm not in a CD shop but sitting in front of my internet connected machine and I hear about, or think about a piece of music I want to hear, I do this. I connect to a P2P system and I try to find it. And the fact is I don't let any sense of "I haven't paid for this, therefore I should do without" stop me.

Now I think this is normal behaviour. Millions of people do it around the world. Millions of people therefore think the way I do. If that's the case, the record industry is doomed and no "C'mon, people really like to or feel obliged to pay the artist something" is likely to save it.

Nail hit firmly on head there. I don't want to give Sony etc. any more money than I want to give MacDonalds any money. If its a label that seems to have a genuine affection for the music they are putting out rather than the cash it will recoup (ie Warp) then I'm more willing to shell out. (Looks at amount of Warp track's he's downloaded - calls self hypocrite)

"Would Paul prefer that we go back to medieval artisan times, when an artisan working on a cathedral got paid a nominal amount and remained anonymous?"

Do you know much sound engineers have to do with a lot of records and the utter pitance they recieve? For me this is the big crime of compensation going on in the music world today and analgous to the medieval situation you describe. Your statement should've equated the artist to the architect if anything and even then it doesn't scan.

It's too much of a catch-all we're debating here. There is a big difference between the high-end cult-of-personality karaoke bollocks stuff and the small auteurs with a vision. It'll never resolve itself well whilst seeing things in these broad and generalised terms as there are too many different types of artists, labels, contracts etc. to try and debate them all under one all encompassing arguement.

I usually boil it down to :-

Artist A obviously wants to be in Hello magazine and have more than 5 houses and a lot of Benjamins/ Artist A is willing to bastardise themselves for units - Fuck Artist A
Artist B wants me to hear their labour of love / Artist B wants to express themselves in the manner of their choosing and really couldn't give a flying wankshaft what I think - Viva Artist B

however, i think it's perfectly fine that money should be paid for services rendered. if a band wants money to provide for our entertainment, then we should have to pay them if they want money. if they'll play for free, that's cool too.

that's not whoring... whoring would be us expecting certain songs to be played... or for somebody to get naked and roll in glass and peanut butter when they aren't iggy pop.

i don't buy the "the artist has to make a living" argument because a vast majority of people who call themselves artists never see very much money for their art. "the old artist said to the young artist, 'get yourself a trade.'" there's plenty of great musicians around these days that aren't trying to get rich and do freely give their music away on mp3 form.

i also don't buy the, "no one will innovate have reason to be an artist" argument either. that's shit if i've ever it. innovation comes from people wanting a better life, something that isn't going to go away. innovation is encouraged by the idea of intellectual property but it's not solely governed by intellectual property. plenty of people practice art to enrich their lives, which is often reward enough.

i still don't see an issue with charging for materials/distribution and/or performing a service.

i don't see much wrong with a return to a more artisan style approach to the thing. look at chefs. the masters still get paid quite well. we don't need to let them be anonymous.

m.

It is normal behavior (by which I mean nothing more than lots of people do it). I think the problem is couching this behavior in the rhetoric of 'rights,' which are traditionally reserved for somewhat weightier human affairs than getting music for free.

If it was about getting music for free, I'd kind of agree. But it really is simply a component of the right to share information in general. Which is really what a freedom like "freedom of speech" is getting at too. If free speech is a weighty human right; personal music sharing is too, because you can't really disentangle them.

Traditional copyright law could but only on the grounds that "piracy" was an economic mass production activity. Once you get down to individuals sharing files on a 1-to-1 basis, then it becomes much harder to police one without violating the rights of the other.

But that's a different argument. Really, I think what I'm trying to say is that you're conflating two different arguments: a) you're saying that music becoming free is inevitable due to the inexorable march of technology and b) music should be free on principle... and aside from the fact that these are two very different arguments, when you put them together it starts to sound like c) hey, if everybody's doing it, it must be Right.

I can possibly agree with you on a) (I go back and forth), but definitely don't on b) and c).

Just as there are some music writers like this (hi jess!).

I don't trust anything I can get for free*.

*this may be a lie.

sorry if it seemed I was conflating a) and b).

Yes I believe a)

Some people argued against me that a) was incorrect. And one argument they seemed to give was that a) was wrong because people would "want to pay artists"

I then gave the example of myself who believed b), and suggested that enough people thought like this, that a general "people want to pay" argument wasn't plausible as a counter to a)

Like you, I agree that c) is completely wrong. I never meant to imply this.

On the information sharing / free speech issue. I'd like to hear more. I agree some kinds of information may be so harmful that we find them wrong despite a general belief in freedom of speech (eg. fire in a burning theatre, bribery of politicians etc). But I think the argument would be hard to make "the possible danger of artists having to get a different job" is in the same category.

So the other way of differentiating must be on something like this :

1) it's not about speech vs. music but about original vs. non original. Nobody has a right to freedom to say "unoriginal" things, that they heard from someone else

2) it's about some kind of absolute recording rather than an original re-expression of an idea. (Would allow us to sing other people's songs or other original paraphrases)

How do these sound?

Aritsts may be motivated for love of music, or love of popular acclaim (jsut not so well paid popular accliam.) The second should ensure that plenty continue to make crowd pleasers ...

I don't trust anything I can get for free*.

*this may be a lie.

Love? Sex? Friendship?

Love? Sex? Friendship?

Since when are any of those free*?

*In the broad sense, not just the monetary one

(1) When in pre-corporate history did people make music without some expectation that they might receive compensation?

(2) You guys do realize, don't you, that it costs loads of money to make and record music itself?

(2) You guys do realize, don't you, that it costs loads of money to make and record music itself?

1) a) No one says they won't receive compensation. They'll receive popular acclaim around the internet, they'll get invited to great parties, they'll get paid to play gigs, they'll get offered more sex etc. etc. What they won't get is a royalty cheque based on number of listeners.

1) b) Some people have been known to make music, for themselves, w/out any listeners at all.

2) Actually it costs little enough that an amateur can subsidize it from his / her day job. I use my computer for work and to make music.
I also use software ... most of which I copied, but increasingly software is becoming available on free terms from the free-software movement.

What else costs? Other instruments are within the price of amateurs. The rest of the cost is to do with the distribution process (eg. burning CDs in mass quantities, trucking them to stores etc.) all of which is what the internet bypasses.

I'm done.

Basically, what Gareth said, way up the thread there.

You can criticise me for accepting money for what I do, the day that you are willing to do *your* job for free.

why isn't soda pop free?

All the money just goes to the bottlers, not to the guy that actually makes the fizz. I just want to enjoy his Art, not support the plastics industry.

and

art/music should be free the same way *everything else* should be free. But it won't be free while other "products" are still trapped within capitalism.

The difference between music and soda/everything else is that soda / everything else are made of "stuff" in a way which music isn't. Each copy consumes resources. They shouldn't be free, because some kind of economic process has to guide our use of these scarce resources and help us choose whether to allocate them to this stuff or not.

also no irv gotti though. :-(

That's ridiculous. It requires instruments, recording media, a supply of energy - numerous things that all qualify as "stuff" - to make up music.

That's like asking "why do i have to tip at restaurants? it doesn't consume resources to serve me food. i mean i can serve myself food at home"

Well, I don't agree w/ the free-music argument being made, really. As I stated originally, music can really only be free if everything else is free - which requires a complete re-formation of humanity's dominant economic model. So if someone says "all music in the world as it is right now should be free everywhere in all manners" that just isn't possible. Capitalism pervades every corner of modern life - there are very very few sacred spaces where it doesn't intervene. You can try and place music in one of those sacred spaces - but very very very few people will be exposed to it. Capitalism controls the means of distribution, manufacture, production, etc.

Q. Why isn't music free?
A. Because some people like it enough to pay for it.

That's right, very true - but even there, there's usually something that's tied to capitalist consumer/production (who bought the church organ? Who built the PA system) in there somewhere. If you think about it, all music is produced using something that was bought/paid for. Even if all you're doing is singing to yourself while walking in the wilderness - in most cases (unless you're an indigenous tribesman or something) you would not be alive if you (or someone else) had not bought/paid for your continued survival.

God I hate capitalism.

Well, that's the way it's gonna be ;-) Enjoy!

More seriously, it *is* cheaper than it's ever been to record music. Most of what anyone uses a recording studio for can be simulated on a laptop. Real instruments are bought by people who want to play them; so they'll just subsidize it.

Bands that are primarily about live music will be compensated by being paid to play live, possible sponsorship of live events etc.

Also I'm quite taken with the idea that "popular acclaim around the internet" = "compensation."

Do you mean you find it likable or laughable ...

Equating these two things seems to assume that free speech means speech doesn't cost anything, and we should all be able to share it without paying. This is not what free speech means at all: free speech means you are able to say almost anything in a public forum (there are some limits) and the legal system will protect you. What does this have to do with downloading 7MBs of data from a file-sharing system?

Re: "Everything should be free." This is just naive, as is equating the fact that everything isn't free with the evils of capitalism. There have been many systems of symbolic exchange in human history, many of which predate capitalism, going all the way back to the barter system. There have been a number of different types of capitalism. The fact is that in order to run any kind of society, you need a way of regulating trade. You can certainly argue that capitalism or a particular variant of it isn't the best system. But then you need to come up with another, better one. Making everything "free" (whatever that means) is not a system, its a slogan.

haha - you wish. Not until laptops are so cheap and disposable that everyone else besides rich white folks in Europe and the US can own them. And that will probably never happen - silicon is not that cheap, readily available, or biodegradable. The planet will be buried in plastic and metal for laptops to be that widely available.

The human body is a musical instrument, that will always be the primary form of expression - as long as we have bodies, anyway.

"Making everything "free" (whatever that means) is not a system, its a slogan."

I just thought I'd spare you my billion-page thesis on the operation of a free society.

.. I still maintain it's the medium you're paying for, not the music itself.

The performer is a medium. The recording itself is not the only medium involved in the production of music.

The more important question, to me, and I think the one that Paul really wants to ask is : why is it so fucking expensive to make art and music, or at least the sort of music that people think is so "populist" and "important" (which, of course, people without money and connections are *least* likely to make and most likely to consume)?

Shakey, you're the Unabomber?

That's ridiculous. It requires instruments, recording media, a supply of energy - numerous things that all qualify as "stuff" - to make up music.

Yep music has a cost. But it's a one time, fixed cost. It isn't a cost which is proportional to the number of times it's *consumed*. Whereas soda and everything else made of "stuff" does have a cost.proportional to consumption.

For everything which has a cost per consumer, you can't escape traditional economics. And maybe capitalism is about as good as it gets.

For things which don't have a cost per consumer eg. art/music / writing / computer software etc. we have the scope for going beyond traditional exchange. Somebody has to bear the cost of the original production ... it could be the government, a patron, a list of subscribers or the artist his / herself. But once that cost is paid, there is no further cost for extra consumption. It is in effect free.

Hstencil - I swear I have never owned a hooded sweatshirt (or worn sunglasses)!

Phil - "For things which don't have a cost per consumer eg. art/music / writing / computer software etc. we have the scope for going beyond traditional exchange."

Which is why I give my music/art away for free at shows and on the internet. Because the openness of the distribution medium makes it possible. No argument there.

..i.e. becomes public domain after the copyright expires.

You know, I'd really like a BMW. I see them on the road all the time. I could go test drive one for free if I'd like. But, I'd like to have one in my own possession. I think then, seeing as I'd like access to one whenever I'd like without having to travel to a dealership to drive one, I'll take one off the street. I mean, hey, if everyone takes a BMW, why should they stop making them?

...

And thus, the logic is defeated.

Let's review everyone's points against this rather nieve and silly idea from the top:

A) Artists cannot work while producing or composing music. As a result, they must be compensated for the time taken to do so. Otherwise, when they spend a month recording and writing, they will get nothing. They will starve, and promptly stop producing art. Creating music, much like creating a car or soda or whatever requires "stuff", as you humorously call it, whether you like it or not.

B) Paying for art is much like tipping your waiter. He has done a service for you, and you compensate him for it. Not tipping the waiter will mean that he makes no money. Making no money will mean he will no longer be a waiter (as will every other waiter who is no longer being tipped). No longer having waiters means that the full service restaurant dies or moves to an hourly wage, drawing less enthusiastic and helpful people. Why? Because in the real world, people do things for a reason. And in the case of a waiter, he cleans your tabel and brings you food for compensation. Belief that he would do so without it is hilariously stupid. You are paying for the mediums, because the mediums (performer[s], instruments, art work, manufacture, production equipment) create the music

C) People are not as generous as you deem them to be. Of all those artists you've downloaded from, how many have you personally supported through, say, paypal donations? I'm willing to be its a rather small amount.

D) Because of the lack of technology outside the first world, artists whom are impoverished (whether they be from Appalacia or Zambia) will never have the opportunity to operate under a "free music" system.

E) Popular Acclaim isn't compensation. It doesn't pay you back. It just says, "hey, you're good".

-
Alan

Equating these two things seems to assume that free speech means speech doesn't cost anything, and we should all be able to share it without paying. This is not what free speech means at all: free speech means you are able to say almost anything in a public forum (there are some limits) and the legal system will protect you. What does this have to do with downloading 7MBs of data from a file-sharing system?

Ben what they have to do with each other is this ... if I happen to have, in my possession, a 7 MP file of music, I may want to do certain things with it :

- play it in a public forum

- copy it as a gift, ie. share it with those people in the public forum.

If I can't, we're saying there are certain clumps of information, such as a recording of a piece of music, which I'm prevented which putting into the public forum. Equally well, the corrolory of freedom to speak is freedom to listen. If I am prevented fom listening to certain pieces of information someone wants to make available to me, that right is violated.

Why don't we boil it down to what people are really whining about here: they don't like the musical products that the majority of consumers choose to consume, and they're being big enough dicks to suggest that the entire market should be demolished on the off chance that it'll result in mostly the stuff they like remaining. Stop grounding it in ridiculous theory and just face it: when it comes down to it what you should really be arguing for is a nationalized non-democratic music system wherein you can be the oligarchs dispensing grants to make the industry the way you want it.

E) Popular Acclaim isn't compensation. It doesn't pay you back. It just says, "hey, you're good".

Actually no, my logic isn't defeated at all.

If no one could hold on to their BMWs, and the world was a free for all of BMW theft, the chances are that no one would think it worth making BMWs.

But if there was no way to get paid for making music, music making would not stop. It may seem obvious that musicians would need to be paid. It seems obvious that they can't survive w/out royalties blah blah blah. It's laughable to compare popular acclaim with money.

So what? Musicians will find another way to live.

It may not be as nice as being paid to make music; it may even not be fair. But who here, especially on ILM, honestly believes NO ONE would make music if there was no money available for it?

Indeed. In fact, car production of all kinds would probably end. Do you see this as a positive?

>>But if there was no way to get paid for making music, music making would not stop. It may seem obvious that musicians would need to be paid. It seems obvious that they can't survive w/out royalties blah blah blah. It's laughable to compare popular acclaim with money.

So what? Musicians will find another way to live.<<

Yup. They'll get jobs making music for churches or gov't (eg the middle ages) or they'll stop making and distributing music (due to the expenses involved) and get "real jobs".

>>It may not be as nice as being paid to make music; it may even not be fair. But who here, especially on ILM, honestly believes NO ONE would make music if there was no money available for it? <<

People would make music. However, its creativity would suffer GREATLY. And that's why its a stupid idea.

-
Alan

1) It costs money to buy your equipment.
2) Laptops are more expensive than a cheap acoustic guitar.
3) Recording costs money, either from the studio end or buying your own equipment.
4) Digital distribution is going to cost SOMEBODY money, either for the storage space, the connectivity or the bandwidth usage.

Essentially what you're arguing for here is a world full of local musicians who are willing to play music for the fun of it, or musicians who are willing to go deep into debt to somehow get their music out to you, the music fan who thinks paying for it is stupid if someone will give it to you for free.

Go ahead, ask your favourite band if they're willing to come over to your house and play a show for you, for free. Go on. I dare you.

You also have the right to peacefully assemble. That doesn't mean you have the right to sit on the White House lawn or, for that matter, my lawn. Nor do you have the freedom to say, "I'd like to go to Texas" and jump on an airplane without paying for a ticket. There are boundaries to these rules, and in music's case its copyright laws (which you seem to be against).

-
Alan

Noone is stopping you from putting a piece of music into a public forum, just as noone is stopping me from listening to it. The problem only occurs when you start putting someone else's music into the public forum outside the principles of fair use as they are currently defined.

You're working with a definition of free speech expanded to the point where "speech" means just about anything humans do. Maybe the definition of free speech should be expanded, but talking about it as if it was, and then using that expanded definition as the moral basis against which to measure current practice, is a handy way to skip the bit where you have to explain why the definition should be expanded. As far as I can see, your explanation of why the definition should be expanded is because the technology is enabling us all to ignore copyright law. It's kind of a circular argument.

My bottom line on the whole thing is that the musician should have some say in the matter. Under your ideal scenario, the musician has no say. Their music is put into the "public forum" whether they like it or not. Why should you decide how musicians make their living?

So basically: who gives a shit if you think it should all be free? Of course you think it should be free -- you're the consumer! But they make the product and by and large prefer -- not always expect! -- to get something back for all the time, energy, and money they've put into it, just like anyone doing anything pretty much anywhere.

Just admit that you can't stand people enjoying Dixie Chicks and have done with it, please.

Because you pay for the bottle, as listed above. However, this bring up the question of what the cost is of syrup (or soda) itself. Apparently, according to these models, its free. Perhaps it rains from the skies in some parts of the world?

-
Alan

Congratulations. You have just created a quote worthy of being placed alongside "Clap for Bacon" that can be placed in a future internet profile.

-
Alan

Perfectly said.

-
Alan

However, I think its entirely possible -most likely in the electronica field (easier/cheaper to produce from home)- that a scenario like Phil is describing could very well emerge as a sub-culture of sorts and *might* become influencial to the point that major lables *might* re-think they way they do business.

The labels have already responded (in a possitive way IMO) to the availability of MP3s by increasing the *value* of a purchased CD - adding a bonus DVD, better inserts and liner notes etc. If the preasure is there from the P2P file sharers I'd look for the labels to continue working along these lines. If adding vlaue doesn't work, they're going to go after having taxes added on to things like blank CDs, Hard Drives - and maybe even on the band width per month that you use. Either way the majors aren't just going to pack it in and give up :o)

What worries me about the effect that file sharing is having on the industry - and I can tell you first hand this is already happening - is the labels are backing away from the diversity of artists who are getting signed and they're sticking with more 'bankable' (ie pop) artists. Older music fans burn and trade a certain music demographic more widely than others, so the labels are investing money into all the Britney's of the world because 7-11 year old kids are more likely to want the CD and stickers, posters etc. that come with it. You can give a 9 year a Britney CD, but not a link to a download site for a birthday present :o)

My best friend's band has sold 10,000 CDs independently in Canada (which is VERY good) but labels aren't interested because its not R&B/Pop and eventhough they've done well on their own they're "too much of a risk in the current consumer climate" to take a chance on. In the pre-MP3 days they would have had their choice of offers from 3 or 4 labels.

Given the choice of making due with whatever free music existed and paying for music and getting a wide variety, I'll take the latter. Its more proven.

-
Alan

Geddy Lee to thread!

-
Alan

Ah man, the nearest sticks and rocks to where I'm at are in Central Park, and while it's free to go there, it's got hidden costs galore (since the TAXES I pay from the MONEY I earn from my JOB help PAY for it!).

That's the $64,000,000 dollar question. I don't think creativity would suffer ... why do you think it would?

Music would still happen, it's just that you'd have to be satisfied with listening to whichever musicians lived near you.

Or anywhere around the world via internet.

Seriously, phil, you're being incredibly thick here with your assumptions w/r/t the money aspect here.

1) It costs money to buy your equipment.

2) Laptops are more expensive than a cheap acoustic guitar.

3) Recording costs money, either from the studio end or buying your own equipment.

4) Digital distribution is going to cost SOMEBODY money, either for the storage space, the connectivity or the bandwidth usage.

I've admitted that there is a cost to all these things. All I'm saying is that musicians are demonstrably willing to pay the cost of 1, 2, and 3 themselves. Ask around your musician friends? Have they never bought their own instruments? Studio time? PCs? 4) is paid for by the listeners.

Essentially what you're arguing for here is a world full of local musicians who are willing to play music for the fun of it, or musicians who are willing to go deep into debt to somehow get their music out to you, the music fan who thinks paying for it is stupid if someone will give it to you for free.

Yes. I'm arguing that that's exactly what we'll get. If you put it in these derogoratory terms, it sounds like the musicians are crazy. I think the musicians will find that they want to do this because having a public is still worthwhile to them. They still get something from the transaction.

Go ahead, ask your favourite band if they're willing to come over to your house and play a show for you, for free. Go on. I dare you.

This is irrelevant. My argument isn't about live shows. Live shows are scarce resources. If people like them enough, they'll have to pay for them, just like soda.

You also have the right to peacefully assemble. That doesn't mean you have the right to sit on the White House lawn or, for that matter, my lawn. Nor do you have the freedom to say, "I'd like to go to Texas" and jump on an airplane without paying for a ticket. There are boundaries to these rules, and in music's case its copyright laws (which you seem to be against).

Well Phil, one of those limits on free speech I mentioned is copywright law :)

Point 1 : I believe that the technology we have now makes it difficult to police intellectual property. And therefore, now is a good time to reconsider whether IP is a good idea. I hope that the technical difficulties raised will inspire people to rethink the legal situation and realize that we don't need the IP based restrictions.

Having said that, I realize currently that isn't the case; and that the legal system could be used to arrest the slide towards amateurization if it's sufficiently tough. (I also happen to think that a sufficiently strongly policed IP system would be a nightmare of both to our freedom of expression and freedom of privacy.) Nevertheless, in principle, strong enough legal pressure could preserve the domain of copyright and therefore paid music.

You're working with a definition of free speech expanded to the point where "speech" means just about anything humans do. Maybe the definition of free speech should be expanded, but talking about it as if it was, and then using that expanded definition as the moral basis against which to measure current practice, is a handy way to skip the bit where you have to explain why the definition should be expanded. As far as I can see, your explanation of why the definition should be expanded is because the technology is enabling us all to ignore copyright law. It's kind of a circular argument.

My bottom line on the whole thing is that the musician should have some say in the matter. Under your ideal scenario, the musician has no say. Their music is put into the "public forum" whether they like it or not. Why should you decide how musicians make their living?

Point 2 : Yes, I believe the freedom of information sharing is so worth-while, that we should sacrifice the idea of intellectual property and copyright in order to achieve it.

Why do I think this? Mainly for the following reasons :

1) an analogy with three other domains : science, the free software movement, and law.

In each of these domains, intellectual property "rights" to prevent re-use don't exist. Scientists don't need to buy the rights to use other people's hypotheses or formulae. In free software people deliberately allow other people to use, re-use and build on their work. In law, people cite other lawyer's intellectual property without having to "buy" it.

In all cases, I believe that the freedom to work with, and build on other people's work has made the field more productive.

2) In the case of the arts, I'm starting to see that the same principle applies. Borrowing and re-use is a very productive (creative) force; meanwhile the rhetoric of originality is often pretty stale. Witness, so many interesting things done with sampling, bootlegging, pastiche and eclecticism. All the "non rockist" virtues.
Not just that, but free access to as much music as possible tends to inspire each new generation of musicians.

So I think culture is enriched by a habbit of freedom of access and freedom of re-use. And impoverished by closing off rights to listen to or deform music in the name of "artist rights".

3) I also believe that culture isn't made in a vacuum. Feedback from listeners is also part of the creative process. The culture is enriched by getting more listeners access to more music.

So, in short, I believe it's good for music.

On the other hand, while I have sympathy with today's musicians who expect the current system; their plight is no different from many other people who have lost out when technology or social patterns change; and have then been forced to change : eg. hand weavers with the introduction of mechanized weaving etc; factory workers when the factory closes. Why does the musician have more rights over the music he produces than the industrial designer who never received a royalty for his creative work? The difference is arbitrary and due to accidental differences in the way the two industries were run rather than any natural rights over creative produce.

(haha hstencil SYNERGY)

So basically: who gives a shit if you think it should all be free? Of course you think it should be free -- you're the consumer!

Yes and consumers dictate what happens. Consumers won't pay because they can get away with not paying; and some musicians will let them.

If you think it works the other way, try organizing a musician's strike!

health insurance too!

well, you'd also have to pay for a microphone...henri chopin to thread!

Yes. There's never been a time in history when music consumers had access to a mechanism for near-perfect recording and reproduction before.

Times really are different now.

1. Scientists and lawyers don't work for free, at least for long. All the freeware sites I've seen have been littered with ads.

2. Bootleggers don't work for free. Musicians who sample aren't necessarily creative or productive. And the debate over whether sampling is actually taking music for "free" is entirely unresolved.

3. Culture isn't made in a vacuum just because you have to pay for music. Music that doesn't sell doesn't last very long on a label roster.

Because I've actually thought this out and realized that its impossible for artists to record and write while working 2 jobs to pay for the inherent costs of music of recording and distributing music?

>>I've admitted that there is a cost to all these things. All I'm saying is that musicians are demonstrably willing to pay the cost of 1, 2, and 3 themselves. Ask around your musician friends? Have they never bought their own instruments? Studio time? PCs? 4) is paid for by the listeners.<<

And asking them to always do it is pretty nieve, Phil.

>>In each of these domains, intellectual property "rights" to prevent re-use don't exist. Scientists don't need to buy the rights to use other people's hypotheses or formulae.<<

I've got news for you...you may want to learn about your friendly neighborhood drug company.

>>In free software people deliberately allow other people to use, re-use and build on their work. <<

Ask your average programmer at Activision or Microsoft what he thinks when you download his program for free from binaries.

>>Why does the musician have more rights over the music he produces than the industrial designer who never received a royalty for his creative work?<<

Because the musician has not been hired to create anything for anyone. As a matter of fact, what you're doing is saying he should get nothing at all, where as the industrial designer gets a paycheck.

Your ideals sound wonderful, Phil. But like communism, it only looks good on paper. Adding in the human part to equation ruins it.

-
Alan

Hey Dan, even if you scavenge stuff, there's still a cost there, it's just that you're not paying it (but you know that, of course).

The problem being that its not as readily available as you'd like people to believe it is.

-
Alan

I'm fascinated by the whole concept. I'm forever trying to get ILM to discuss and listen to it. And increasingly I do listen to free music from mp3.com. And I know people who listen to nothing but at work.

The only reason I don't do it exclusively is because I personally don't feel a difference. P2P and mp3.com blend into other. I burn CDs with mixtures of music I get from Mp3.com and off P2P and often I forget which is which.

See? Perfectly free (and very practical in these crazy modern times)!

They don't work for free, but they aren't paid on a royalty basis. If they were, these fields would suffer.

2. Bootleggers don't work for free. Musicians who sample aren't necessarily creative or productive. And the debate over whether sampling is actually taking music for "free" is entirely unresolved.

Bootlegging requires the "freedom" to take and reuse other people's material, as does sampling. That's the freedom I mean. It isn't necessarily always creative. But over the last 15-20 years these activities have proved more creative than the original critics claimed. Meanwhile, rockist strategies haven't shown much innovation.

3. Culture isn't made in a vacuum just because you have to pay for music. Music that doesn't sell doesn't last very long on a label roster.

Great point. I agree. The feedback of the market is an extremely valuable part of the music ecology. For amateur music to thrive it needs to find an equivalent. I think that it will, when more weblogs and communities like ILM start reviewing it and taking it seriously.

-
Alan

Was there really nothing about my last two posts that made people think, "Hmm, maybe he's being really, really sarcastic"?

So, in other words, if someone wants to get a guitar and make music in your free music system and can't afford it or the equipment to record decently with it, "too bad...you should do some glitch stuff"? So much for helping creativity...

That's one of my problems with this...you're really only taking into account electronic or electronically based music and nothing else. People can't just buy a *good* studio or for that matter go to a good one for a week and record on their own dime, unless you plan on subsidising them in some way.

-
Alan

he's not a homophobe but a drug user instead. what a world.

I got it...hence the smiley face. =)

-
Alan

And lawyers, well everybody knows they get paid for nothing, so that's kind of a bad example. ; )

(Dan we all knew you were joking but most of what Phil's saying reads like a joke already.)

b-but phil the difference is that one group largely agrees with your ideas and the other largely doesn't. this puts the "rights" argument on pretty shaky ground, no?

That's probably true -- because they'd end up making much less money, at least if they signed the kind of deals most musicians do. I think your workaday indie band would love one lump-sum yearly salary on par with my doctor's in lieu of royalties.

Bootlegging requires the "freedom" to take and reuse other people's material, as does sampling.

If they ask for it, it isn't "freedom", and certainly if they pay for it. Those that don't run the same judicial risk as someone who tried to sell his homemade softdrink using Coke's logo -- or even better, using Coke to make the drink.

Because I've actually thought this out and realized that its impossible for artists to record and write while working 2 jobs to pay for the inherent costs of music of recording and distributing music?

I agree, it's difficult. On the other hand, necessity is the mother of invention. Some artists are more creative under pressure than when
given full leisure. Also, an artist could subsidize themselves through a 6 month contract followed by a 3 month break. I think they'll find a way.

>>I've admitted that there is a cost to all these things. All I'm saying is that musicians are demonstrably willing to pay the cost of 1, 2, and 3 themselves. Ask around your musician friends? Have they never bought their own instruments? Studio time? PCs? 4) is paid for by the listeners.<<

And asking them to always do it is pretty nieve, Phil.

It's not naive. I'm not asking them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts. I'm saying consumers will stop offering any alternative.

>>In each of these domains, intellectual property "rights" to prevent re-use don't exist. Scientists don't need to buy the rights to use other people's hypotheses or formulae.<<

I've got news for you...you may want to learn about your friendly neighborhood drug company.

This trend towards IP is currently fucking up science big-time. Not to mention causing millions of unnecessary deaths in the third world. Everyone ought to oppose the concept of IP on these grounds alone.

>>In free software people deliberately allow other people to use, re-use and build on their work. <<

Ask your average programmer at Activision or Microsoft what he thinks when you download his program for free from binaries.

Different definition of "free software" Free as in speech not beer.

>>Why does the musician have more rights over the music he produces than the industrial designer who never received a royalty for his creative work?<<

Because the musician has not been hired to create anything for anyone. As a matter of fact, what you're doing is saying he should get nothing at all, where as the industrial designer gets a paycheck.

If making the point that there's no "natural justice" about rights over our creative works. These are determined by social convention. I happen to think these can and will change with respect to music.

Your ideals sound wonderful, Phil. But like communism, it only looks good on paper. Adding in the human part to equation ruins it.

Not at all. I'm sure many people her find them abhorent. This isn't an ideal. Like I say, I think it will happen. And I am happy to the extend I think we'll gain from it. But I have qualms like many other people.

the essential free-music argument being made here is that music does not, in fact, have "value."

Ultimately, I think the best compromise might be something analogous to the library system -- i.e. a massive, public archive paid for by tax dollars (and, perhaps, with a fund set aside for royalty payments to artists based on # of downloads) and accessible to all. Exactly how to implement that, though, I'm not sure. (Perhaps, instead of late fees, there's a fee for downloading more than X albums in a given period of time?) Probably just wishful thinking, but...

Putting aside the fact that public libraries can't do your comprehensive vision because their budgets get slashed all the time (at least here in the U.S.), don't they do this, uh, in theory? Are file-sharers just too lazy to go the library?

I think it will function in a gift based economy because that's the nature of "informational" things, which aren't scarce commodities.

So is it your position, Phil, that musicians should entertain other people just because they can?

No, it's my position that musicians WILL entertain other people because they can.

Scientists aren't paid royalties when they INVENT something? What grass are you smoking, phil?!?

Scientists aren't paid royalties for inventing HYPOTHESES, which is the main, useful product scientists invent.

So, in other words, if someone wants to get a guitar and make music in your free music system and can't afford it or the equipment to record decently with it, "too bad...you should do some glitch stuff"? So much for helping creativity...

What does someone in this position do at the moment? Go to a record company and say "hey, I'd be a great guitarist. Can you sub me the cash to buy a guitar?"

he's not a homophobe but a drug user instead. what a world.
I'm neither, but at least I'm not offended by the drug user accusation :-)

why are you (a) so convinced that the people making music "for the love of it" aren't in some small part motivated by the possibility that they might eventually recoup some of their investment

Some of them are. I just don't think that this is the only motivation, or the one that will make them give up if it disappears.

(b) so convinced that those same people might not in fact be making different music -- more ambitious music that they themselves might think of as "better" -- if they knew the resources they devoted to it might be at least partially regained?

Some are, some may be making less ambitious music because the record company is scared it won't sell. ef. Madonna

b-but phil the difference is that one group largely agrees with your ideas and the other largely doesn't. this puts the "rights" argument on pretty shaky ground, no?

No, because my argument for rights doesn't depend on the permission of the musicians.

If they ask for it, it isn't "freedom", and certainly if they pay for it. Those that don't run the same judicial risk as someone who tried to sell his homemade softdrink using Coke's logo -- or even better, using Coke to make the drink.

Yep, a freedom is something you can do without getting permission.
Both sample based music and bootlegging would never have started if people respected existing copyright laws ... fortunately, people didn't. NOW the music biz has found a way to accomodate it. As usual, they resist first, and discover it's a good later.

This is, tangentially, why the copyright extension laws are fucking horrible: imagine if we could hop on to our local library's file server -- or that of a library in Montreal, Maui or Madras, for that matter -- and download Charlie Parker's early recordings, or Toscanini's performance of the Eroica, or some Robert Johnson tracks? We really ought to be able to do that, and those tracks ought to be in the public domain: thanks a bunch, Sonny Bono.

(On the third hand, isn't there a rumor of some sort that -- owing to some oddity of copyright law -- no audio recordings are in the public domain in the United States? Anyone know what I'm talking about here?)

So because some do, we should all throw them into the fire like that? What? Don't you realize how many people will STOP making music as a result?

>>This trend towards IP is currently fucking up science big-time. Not to mention causing millions of unnecessary deaths in the third world. Everyone ought to oppose the concept of IP on these grounds alone.<<

People didn't get to the moon because they simply thought, "gee, it would be nice to land on the moon". They got there because people spent money on the right technology in vast amounts in order to make it possible.

Same goes for health care. If you provide nothing in the way of incentive to drug companies for creating new drugs, they aren't going to rush along and do it. Is it cold? Yea. Is it human nature? Yes. Is there any way to change it and make it better? Sorry, the answer is no.

>>Different definition of "free software" Free as in speech not beer.<<

Why then is software different than music? After all, you can go to Wal-Mart today and play on a Gamecube for "free". Why not just take the game and burn it to CDR and play it?

>>If making the point that there's no "natural justice" about rights over our creative works. These are determined by social convention. I happen to think these can and will change with respect to music.<<

So then you want the gov't to subsidise all people who'd like to cut a record? Cool...I've always wanted to make a bluegrass/black metal crossover disc, yet I've never learned how to properly play any of the instruments involved. Would your system pay for me to do so (so far as that I wouldn't have to suffer and ultimately lose thousands making such a album)?

>>Not at all. I'm sure many people her find them abhorent. This isn't an ideal. Like I say, I think it will happen. And I am happy to the extend I think we'll gain from it. But I have qualms like many other people.<<

The idea of "Music won't coast anything!" sounds great because everyone consumes music. Logic, however, has a nasty way of interceeding.

-who'd love to see a reply to nabisco's posts-
Alan

Do I agree that right now, there is no free / amateur music community that isn't partly motivated inspired by the existence of a professional paid music biz, and which overlaps, hopes to join it?

Yes. All free / amateur music making at the moment is aware of the music biz and has hopes to join it.

Does this mean that, as the music industry shrinks, this hope might recede, and more and more people will give up the idea that one day they'll make it big?

Yep, already happens all the time. That's where pub rock bands, amateur orchestras, jazz bands etc. come from. If they put their stuff online and get listeners around the world, why shouldn't they consider that a bonus.

But don't I think that there's some kind of difference between the pros and these sad amateurs?

NO. If there were no record biz, all the talent would be among the amateurs.

Scientists aren't paid royalties for inventing HYPOTHESES, which is the main, useful product scientists invent IS CODE FOR I'm smoking dat good HYDROPONIC shit!!!

I take it Monsieur is not a musician (or has absolutely no interest in, or ability to appreciate, classical music or jazz played at the highest level of accomplishment).

...

>>What does someone in this position do at the moment? Go to a record company and say "hey, I'd be a great guitarist. Can you sub me the cash to buy a guitar?"<<

But why would record companies exist if everything is online and free? After all, everyone has access to it, right?

>>Some are, some may be making less ambitious music because the record company is scared it won't sell. <<

Doesn't mean its not still quality. Or, for that matter, that people who have suddenly seen the end of the evil record company will start making nothing but ambitious music.

>>No, because my argument for rights doesn't depend on the permission of the musicians.<<

So, in other words, they don't matter.

May I ask how you'd feel if I parked my car in your yard for the next, I dunno, 2-3 years?

-
Alan

...is still (trying to) make money. In fact, musicians are paying them (too much) to do this. Again, I would take the payroll system of corporate America over the musix biz royalty system, because most of my coworkers are doing much better financially than almost any band I listen to. However, "productivity" is the key in any case, and that's always a valuable commodity.

Not so many that we won't all still have as much new and great music to listen to as we can cope with.

Same goes for health care. If you provide nothing in the way of incentive to drug companies for creating new drugs, they aren't going to rush along and do it. Is it cold? Yea. Is it human nature? Yes. Is there any way to change it and make it better? Sorry, the answer is no

Yes. On the one hand, government sponsored research is very good. And for the obscure stuff it won't cover, the answer is amateur special interest groups.

See : http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.09/disease_pr.html

>>Different definition of "free software" Free as in speech not beer.<<

Why then is software different than music? After all, you can go to Wal-Mart today and play on a Gamecube for "free". Why not just take the game and burn it to CDR and play it?

Sorry, free software is a technical term. It means software where people have explicitly given the freedom to copy and reuse to other people. Remember I'm using as an example where the lack of IP based restrictions has benefits.

So then you want the gov't to subsidise all people who'd like to cut a record? Cool...I've always wanted to make a bluegrass/black metal crossover disc, yet I've never learned how to properly play any of the instruments involved. Would your system pay for me to do so (so far as that I wouldn't have to suffer and ultimately lose thousands making such a album)?

No. I think the MUSICIANS will subsidise their own music making. By working other paid jobs.

I think it will function in a gift based economy: lovely, but the question was why it should function as a gift-based economy; in that sentence you also expand the scope to include all information, which -- just so you know -- spells an end to the intellectual life of the west, insofar as the dissemination of non-artistic information projects (scholarly books, for instance) becomes tremendously unworkable.

No, it's my position that musicians WILL entertain other people because they can: which remains to be demonstrated, per earlier questions; also remains to be demonstrated whether they will entertain people as well, which is why I asked why music shouldn't just function as a commodity -- in your set-up musicians are actually completely unresponsive to any sort of a market, and it could well be argued that it's a positive thing for market pressures to affect music production.

Scientists aren't paid royalties for inventing HYPOTHESES: but they are, because scientists tend to be scientists full-time, not as hobbyists, and nearly 100% of the ones inventing hypotheses are being paid quite well either by universities or corporate research institutions. (You have an opportunity here to make that nationalized-music claim with regard to public funding of research-oriented universities and even independent pure-science research.)

I just don't think that this is the only motivation, or the one that will make them give up if it disappears: another big undemonstrated thing here, and we're being asked to accept the motivations of millions of people basically on faith in your word -- judging from the types of records people make when they make money and the kinds of records people make when they don't expect to, it seems clear to me that the possibility of compensation makes a huge difference in the final product and yes, whether it gets made at all. You actually agree to this when you agree that (a) amateurs won't make certain things unless they think it'll be received professionally, and (b) professionals won't make certain things if they don't feel it'll have value to the market.

(By the way, you accidentally slipped your own taste in there again re: Madonna -- if we're talking about pure musical organization here the fact that Madonna wouldn't bother making something that won't sell is actually a good thing, in that it means the suppliers of music respond effectively to the product the consumers want. This is why I want you to admit this is a snob issue and not a rights one.)

Okay so you'll pitch for cash WHEN, Nitsubisco?

Monsieur seems to be underestimating the extent to which most of humanity's mental and creative energy is devoted to survival.

(Not to mention: how many day jobs with reasonable pay were there for, say, African-American jazz musicians in the '30s and '40s?)

Like I said earlier. This isn't about "live" music. Live music is a scarce resource, it has to be paid for. If there's an audience for live music and they can pay, there'll be live music. Or the state will subsidize as it already does for classic and jazz. I think the "selling records as an extra revenue stream option" though, will dry up.

But why would record companies exist if everything is online and free? After all, everyone has access to it, right?

Record companies won't exist. I'm just pointing out that even when we have them, musicians still pay for their own equipment, at least to get started. So no change there, then.

>>Some are, some may be making less ambitious music because the record company is scared it won't sell. <<

Doesn't mean its not still quality. Or, for that matter, that people who have suddenly seen the end of the evil record company will start making nothing but ambitious music.

I was answering the claim that sometimes record company subsidy enabled a band to be more ambitious. I point out sometimes they encourage an artist to be less ambitious. What I think is that a shift from record companies to amateurs won't shift this much. It's musicians who tend to be artistically ambitious or not, rather than their mode of funding.

>>No, because my argument for rights doesn't depend on the permission of the musicians.<<

So, in other words, they don't matter.

In this context, no they don't.

May I ask how you'd feel if I parked my car in your yard for the next, I dunno, 2-3 years?

Pissed off. That's about my property rights. My entire discourse is based on the idea that INTELLECTUAL property rights are different from ordinary property rights.

4 hours a day for 8 hours' pay! Now that is something I could get with. Because maybe then I would get to hear music by people who work the exact same shitty jobs. Of course, they wouldn't be as shitty and the world would have to be a lot nicer for it to even get to that point.

"Midnight Cowboy 2: starting Nabisco O'Baby as Tony Trade."

The I say you're both high and denying the world of a possible musical breakthrough I could bring along. Nabisco is so OTM its not funny. Snobbism ain't cool, kids.

>>I'm just pointing out that even when we have them, musicians still pay for their own equipment, at least to get started. So no change there, then.<<

Doubletalk is confusing.

"go to a record label, but they won't exist! hah...good luck!"

>>In this context, no they don't.<<

Fine then. On to why I mentioned this...

>>Pissed off. That's about my property rights. My entire discourse is based on the idea that INTELLECTUAL property rights are different from ordinary property rights. <<

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't give two shits about your property rights. The land you've built your house on has been there far longer than you have and has no real tangible monetary value (as there is land everywhere, has been there forever, and money is an abstract concept). Rather, I see your frontyard as an excellent place to park my vehicle: as you have a fine, well paying job, you probably live in a nice suburban area, making it safe to park my Buick Park Avenue there. I think, furthermore, that you should allow me to sleep in my car, in your front yard, if I choose, and that if you don't like it, you can simply move. After all, what do I care about YOUR rights when it comes to something that's been there for millions of years and is plentiful?

Also, will movies be free too? I'd be interested as to how one would get the funding for a $100 million dollar film when no one will pay for it.

-would also like to know if Phil Jones will be cooking everyone in ILM breakfast, as that could be connoted as free, proven by James Blount's talk of pancakes-
Alan

I think all intellectual persuits will evolve towards a gift economy. I think this because there are some which are already doing so, eg. the open source software world, (which is where I work). And the arguments for why this is so seem to be compelling enough that they can carry across to other intellectual and creative fields.

No, it's my position that musicians WILL entertain other people because they can: which remains to be demonstrated, per earlier questions; also remains to be demonstrated whether they will entertain people as well, which is why I asked why music shouldn't just function as a commodity -- in your set-up musicians are actually completely unresponsive to any sort of a market, and it could well be argued that it's a positive thing for market pressures to affect music production.

If it's anything like the open source software world, musicians will be very attentive to the audience. And responsive to the acclaim they receive.

Scientists aren't paid royalties for inventing HYPOTHESES: but they are, because scientists tend to be scientists full-time, not as hobbyists, and nearly 100% of the ones inventing hypotheses are being paid quite well either by universities or corporate research institutions. (You have an opportunity here to make that nationalized-music claim with regard to public funding of research-oriented universities and even independent pure-science research.)

Traditionally you haven't had to pay to use a hypothesis. And this is still very rare. (And I think bad) Salaries are partly funded by government or charity or trust funds ie. independently of exploiting the research; or, and this is a bad new trend, as a function of some commercial exploitation of the actual research. Of course, the jury is still out on the success of this second wayof paying.But it's very unpopular, and generally doesn't have a good record.

I just don't think that this is the only motivation, or the one that will make them give up if it disappears: another big undemonstrated thing here, and we're being asked to accept the motivations of millions of people basically on faith in your word

Of course, it's a prediction. It's based on the workings of the free software world, and a gut feeling about the importance of music in my and other musicians' lives.

judging from the types of records people make when they make money and the kinds of records people make when they don't expect to, it seems clear to me that the possibility of compensation makes a huge difference in the final product and yes, whether it gets made at all. You actually agree to this when you agree that (a) amateurs won't make certain things unless they think it'll be received professionally, and (b) professionals won't make certain things if they don't feel it'll have value to the market.

Maybe the music will be different. I actually don't have a strong intuition about this.

(By the way, you accidentally slipped your own taste in there again re: Madonna -- if we're talking about pure musical organization here the fact that Madonna wouldn't bother making something that won't sell is actually a good thing, in that it means the suppliers of music respond effectively to the product the consumers want. This is why I want you to admit this is a snob issue and not a rights on.)

I really don't understand this. I used Madonna because she was a topical example. I read last week that the record company had asked her to redo an album for being too experimental. Remember I used this example to counter the claim that record companies increased the ambitiousness of musicians.

I don't have a strong feeling that the music will be more or less populist. Jusging by MP3.com I think there'll be loads of populist stuff but I don't know.

Hahahaha: Phil Jones is very clearly neither an economist nor a musician nor a lawyer nor a scientist!

No, but I am programmer and I do give software away :-)

Don't have to go that far back. Cecil Taylor, for example, had to work as a dishwasher.

no. I'll give you some software if you shut and go to sleep.

It happened once, and it was called The Flaming Lips.

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't give two shits about your property rights. The land you've built your house on has been there far longer than you have and has no real tangible monetary value (as there is land everywhere, has been there forever, and money is an abstract concept). Rather, I see your frontyard as an excellent place to park my vehicle: as you have a fine, well paying job, you probably live in a nice suburban area, making it safe to park my Buick Park Avenue there. I think, furthermore, that you should allow me to sleep in my car, in your front yard, if I choose, and that if you don't like it, you can simply move. After all, what do I care about YOUR rights when it comes to something that's been there for millions of years and is plentiful?

We're back to the question Ben is asking. To what extent, if you don't believe in other people's rights, will you take matters into your own hands, be willing to break the law.

In the case of property rights, there's no strong public movement of resistance. (There is rising property crime but it's still minor and has few principled defenders.) In the case of Intellectual property there's a huge public debate, and huge popular rejection of these norms by people downloading music.

If ordinary property was being popularly challanged the way intellectual property is, it might very well be time to rethink the concept.

''No, but I am programmer and I do give software away :-)''

no. I'll give you some software if you shut and go to sleep.

Actually I have to go eat ... ciao everyone. It's been real ;-)

And those that aren't looking to get cash are looking to impress other freesoft developers which would also lead to an awful situation if musicians only made music to impress other musicians and critics.

It happened once, and it was called The Flaming Lips.

That's why we NEED an engaged community of people to listen to free music ... people who aren't just musos.

If ordinary property was being popularly challanged the way intellectual property is, it might very well be time to rethink the concept.<<

So the fact that more people talk about making music free makes it more valid than saying that I should be able to kick in the door tonight at your house and watch ESPN? I'm sorry, but that's not valid.

-
Alan

no microsoft encarta for ya ;-)

gifts that so shame their recipients they will beggar themselves trying to look as good as the original givers!!

Why are Artists Poor?

isn't that the idea though?

any random person could come here, read the arguments and learn something that henceforth becomes their opinion on the matter.

some of the ideas here become their ideas.

to pretend they are solely the ideas of those who have posted here is silly.

(assuming there's even an original thought here amongst us.)
m.

This was my secret and devious plan all along. I've no qualms with paying a reasonable price for music and art, provided I'm not told what to do with it once I've bought it. I just wanted to start one of the larger, more argumentative threads in ILM history.

some of them may be in your head. perhaps the with the words "no" attached to them. even if you disagree with them, they are IN THERE! boogah!

sharing and caring on the i love music message board. let's all hold hands and sing!
m.

For instance: dance music works a lot along these open-source lines, which is to say that sales of 12-inches are not really the significant revenue stream. But these genres are able to do this by virtue of two things: first, they basically provide a service to another industry that's perfectly lucrative on its own (nightlife and entertainment). Second, there's the DJ, who allows for a lot of things: for one, it can allow people who make the music for no real profit to still work within the entertainment industry for solid money, and second, it allows for that industry-alliance wherein people will come and offer up a base of money for the musicians without that money being connected to the purchase of a particular artist's recordings or performances. This doesn't really work in genres where single-artist in-person performances are the norm -- but in these cases it can allow one DJ-who-does-tracks-in-his-spare-time to make money spinning tracks by other people just like him, who in turn are doing the same thing themselves. All based not on record sales but on cover charges and $10 bottles of spring water.

This is why it's stupid for Phil to say "there's still a market for live performances" -- after spending thousands of dollars to make records these musicians-with-real-jobs might have a little bit of trouble shipping themselves around the world to play those shows.

m.

jeff mills for example, 80-90% of his sets are his own records!

I came up with that in the car on the way home the other night.
I'm fantastically clever. Just wanted to share.

Yeah Nabisco. I do get paid. I get for customizing existing "free software" that a specific client wants. Once those customizations are written they're available for anyone else to reuse w/out royalty payments.

I'll accept professional musicians might be payed the same way. Charge for a live show, but allow recordings of the show to be distributed free. In this sense not all musicians will be amateurs. Some will be professional performers.

So the fact that more people talk about making music free makes it more valid than saying that I should be able to kick in the door tonight at your house and watch ESPN? I'm sorry, but that's not valid.

I personally agree that that's not valid. Your error is that you still fail to grasp that I'm making a distinction between Intellectual Property and Non-intellectual Property.

However, say there was a public movement *against* all private property - say an anarchist / communist revolution in progress - then no-one's door is likely to be safe. Do I support such a revolution? No, I am not opposed to property rights over things made of "stuff".

But we DO have that community already and market forces keep musos paying attention to them.

Yes. I'm making a prediction about the FUTURE (based on current trends) not saying that this is the case now. When there's less market forces (because of more downloading) we'll need other reviewing / curating structures.

gift-based economy = potlatch!!
gifts that so shame their recipients they will beggar themselves trying to look as good as the original givers!!

Yeah, existing potlatch cultures demonstrate that this as powerful motivator as, say, payment. There's no reason it has to be taken to the extreme of beggaring anyone. Just accept that some people will trade some of their time and energy to make music, in exchange for acclaim, or out of competitive desire to produce (and give away) something better than the previous gift giver.

this is easily answered in one sentence. here it goes:
It takes money to make music and art.

Perhaps read he thread? From the beginning?

I just copied this thread into Word and did a word count: more than 21000. I've decided to cut all your names out, and sell it to some daft magazine as my very own enormous essay. Thanks a bunch, guys! (I'd share out the cash I'm getting, but you did all this for love, yeah?)

I did. Someone made the point earlier. We on ILM are all willing to WRITE w/out being paid. (Contrary to Dr. Johnson's dictum)

We're motivated by the fun of discussing with a community of interesting people we like. Why's it so hard to imagine musicians who'd jam together in the same way we've just done; and be happy for people to download the results?

any random person could come here, read the arguments and learn something that henceforth becomes their opinion on the matter.

some of the ideas here become their ideas.

to pretend they are solely the ideas of those who have posted here is silly.

(assuming there's even an original thought here amongst us.)

Totally agree. Everything I'm saying comes from other people.

I just wanted to start one of the larger, more argumentative threads in ILM history.

If we've beaten Shania Twain's fucking T-shirt, I'll die happy!

The funny thing about all of this is that I don't necessarily even think Phil's open-source set-up is so bad of an idea: I just think it's stupid to expect that any class of people will produce a valuable commodity without at least hoping to get something back out of it.
For instance: dance music works a lot along these open-source lines, which is to say that sales of 12-inches are not really the significant revenue stream. But these genres are able to do this by virtue of two things: first, they basically provide a service to another industry that's perfectly lucrative on its own (nightlife and entertainment). Second, there's the DJ, who allows for a lot of things: for one, it can allow people who make the music for no real profit to still work within the entertainment industry for solid money, and second, it allows for that industry-alliance wherein people will come and offer up a base of money for the musicians without that money being connected to the purchase of a particular artist's recordings or performances. This doesn't really work in genres where single-artist in-person performances are the norm -- but in these cases it can allow one DJ-who-does-tracks-in-his-spare-time to make money spinning tracks by other people just like him, who in turn are doing the same thing themselves. All based not on record sales but on cover charges and $10 bottles of spring water.

Totally agree. I started thinking about the similarities between things like open source and music precisely through thinking about the dance scene. Most of the points I'm making (disregard of existing copyright, musicians subsidizing their own music production in hope of winning public acclaim) are more advanced in the dance genre.

This is why it's stupid for Phil to say "there's still a market for live performances" -- after spending thousands of dollars to make records these musicians-with-real-jobs might have a little bit of trouble shipping themselves around the world to play those shows.

Why is this stupid?

1) There will still be people who want to see live shows.

2) Live shows will always be a scarce resource.

3) Therefore some sort of traditional economic market model will apply.

I think the confusion here is this. I'm predicting a change in the way our music culture will work. I think we'll still be happy that it provides us with sufficient music for our lives. I even think that musicians will adapt to it and be happy.

I'm NOT trying to claim that EVERY one of our existing musical institutions will survive. For example, the world tour by stadium bands will probably survive. As always it'll be paid by sponsorship from Pepsi etc. Maybe the world tour by smaller bands won't survive.

(Anyway I do find it interesting that certain segments of dance music can be thought of as an outsourced adjunct to the nightlife-and-hospitality industry, just as much as bouncers or anything else: just the people providing hip four-beats to clubbers who may or may not be particularly concerned with what, exactly, it is they're dancing to.)

Yeah, me too.

the DJ makes money constructing works from the works of others.

He / she does.

Also imagine the impossibility of a club culture if the existing IP rules were really respected eg. this record may not be played in public w/out paying the record company royalties on a per-play basis.

And remember those clauses in stars' contracts which used to tell radio stations that they couldn't play X back to back with Y? Suppose we really respected the "artist's right" not to have their music poluted by association with lesser acts ... no playing in clubs, no mixing, no bootlegging ...

but the bigger name djs (the ones that make money) are likely to be playing each others and labelmates and their own records.
jeff mills for example, 80-90% of his sets are his own records!

Interesting. How strong do you think this connection is?

However, say there was a public movement *against* all private property - say an anarchist / communist revolution in progress - then no-one's door is likely to be safe. Do I support such a revolution? No, I am not opposed to property rights over things made of "stuff".

Sorry ... you were right and I stupidly misread what you wrote. Ignore the last answer.

Does the fact most people reject a right make it not a right ie. are all morals simply social conventions?

Personal opinion which I can't give a great defense of : I think there are morals which transcend social conventions eg. not killing, or hurting people.

I happen to think that neither intellectual property rights, NOR ordinary property rights fall into this category. Both of these rights I think ARE mere social conventions. (eg. I believe in downloading music and, say, TAXATION.)

However. At the moment, apart from some left wing or anarchist thinkers, there's no principled criticism of ordinary property rights, and no general public resistence to them. And I can't really imagine a working better alternative.

In the case of IP, I find arguments against, principled and persuasive. And the public resistance and willingness to violate these "rights" is almost universal.

(A subtle point, I find kicking down doors "objectively" wrong because the implied violence and fear it might cause, are probably a kind of "hurt". But I could also imagine moving to a culture which gave members of the public the right to enter your house to use the facilities ... and having no problem with that.)

But not so much you don't want to be part of ILM ;-)

Of course then the question becomes whether the music business and the tech companies can figure out an arrangement. I think they will, because they have to. The music industry will be transformed, to what degree we don't know, but probably not to the degree you're rooting for.

Your response to this line is probably to make the argument from technological determinism ("you can't stop this stuff, a new P2P will always emerge, secure encryption is not possible"), which we've debated before. But that's a different kind of argument to the one from principle, which is what most of this thread has been about. And I think the point you make about IP laws being determined by social convention somewhat undermines the argument from tech. determinism. You're right, there is no "natural justice" in this matter--and thus no guaranteed outcome.

Hackers: The people want freedom.

The record companies: The people are thieves.

These two positions are mirror images of each other. I don't think the people are nearly so single-minded. Surveys on P2P use are very inconclusive: some people who use it buy more CDs, some people buy less. I'll bet 90% of the people on this thread download stuff on a semi-regular basis, but most of them seem to think musicians should still get paid for recorded music, and presumably that would entail the people on this thread paying. I myself download all the time, but I still buy CDs for a variety of reasons. The record industry has lost a few percentage points of revenue in the last few years, but there is no proof that this has anything more to do with P2P than with, say, the industry being in a creative and business-model rut. The whole issue is transforming, but not as apocalyptic as either the music industry or hackers would like it to be.

what about all the crate diggers?
m.

a few random comments relating to various arguments put forth -->

1. The artisan model for musicians is completely flawed and unworkable -- who determines whose a master and whose a journeyman? ILM itself clearly shows that it could never be determined with contrary opinions, the results coming down to a popularity and not skill. Even then it might fall apart, because technical skills doesnt automatically equal quality of work.

2. Getting still paid through live music doesn't necessarily work either because not all musicians are centered around live performance, their "art" centered around studio or portastudio creation. Because they don't play live doesn't make them lesser than a band that does play live.

3. The Ideas are Free argument is not the same as Music Should Be Free. An idea is intangible as part of discourse. Music is a creation in either a live or recorded setting created by the artist but not in discourse with the audience, even if the audience receives the music. Certainly ideas behind the process are free, diseminated amongst musicians, but the Improvisations or Compositions are the sole product of those who create them.

4. Downloading I fear, is creating a disasterous culture of the future where the audience expects instant gratification or feel entitled at the expense of the musician. Anyone, no matter what they do, are entitled to profit from what they make or do if they can without others stealing their work.

. . . i could babble on, but I need to refill my coffee cup.

(I also think Phil underestimates how much the amateur musicians currently "doing it for free" -- particularly rock bands -- are in fact able to do it for "free" because at least a portion of their resources are subsidized by the pittances they get back.)

Jack: the DJ point has gotten well corrupted. (My idea was an economic one: that the revenue supporting dance music comes not primarily from selling the records but from dance music's basically "working" for the club industry. "Yes," it says, "we'll provide the four-beats for your club; you can pay into our economy directly.")

The advent of bottled water more or less proves this fantastically. People who had no trouble drinking from fountains or taps before now seek out water in bottles that they have to pay for - thoroughly ridiculous until you consider that hey, that free water - who wants free stuff? Paying for something implies if nothing else that there is at least some guarantee beind it and that somebody put some work into it which they feel is worth paying for.

ILM is free ... hands up who thinks it's worthless?

All the bands and musicians I knew were self subsidized ie. they never had a deal, or sold records. They occasionally made money from live gigs, but bought their instruments themselves (or ocassional found them in bins), borrowed my 4-track tape recorder(which I subsidized), etc.

ILM is free in the sense that I (and I guess most people here) have an internet connection paid for for other reasons (work, email, personal web account etc.) So the *marginal* cost of access to ILM is zero.

The time I spend as a writer, I donate. (As will the amateur musicians)

The time I spend as a reader *is* consumption. Of course, consumption has costs too, I could work extra hours rather than listen to music at all. But this is not a cost being argued about here.

I agree. I suspect what will happen is this. However "good" such a system is, it won't be good enough. For example, if it's to preserve revenue streams it must distribute files with DRM that enforces payment. And Mr. Average Consumer will be happy ... right up to the point where he wants to burn a copy of the track he downloaded for a friend; or onto an ordinary CD to play on the old (pre DRM) boombox in the garage. At which point he says "fuck this" and either just breaks the IP agreement he's notionally accepted; or if the technology doesn't let him, get's pissed off with the service.

Of course then the question becomes whether the music business and the tech companies can figure out an arrangement. I think they will, because they have to. The music industry will be transformed, to what degree we don't know, but probably not to the degree you're rooting for.

The industry can't win. Any kind of service which suits consumers will transform it to a degree that's gonna be very painful. It will spend a long time trying to get round the inevitable (it's nowhere near ready yet). The most likely result is that new media companies which are willing to live with the new rules thrive and drive out the old. They may be able to hold a line somewhere between where we are now, and the full amateurization I suggest. I'd be fascinated to see what it is. I can't quite imagine what it would look like.

Your response to this line is probably to make the argument from technological determinism ("you can't stop this stuff, a new P2P will always emerge, secure encryption is not possible"), which we've debated before. But that's a different kind of argument to the one from principle, which is what most of this thread has been about. And I think the point you make about IP laws being determined by social convention somewhat undermines the argument from tech. determinism. You're right, there is no "natural justice" in this matter--and thus no guaranteed outcome.

You're right. There are two discussions going on.

1) the "technology enables a social change" argument.
2) the "rights of artists vs. the rights of listeners"

What's the relation between the two?

Let's use the name "strong technological determinism" to refer to the belief that 1) causes 2)

In this sense, I'm NOT a strong technological determinist.

Does this mean I believe there's no relation between the two? As I think you are suggesting.

No.

1) enables us to see the possibility of organizing music without respecting the rights posited in 2) That allows us to focus our thoughts on 2) (without 1, it might never have occured to us to reconsider what we really think about 2) Having done so, we should
come up with independent arguments for and against 2).

One argument which has been happening here seems to go something like this. The rights posited in 2) are necessary because we don't believe we'd still have music if they were violated. In other words, arguing for rights on the grounds that 1) is impossible.

That's another way of relating the two.

But I agree with you, that as far as possible we should be trying to keep arguments in 1) and 2) independent.

Interesting point not many people have made. The idea is separate from the expression of the idea. I think the two are harder to distinguish than it looks. For example, how come copyright (which theoretically covers only expressions of ideas) applies to cover versions which ought to be independent expressions?

The more pressing question is whether I need to express my ideas using recordings. For example, I think one can make arguments about music through bootlegs ... eg. if song X had had a better baseline (witness the one I nicked from Y) it would be better. I think there may be ideas I can't express *fully* without being able to illustrate using the actual recordings.

In which case, I'd argue that my expressive power is being diminished if I'm denied that use.

Yes!

Anyone, no matter what they do, are entitled to profit from what they make or do if they can without others stealing their work.

There's a contradiction here between "entitled" and "if they can". The first sounds like you're making a strong claim; the second wimps out.
(You're only entitled to something *if* you can get it.)

I think musicians won't be able to get it, so by the reasoning above, they aren't entitled to it. But actually, as Ben Williams has been pushing me agree, this isn't true. The two questions are not causally connected.

Is it okay to steal candy from babies now?

Paul : why isn't all music free?

Phil : don't worry it will be

99% of ILM : no it won't, subdivided into

- 60% of ILM : because musicians ought to get paid

- 35% of ILM : because musicians need to get paid or can't make music

- 3% of ILM : because miscellaneous sarcastic comment

...some of which do fall into categories 1 and/or 2, you know.

In which case, I'd argue that my expressive power is being diminished if I'm denied that use.

A music dole?

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1547223

Copyrights for cover versions protect only the sound recordings, not the underlying compositions.

My answers are:
(1) probably not
(2) probably not

I view this strictly as a consumer. If musicians/artists can no longer make money by making music/art, then I think the quality of music/art production is going to suffer. Take a simple example: the symphony orchestra. If all the sources of funding for orchestras dried up, there would be few, if any, orchestras in the world, and the ones that survived would be staffed by amateurs. This would not be a good thing for classical music fans. The same argument applies to all art forms to some extent.

US libertarians think that taxation is stealing : the government uses a threat of violence to deprive you of your property. In the UK, we don't tend to think anything of the sort.

The pharmaceutical industry says Brazil making cheap, unlicensed clones of anti-Aids drugs is stealing; though Brazil is the most succesful 3rd world country at controlling Aids.

New Zealand Maori's think Lego using Maori folkloric stories and characters in their Bionicle toys is stealing.

Some primitive tribes think you steal their soul by taking their photo.

The football association think it's stealing to take video of football matches w/out paying them a license.

I'm currently using the office computer net connection to download everything I can find re cyber-ethics etc, then printing it out so I can read it at home.

You may find these interesting

http://shirky.com/writings/music_flip.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/download_pr.html

"given the changes we are seeing in the ways music is being delivered it's possible that the economics of pop will change, regardless of the morals of the matter. If there's no way of preventing people from sharing high fidelity digital copies of recordings over the internet, the bottom may fall out of the mass market for recorded sound. In that case, people who want to make a living out of making music would no longer be able to do so by selling large numbers of records at a cost palatable to a mass market. Those musicians would have to find a different way of earning a living: this might be live performance, for example, and it may well be that the number of people able to earn a living from music would be dramatically reduced..."

I'd think that was a fairly defensible position.

The people who are the most threatened by this are the record companies because the lion's share of CD sales are already going towards them, not the artists. Possibly the biggest impact the death of CDs would have is that labels would go under and a new distribution system would have to be put into place to get music onto the radio. The types of tours would change, as few artists are wealthy enough to fully fund a tour on their own without label clout behind them, but the amount of touring probably wouldn't change all that much.

So, there's already a wide culture/expectation of getting stuff from PRince for free, yet he's still getting money because people are still willing to give it to him.

How do people feel about the application of these arguments on music publishing (that is, income derived from the use of original music compositions)? Publishing royalties are a significant proportion of the price a consumer pays for a record and publishing (both in the form of mechanical royalties and non-record related licenses), with the exception of bad old Tin Pan Alley/Motown days, can be a very substantial source of income for artists.

In a sense, publishing presents the issues raised by phil in a purer form, in that the logical extension of his argument would be that once a song is writen and recorded, it would be in the public domain. This has an artistic as well as a commercial dimension. Leaving the record companies out of it for a minute, how would people feel about anyone having the right to make any use of any song in any way they wanted? Thoughts?

I have no doubt that there will continue to be professional musicians, but it does seem sensible to think that their income may well come more and more from sources other than CD / vinyl sales (your example of Prince, as Ben says, tends to support this rather than contradict it, doesn't it?)

Perhaps that would lead to more travesties such as "Fortunate Son" being used in a commercial for jeans. No thanks.

My answer to the publishing question is that I think it's probably morally unsound that songwriters wouldn't get publishing/royalties for sales or for covers of their songs. *If* CD sales were replaced by free distribution of music, that unfortunate situation seems unavoidable to me.

(Knock on effect = possible end of professional behind-the-scenes songwriter + further rise of singer-songwriter = the Rock(ist) model = bad thing.)

(If I had written a song which - say - Britney wanted to sing *first* I suppose I could charge her a fat fee for it, hm)

more travesties such as "Fortunate Son" being used in a commercial for jeans

Artistic control is part of what you pay for when you pay the piper buy into the copyright scheme.

If I had written a song which - say - Britney wanted to sing *first* I suppose I could charge her a fat fee for it, hm

Yes, a first-use mechanical license typically goes for more. After that it's still not free but you can get a compulsory license.

People have said this in other words but I think the salient aspect of this is the notion that the uniqueness of particular songs recorded by particular artists is what makes them valuable. I mean, I could say, "Music IS free -- here, take as many CDs of these Sc1ent0logy hymnals as you like" but I don't actually have any.

"ILX - NICER than ILM". Discuss.

And lawyers, well everybody knows they get paid for nothing, so that's kind of a bad example. ; )

This one's on me.

The other day, I was talking to a musician I admire very much. He was saying that he would love to give up his day job to concentrate on making music, at least for a while. I asked him what would be necessary for him to do that and his response was a certain level of record sales. CD income is still key to him, at least.

I could imagine a position where CD sales stopped being the substantial focus for people like him, and by extension the music industry in general. That seems to me a major change, and it would mean that is you didn't want the pretty pictures or the shiny vinyl, the music would be close to free.

I don't have any idea what "Fortunate Son" is, but I can imagine more and more corporate sponsorship of popular music (heh The Body Shop presents... PITMAN!).

Ew this flight of fancy business is uncomfortable.

Agreed, but in the case of a pop song (or LP), if what a consumer wants is a high-quality means to listen to a particular performance repeatedly, and that exact recording is easily available for free, then what value does the recording itself retain?

(Some consumers - like me - want more than just the recording of course, but enough? Dunno.)

Basing your golden target on CD sales is risky and wrong when dealing with a larger or unscrupulous label because the amount of money you make back on CDs is not very large, plus when you get advances from the label to create the album and promote it, those are deducted from the amount you would normally get off of CD sales. So, if you're basing your income solely on CD sales, you need to sell a good number of them just to break even, which just isn't going to happen for most artists.

Now, if the artists deal with distributors directly (or through intermediaries that they control, rather than the current system of intermediaries that control them), they will see much more of the profits from CD sales and won't need to sell nearly as many CDs to make the same amount of money. It's all about your points, and the current system is deeply weighted against the artists (again, hello TLC).

I can believe that conditions on larger labels are tough. What's in it for a pop group to sign direct to a major under the current arrangements?

An advance of a lump sum of cash (recoupable from royalties earned later), large enough to permit the group to work on music full-time, go on tour etc. for a period of a year or so. And access to a large marketing/distribution machine that can, if you're lucky, generate much higher sales.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/23/228210&mode=thread&tid=141

"An entire marketing and profiteering architecture has been constructed around art and music that didn't used to be there. Songs aren't tangible like jewelry. But jewelry isn't ideologically expansive like songs are. Performers have no more claim to their art than their appreciative public admirers do. The notes, the melody -- they were ALWAYS there. The song chose to reveal itself to a willing recipient. It wants to be heard, and it's your duty as a skilled musician to make that happen."

By that logic, Shakespeare had no right to expect compensation because, hey, the alphabet has always existed. The words were always there, waiting to be heard/read....

A desk...the wood, nails, etc., they were always there, but chose to reveal themselves to the carpenter whose DUTY it is to construct it.

Ayn Rand to thread.

"Opsound is a record label using an open
source, copyleft model, an experiment
in practical gift economics, a laboratory
for new ways of releasing music."

a good tool to add nuances to the copyright debate: http://creativecommons.org/

I still think so...

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/050714/we-should-be-sculptors.gif

paul you're talking shite
I know. My convictions usually fall to pieces when I'm forced to argue the philosophy behind them.

― paul cox (paul cox), Friday, 24 January 2003 05:40 (11 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

folded early

I actually remember starting this thread and, within three seconds, wishing I hadn't.

lol @ me in this thread

BTE

I actually remember starting this thread and, within three seconds, wishing I hadn't.

― Johnny Fever

Ahhh, I think your sentiments were rather lovely.

Maybe one day comrades.

cartoon otm

they make shit ugly pots no-one wants and then post a loada garbage on facebook about not being able to make a living from it

haha i don't know why i was so down on the flaming lips in this thread, but young me otm.

also dave q was tremendous here.

http://gawker.com/taylor-swift-complains-about-shit-ass-garden-in-wall-st-1601355436