MPAA: The Grateful Dead's Success Was An Abomination Against Nature
from the one-way-to-look-at-things dept
One of the more annoying things we've found when discussing how the entertainment industry needs to adapt and change and embrace new technologies in place of their old business model, is the repeated claim that it's impossible to make money if the content is given away for free. Impossible is a pretty absolute statement -- and all you need is one example to disprove it. However, as we've shown, there are many, many examples of entertainers who have learned how to make more money out of giving away their content -- which seems to disprove the whole "impossible" bit. However, the industry folks don't seem to know how to respond to that, so they just keep saying it's impossible.Witness this bizarre exchange between John Perry Barlow and the MPAA's Dan Glickman debating the future of the entertainment industry. Barlow notes that he made an awful lot of money as a songwriter for the Grateful Dead, which encouraged its fans to make tapes of its shows for free. Glickman immediately responds by saying: "It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature." The problem, as always, is that Glickman has incorrectly defined his market -- which is a scary thought if he's supposed to be the leading spokesperson for that industry. He thinks they're in the business of selling content. That's not so. It's too narrowly defined. The entertainment business is in the business of entertaining -- and that can include many things that still involve giving content away for free for promotional value. We've discussed plenty of examples in the recording industry -- and Barlow's success helps prove that. In Glickman's own movie industry the examples are even more obvious. They should be selling the experience of seeing a movie, not just the content. However, when Glickman says things like the idea that giving away things for free is against "the laws of human nature," we wonder if this means he's never received anything for free in his life. Does he turn down the free soda offered with the slice of pizza in the corner shop? Free dessert with dinner? Why that's just crazy talk! Those restaurants must be run by anti-capitalist extremists. Their actions in giving away free food are against the laws of nature, and they must be on their way out of business.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Dead were extraordinary
Their "business model" was quite successful. I don't know if it would work for everyone, but there's no denying that making your fans happy is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dead were extraordinary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dead were extraordinary
the Dead, Phish, Pearl Jam, et al. have a pretty good formula: Create new content, make a little money on your album sales, and then make a butt-load touring. Until we start seeing that from the music industry, we will all be mired in this waist-high garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, he would say that...
If he were to agree with Barlow, that would be against human nature (the instinct of self preservation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guaranteed market standards met...
Corprate grade attoernies to represent them...
Indentured sevitude to a label that cares only about how much money they can squeeze out of you before you become a burn-out...
Yeah, what can these entertainment industry giants offer bands?
Quite a bit I think. No the real question should be is the fame worth the price of pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy spell check Batman!
Attorneys...
Servitude...
Burnout...
It's hard to make an intelligent comment on somthing when you can't even spell correctly. Spend more time learning and less time trying to express your uneducated point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy spell check Batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spend millions on advertising to gain
Writing music, performing music, recording music and making it available on the web is damn near useless if you can't attract an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference between material and digital goods
Well if the car manufactures could develop a car and then make millions of copies of it without any production costs beyond the first product, distribute the cars without any transportation costs, and sell the cars without any distrubitors, salesmen, or high cost localized advertizing, then yes, they might be quite inclined to give away cars, or at the very least drop the price of the car to near nothing. Unlike the recording and movie industries of course who consistantly increase productivity per dollar and constantly raise prices. e.g. cd's much cheaper than tapes to produce, yet prices doubled for cd's, now digital distribution is 'far' cheaper, yet now they want to push price per song up far above the $1 ITunes pricing which already brings $12-18 per CD without any distribution or manufacturing costs.
And for some reason they don't understand how everyone feels ripped off and angry at them? Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Difference between material and digital goods
I don't know about the rest of you, but I get the impression that stores do that to imrpove traffic flow and make up for the loss on greatly increased volume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Difference between material and digital go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Difference between material and digital goods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Despite all of this, many bands are still looking for that "big record deal". They want enough money up-front to quit their dayjobs and buy a tour bus. They want to "concentrate on the music" and don't want to bother with silly things like booking venues, promoting themselves through giveaways, maintaining a website, or calling radio stations. They are begging for a middleman prince to come sweep them out of the garage and into a stadium.
The reality is that there will be no more Madonnas, Metallicas, etc. The era of the long lasting band is over. Consumers have zero loyalty and we now have so many choices in entertainment that there is really no reason to bother putting up with (and paying for) "a couple of crappy songs" on each release. People will obtain the songs they like a la carte.
Musicians are now in pretty much the same place as painters. It's fun and sometimes if you do something really good you can make a profit, but mostly it's just a hobby. That doesn't mean people will stop creating. It only means that the people who were only in it for the almighty dollar will stop peddling their crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The main revolution in music is contained within the rise of the entreprenurial artist. Bands that are talented, promote themselves well and self-produce their recordings will thrive down the long tail. Here's some math for you: a 4 piece band sells [the equivalent of] 10,000 albums/year [in downloads, merchandise, etc.] @ $10. They also tour their balls off, playing 100 shows/year, averaging $1000/show. That adds up to $200,000, split 4 ways. Reasonably assuming that costs even out with other income from teaching, royalties, engineering, that band is making a downright middle class income. People love being closer to the artists at this level and truly talented musicians have enough creativity to create a sustainable musical career this way.
"Concentrat[ing] on the music" means instead of working a day job, your day job becomes booking and promoting your own music. Every musician worth a damn will make this trade every day of the week.
It happens all the time and it's going to be happening even more. I am a professional musician, engineer, and entrepreneur in Los Angeles.
Thanks,
Ethan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long lasting bands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward MPAA
MySpace
Remember when you were dogging MySpace? Are you female?
And I leave you with a quote from "NYC Streets" by Rebel Meets Rebel:
"You don't need a f**kin record deal man, just listen to the music!"
Screw the corporation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myspace is a marketing tool
The site is a venue for testing the popularity of new bands. It is used as a marketing tool. It is not, despite all claims, a social networking tool, a place for "independent music", or a cool place for 12 year olds to hang out and meet rapists. The bands' "profiles" are generated by in-house Myspace experts, who do nothing but build profiles all day, generate fake "fan" profiles, and send out mass-friend-requests. Myspace has watched it's actual user subscriptions and returns drop off in the past six months. Let myspace die, and find a place where you can ACTUALLY promote your music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Myspace is a marketing tool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst part of that interview
"Would a clothing store give all their clothes for free? Would a car dealership give all its cars for free? Of course not. If they don't make a profit in this world they're out of business. That's just the laws of human nature."
Whaaa!? Clothing stores and car dealerships re-sell physical objects they purchase from a manufacturer. The media industry sells recordings with a per-unit duplication cost approaching zero. Even worse, by denying "first sale" and "fair use" rights they are actually claiming that you don't own what you bought.
Screw 'em, I say, and good riddance. The sooner musicians and actors stop signing contracts to monkeydance for them the sooner we can all get back to creating culture. Besides, the problem isn't paying the people making the movies and records, it's paying the useless people in the middle who are just trying to exert control over other the work of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst part of that interview
"Would a clothing store give all their clothes for free? Would a car dealership give all its cars for free? Of course not. If they don't make a profit in this world they're out of business. That's just the laws of human nature." (end quote)
Infuriating, indeed. That is a combination of the "excluded middle", or perhaps the Strawman. It strikes as something that could be said only by someone who has never run a business. I do run a business, and I occasionally give away free samples -- just today, I shipped a set of premium strings for free to a customer who had bought a bunch of other stuff from me, in hopes that he will like them enough to buy more (and tell his friends about them). If he and a couple of his friends switch to my strings, I will profit very nicely from the added business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The worst part of that interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst part of that interview
Which is why Sony is being sued by Cheap Trick and the Alman Brothers. If it isn't a sale, and we are essentially "renting" or "licencing" their products, then the bands need to get the higher "licencing" royalty rates. If it's not a "licence" than it is a sale, and we get to to do with it what we will for our own use as owners. Either way the industry is building itself into a corner it can't work it's way out of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The worst part of that interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a misleading title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what a misleading title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: SuckerPunch-tm
Somebody still has to take the band from the garage to the stage. Somebody still has to upload that music and update that web site. Somebody still has to negotiate the endorsements. Someone will still want to rub elbows with MTV (until they die too).
Things change. Cassettes didn't do too hot this decade either.
Deal with it **AA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: SuckerPunch-tm
My guess is that by 2010, most music will bypass the entertainment/industrial complex entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
glik
He gave away our public forests for free to the timber companies.
Now he changes 180 degrees - what a corporate stooge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tiepo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We call that a contact high now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EDM scene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The good news is that you guys are mean sons of bitches and you've been figuring out ways of ripping off audiences and artists for centuries....."
If you want to have a free digital music/video/art culture, the only way to do it is to directly support artists that have chosen to distribute their work freely.
This means leaving behind the pablum you've been spoon-fed since you were a baby.
Unfortunately, most people would rather complain about not being able to get pablum for free, than actually explore and support the musicians and artists that distribute their work freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro vs Con
The Dead have a ton, I say again, A TON of free recordings to go around. Most are of live shows.
The upside is that if you got a free cd of a show, and you really liked it, and then went out and bought a cd, it was not as good as the live. So in order to obtain that free live cd experience, you have to go to a show. Ticketsales, ticketsales, ticketsales.
It only worked out because the Dead seemed to always be playing somewhere.
Now take some new band. They sound a lot like their CD live. Sure it is better to go see them play, but it's not a write home to mom experience. They play one or two shows in your city every couple of years if they make it past one album, and they are forced to rely apon CD sales, and shirts, hats, stickers, etc.
If they had a live version of their music that was must see, and played enough shows to create a following...well then a couple of downloadable live shows for free would kick ticketsales up to another level.
Problem is the same for musicians today as it is for most people. They don't want to work for their money. Nice contract that pays a nice signing bonus, % of sales, and a few million dollars later and why go on the road???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro vs Con
The Dead had "jobs" that they had to work at every day!
And people paid them for doing these "jobs" for years on end...
Obviously that's no path to success. I mean if you can't be layin' back with your bitches in the hot tub every day, what's the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, actually...
Not disagreeing with the concept here. You have a good argument.
However, I would like to point out some things just for clarification.
First, you say that Glickman said "It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature." And then you say "Glickman says things like the idea that giving away things for free is against 'the laws of human nature,'..."
That's not what he said, Mike. His argument is not that "giving product away for free" is against the laws of nature, but that success from giving product away for free is.
Second, for those debating the "give all their clothes away for free" argument, he said all their clothes. This isn't the same as a promo pack or other such marketing gimmick. His argument is that you can't make money if you don't have sales.
Again, I am not arguing with your premise, Mike. In fact, I agree with you. However, you should be careful when making claims like this that are certainly popular, that you don't start a witch hunt.
Just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, actually...
I wonder if anyone here has ever been at a club where a small time act is suddenly told they can't play because they do covers and their RIAA dues aren't paid, or they're not members. Granted it doesn't happen a lot. But I've personally witnessed one such act of 'against nature'.
Peace,
Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Dead are not unique
The next month, they were #1 sellers on the British charts.
Therefore, this business model must not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Matthews BAnd
Any true DMB fan will tell you that their live shows are far better than any of the studio cuts, but even though all this free content is available, you would be hard pressed to find one of these fans who do not own the "studio" version as well as the "free" version.
For them it is a matter of keeping their fans happy and buying anything they produce. The DMB is truly a testament of how it should be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dave Matthews BAnd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again
Oh wait.... they are still buying massive mansions in several states, private islands are the new trend, and rappers upgraded from gold ropes to diamond and platinum teeth.
I'm glad to see everything is still in order!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of examples
and the list goes on and on and on. Even test driving a car is an example of giving something of worth (the feeling of being behind the wheel) in an effort to derive income.
The music business is no exception. It's just plain good biz. Plain and simple.
Pete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lots of examples
# Free food samples at the local grocery store
# The "tour" and free samples given on pornographic sites "
this is a typical weekday for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
selling records vs. playing shows
the dead played tons of shows. their music was an experience to be witnessed live. that was the nature of their success. like mike said, they were in the business of entertaining; not in the business of selling records. pop stars are created by labels who are in the business of selling records. meanwhile these pop stars couldn't put on a show without huge production expenses. unlike the dead, today's pop music sounds better on record. (did i just say record?! i meant mp3s from russia.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Funny...
I laughed out loud when I read this because I have actually spent a good amount of time plotting to open just such a store. If local businesses were willing to pay to put their logos on the shirts, pants, etc. then one could, in theory, afford to give the clothes away for free...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pandora is an online music player that plays songs for free, the catch is that it picks the songs.
(You choose an artist or song, and it picks songs that are similar to what you chose.)
I am not positive who is behind this project, but I am very willing to bet that it's big music labels that are trying to introduce their consumers to new bands/albums/genres in hopes that they'll go buy the music (it included links to purchase these songs).
At least someone in the industry understands the concept of a free sample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, their whole business model and the copyright law that made allowances for it was the business of reproducing and transporting content. Now that people don't need them to reproduce and transport it, the industry is trying to reinvent its business model into selling the content itself - or rather selling single instances of access to it, all the while trying to claim that that was the business they were ALWAYS in, and radically changing the intent of copyright law to support it.
The crazy thing is that they are desperately trying to adapt from a dead business model to a stillborn one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Century Business Darwinism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Dead's product wasn't records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dead's product wasn't records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some do it for love, and others for Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other companies have been doing this for years.
My wife gets a card from Bath and Body Works for free hand lotion, or from The Body Shop for free lip balm. Even Victoria's Secret for the newest style of underwear.
We get coupons for free coffee from Barns and Noble. Coupons for free makeovers and makeup. Free music downloads from Connect, iTunes and eMusic.
We get free crap all the time. What is the big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Requires decent content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cars and Clothes
Clothing dealers let you try on clothes.
Recording industry lets you hear one song then charges you for 12. You get to only buy the whole set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He sees the fans as criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creative business models
I think many artists could survive quite well on a "tip jar" existance. Give away the product for free, but provide a PayPal link to the artist's tip jar. Many artists would earn millions per album just in tips, and they wouldn't have to split it with a crooked record company.
Or, an established band could get paid BEFORE releasing an album. Suppose U2 said, "We've got this great new album recorded, and we'll release it free to the world as soon as we get $3 million in donations. "We'll also give $1 million of that money to the World Hunger Fund". They'd easily collect the $3 million in a few days or weeks.
In all of these scenarios, there is no middleman, and none needed. THAT'S what scares the RIAA. They are trying to legislate scarcity, when there is no longer a need for scarcity. Society (and the artists) are better served if everyone has free access to the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creative business models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creative business models
If he said it or not, the point is clear, I did not go to all those shows to hear the same song done the same way and reproduce what I could hear on my own stereo at home. Each concert was unique, as is the expearance of listening to it. By puting a price tag on it is just plain wrong. Noone is going to starve because I recorded "Bear's choice" onto cassette from my LP, and no one will if I e-mail Rat dog hampton, august 96, to Jesse Ventura. Stop Beating a Dead issue...We will still buy, sell, give away, and spread the love of our music...and create more that will do the same. Everyone wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vanity vanity, all is vanity...and money
- Hunter S. Thompson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lagniappe
It's been going on for many years, and it works favorably for all concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woody Guthrie's copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and MPAA what....greedy?
I guess they (entertainment industry whores) are too stupid (caught up in a ecstatic greed-frenzy) to realize the simple premise of customer loyalty. Extend to the customer some goodwill and they will come back! It's a simple concept.
Someday, perhaps enough people will agree that paying $20 for something that costs 25 cents to produce, package and market is just too much and maybe they will decide to take action against this. In the meantime, we will all sit around and complain about it. Maybe someday greed will not be the sole motivation of the entertainment industry, until then we will have to be creative in finding ways to lower our cost!
LONG LIVE FILE SHARING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Oh;
United Nuclear got itself into trouble:
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/?callyourcongressman
"May 5th:
An update on our fight with the CPSC - and their attempts to remove the necessary chemicals for our Hydrogen Fuel System from public use - will be posted as soon as we receive an update from our attorney."
But I suppose, gotta protect all those jobs.
The whole of the oil industry, from the little guy on the rig all the way to the CEO of the company, the people who work at the refinery, the distribution network people, and finally, the lowest paid in the scheme, the gas station workers.
What would all those people do for a living if not for the oil industry?
It's not like humanity is grown up enough to take care of them if they are not "properly employed".
Everbody that can, should be properly employed.
Even if we have to invent jobs for them.
Even if it means that humanity should suffer because of it.
We as a civilization just are not grown up enough to accept any other way of life.
Maybe a few individuals are, but not the whole of civilization.
Think for a minute (or preferably an hour)
If all monies really did come from Government Institutions such as the Federal Reserve in the United States one could easily figure out what percentage of the monies brought into existance each year should be paid in taxes.
Instead of having this great big institution called the IRS, along with all the peripheral jobs such as tax lawyers, accountants and preparers; one could just direct that money straight from the Fed to the IRS (Which would now be just a couple people) and eliminate all the possible loopholes, cheating, offshore and other evasion techniques; and just make it all the more simpler.
And also eliminate all of those aforementioned jobs.
But no, it's just not possible, because humanity would not tolerate these people going from pains in the neck to what humanity would see as "Freeloaders"
Humanity couldn't possibly support these people unless they are doing something viewed as constructive.
How being a pain in the neck is constructive I'm not sure. But it sure beats paying them to sit at home doesn't it?
Doesn't it?
Look at it again, these people are not producing one iota of anything for society but they are still able to consume products and services from others who are.
What is it that is stopping humanity from harming itself and bringing sorrow upon itself by refusing to stop these kind of incredibly dumb practices?
Think I'm kidding?
Think again:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14227440.htm
"Liberty Property Trust, which is building the 975-foot-tall Comcast Center, is seeking to change the building code so it can install the water-saving devices and have its skyscraper certified by the U.S. Green Building Council. The 58-story Comcast Center could save 1.6 million gallons of water a year with the no-flush basins, advocates say.
But the influential Plumbers Union Local 690 has blocked the code change because the urinals lack water lines and therefore require less labor to install. "
Figting to keep up the status quo, because Humanity just doesn't know any better.
Back to the Economic Terrorists at United Nuclear.
Thank you Consumer Product Safety Commission for protecting us not only from the Evil Terrorist Chemicals, but also from the Evil Terrorists at United Nuclear, who are obviously just thinking of themselves with 'nary a care what happens to the average person.
If you would like to help out the CPSC here is thier contact info: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html
To voice your concern over United Nuclear trying to "downsize" the Patriotic Oil companies:
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/contact.htm
Please, do it now, before it's to late.
__________________
“Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who writes it’s laws…” Meyer Amschel Rothschild 1790
It is the same story here with the recording cartel, who would lose jobs if there were no middle-people?
What would you have these people do?
Only when society gives up on the Grand Illusion of it being necessary for all, or even just most, to work will Humanity be able to go forward in Civilization.
'Till then it's screw your neighbor to exist.
And screw more to get ahead.
Isn't life grand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Russians are changing the face of the music in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice piece ... But on Mr. Glickman's historically
Well, despite the 'depth' of Mr. Glickman's reasoning, the Grateful Dead as I understand it were credited as having the highest gate receipts for more than a decade.
Of course, there's no clear representation by Mr. Glickman that his organization and affiliates sink to almost any desperate act they can to protect their pie. Such as making sure their 'artists' show a nipple to our kids at superbowl games. Anyone remember Mr. Glickman's remarks concerning THAT ACT 'defying nature'? Probably not, unless of course you were tripping the monday after the event in question.
On a positive note, I have recorded more that 50 bands WITH THEIR EXPRESS CONSENT and distrubuted the historic record of their performances without ANY compensation. And with limited exceptions, nearly all of those bands/artists have gone on to be highly successful at the layer of the industry they occupied.
So you pick. Would you prefer to believe a man of the Stature of John Perry Barlow, who's not only brought us great works of seminal ART, and gone on to define and protect our rights to free speech and acquisition of knowledge (the internet would be a VERY different place were it not for the efforts of Mr. Barlow and other great men with whom he plants his flag). Or would you prefer to believe a man who has a rather vested interest in making sure parents are goaded into paying hundreds of their hard earned dollars a year to purchase the product of talentless boy and girl bands, many of whom have no formal education in music, just because a good brainwashing was done on the kids?
Decide for yourself.
Peace,
Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Businessmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glickman's a turd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On with making music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Jam Kids are all right
Now the Dead's model has spawned a whole scene, where musicians can build their own fanbases and careers. They have their own awards show at MSG and huge festivals. Recording contracts are, if anything, an afterthought and not a thing that's needed to get them started if they're ever entered into at all. And they do it by giving away the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty good model if you ask me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Glickman
I think the real point is to define exactly what it is you are selling. If what you are giving away is your only source of income and self-existence then yes; it would be somewhat against the laws of nature. Philanthropists defy those laws, but only after being in a position to be able to. Even then they usually don't give it all away. Well usually not, one occasionally hears "stories" of those who have made great success before given everything away to go live as a street person.
Maybe Mr. Glickman needs to read Andrew Carnegies, "The Gospel of Wealth" where he describes his views on "the business of benevolence". Carnegie, a man who spent the first half of his life amassing a fortune and the second half trying to give it ALL away wisely.
Few deny that money needs to be made by artists and even the industry. The Dead community has understood this for years. They have supported many more than just the band members through ticket sales, merchandise and of course music sales. I myself am a taper and avidly tape shows of bands that allow me to and distribute them to friends and acquaintances. I have even been known to show up at shows with handfuls of CD's from the previous show to just hand out as goodwill. Yet I have a huge "store bought" CD collection, not to mention DVDs, video-tapes, audio-tapes and vinyl. Who among us don't have "Dick's Picks", "Vault" shows, and so forth. Of shows that we could have (and often do) from elsewhere? Not to mention studio albums by the same bands. I do agree that there are some greedy bastards out there that only take the free things and not contribute. I think there are more though that will be responsible. I think this is the difference between the "laws of nature" and "human nature".
Examples of some that do give a lot of it away for free... eMail (like Hotmail, Yahoo, GMail), Public Television, Live Music Archive (LMA), BT servers, LINUX, Shareware/Freeware developers... (please remember to help support services you use)
The industry is quickly changing. iTunes is just a start of the new revolution for sales.
Free music exchange will still continue. I still see taping sections at nearly all the jam-band shows I attend. (Admittedly these are getting smaller though because of the ease and availability of purchasing SBD’s and Matrix’s almost if not immediately after the show. Another one of the new waves bands now use for sales and distribution.)
So I ask you Glickman. What is it you have to sell? Is it only the live recordings of shows we were given permission to record in the first place? As you can see by Dick's Picks (etc.) we still buy better copies of what we can have for free. WAKE UP! Most of us are still buying but do see an end to the tunnel coming soon if there is not a change in the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
giving away for nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My answer for the RIAA Boss:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF I WERE TO DO THE SAME???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watered down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]