Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
from the cry-me-a-river-of-song... dept
Entertainment industry lawyer (and big time copyright supporter) Ben Sheffner has a blog post pointing us to a rather amusing "interview" between two other copyright maximalists: Chris Castle, another music industry lawyer, and Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America. Sheffner, amusingly, absolutely loves to nitpick any news article or blog post from those who believe that copyright law is too strict -- ridiculing minor misstatements or weaving in questionable legal theories to mock those who question the abuse of copyright. Yet, in writing about this interview between two people who share his worldview, apparently all skepticism or critical thinking goes right out the window. So, I guess we'll have to do it for him.Now, I almost hesitated, because Castle has this friendly and inviting header to his blog:
Copyright 2006-2008, Christian L. Castle. All rights reserved. NOT subject to Creative Commons deed, license, or whatever it's called this week by the self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con.Yes, you see that anyone who recognizes how to benefit from the sharing and promotion of content is apparently a "self-serving shill for the self-absorbed" as opposed to someone with some basic knowledge about the economics of information and how to craft successful business models around it. Clearly, Mr. Castle would prefer that no one ever bother to help promote his blog, and I'm tempted to oblige and ignore him -- but there are some important points in his post that need to be discussed. And, despite his slightly threatening header, I'm going to bet that fair use covers the following clips for the purpose of commentary. If he disagrees, we can discuss it and, who knows, maybe this post will disappear (save it now!). Oh, and by the way, Mr. Castle, it's 2009 now. You might want to update the date on your notice (which, as a lawyer, I'm sure you know -- you don't actually need to retain your copyright).
So, off we go. He starts off ever so nicely, tearing down all "Internet analysts, self-appointed futurists as well as self-annointed consumer advocates," claiming they all "misunderstand the role of songwriters and the negative effects that rampant piracy has had on them." Way to totally demonize and pigeonhole anyone who speaks up with alternative business models. But clearly, Castle (and Carnes later) are not interested in alternative business models. They really, really like the way the world used to be, and they're going to keep on wishing that it could go back to that. Then there's this:
People who just write songs don't sell t-shirts, don't play shows, don't have all the other income streams available to them that the EFFluviati point to as subsititute revenues for the cruel theft of labor value by companies like Kazaa, Morpheus, Limewire and the Pirate Bay.I like the "EFFluviati" coinage. So eloquent. But, of course, he uses it to brush off what he hasn't bothered to understand (amusingly, right after insisting that it was everyone else who doesn't understand). This is, unfortunately, all too common among some (though, I would say definitely not all) of the copyright system defenders. Rather than understanding the basic economic principles at play, and using those to understand how to craft new business models, they simply look at one or two business models being used by some (t-shirts! concerts!) and insist that's really all there is. It amuses me that folks who apparently claim to represent the "creative" industries are so uncreative themselves. It also amuses me that they insist that no one outside of the music industry can comment on music business models, but they have no problem commenting on economics without any experience in that subject.
If they bothered to take the time to actually understand the economics at play, they would recognize that there are always scarcities to be leveraged, and business models can be crafted around those scarcities. With song writers, of course, there's the scarcity of their time and their skill -- all of which can be monetized with smart business models. It's not that difficult to figure out how this works, if you look at a few other industries that employ "writers" and realize that songwriting can be compensated in much the same way.
Carnes and Castle jointly bemoan the fact that there are fewer professional songwriters these days, and it's just not like the old days anymore. They also take time to trash "amateur" songwriters as being not worth a dime. It's as if someone let Andrew Keen into the conversation. Carnes and Castle conveniently ignore that more music than ever before is being made today -- and, yes, a large percentage of that music is terrible, but there's a ton of excellent music mixed in. The real trick is just getting better filters. But, of course, rather than do that, Castle puts up this bogus experiment:
Lock yourself in a room for an hour with a continuous playback loop of "Chocolate Rain". Then try it with Gershwin, Cole Porter, Lennon-McCartney, Diane Warren, Carol King. See which you like better.Right, pick a dreadful amateur song, and then pick wonderful (but all very old) professional musicians. Of course, Castle doesn't bother to note the obvious. I could pick some current indie songwriters, and suggest you spend an hour listening to... say... Corey Smith or Jonathan Coulton or occasional Techdirt author Blaise Alleyne or Techdirt reader and free culture success story Adam Singer or (my personal favorite) Vic Ruggiero (start with this song) or some other top indie songwriters... and then try it with NSync or New Kids On The Block or any other teenie bopper sensation from the past twenty years -- all using "professional" songwriters -- and see which you like better. See? The "point" is no point at all.
Then Carnes jumps in to blame all the troubles of songwriters on their unwillingness to recognize the way technology had changed the market, ignoring all sorts of new opportunities to make money... oh wait, no. He blames everything on those darn pirates, and the fact that things just "aren't the way they used to be." Yeah, and we all used to walk uphill both ways 10 miles there and back to school in the snow:
There are multiple causes for this situation but most of the damage was wrought by two specific problems. The first being that the internet has turned into a Cyber-Somalia.In other words, the market changed, and Carnes is screaming about how the world needs to stop and go back to the way it was. I guess Carnes wishes that we went back to an age when you picked up the telephone and had to speak to an operator. Eventually, phone technology reached a point where we could all make those connections ourselves, putting lots of phone operators out of work -- thanks to those darn "calling pirates" (but also enabling a communications and technology revolution). Oh wait, what am I talking about... the phone put all those old telegraph operators out of work, so it was probably evil too.
Professional songwriters used to live on advances from their music publisher. These advances were to be recouped from record sales only ("mechanicals" is the industry term for these revenues). Music piracy killed record sales so that made it impossible for music publishers to recoup the advances they paid songwriters so they stopped signing writers and let go of the ones they had when their contracts ran out.
By the way, if you want a shorthand way to know of any business or industry that's in serious trouble, it's when you ask them what their main purpose or mission is, and they talk about "protecting" anything, rather than adding value and expanding the market. So, Carnes, what's your number one job at SGA?
The mission statement of the SGA is two words "Protect Songwriters". That lack of specificity has forced me to show up in all kinds of places I never thought I would be! I was the lead witness in the latest Copyright Rate Board hearing. I have testified on behalf of songwriters in both the Senate and the House of Representatives on many issues concerning song writers rights, and I have spent the last ten years flying all over the country talking to people about the harm that is being done to American music by the widespread theft of songs on the internet by a mob of anonymous looters.Maybe, rather than than focusing on "protecting" them, you might want to look at enabling them to adapt and capture some of the massive new opportunities out there.
Then there's this rather interesting interpretation of the Constitutional clause that resulted in copyright (you know, the one that's "to promote the progress"). According to Carnes, it's not about promoting the progress, but about raising the standard of living of songwriters:
"At least the [Congressional] Members I have talked to understand that the Constitution includes provisions for royalties for creators because without them the quality of life suffers."Interesting. Makes you wonder why Congress didn't mandate full protection for telegraph and phone operators when technologies changed how those professions worked as well. After all, I'm sure -- temporarily -- those workers saw their quality of life decline. But, of course, we all know that eventually, their quality of life improved greatly, thanks to all of the wonderful things enabled by those new technologies.
Then Carnes goes on to rip on basically everyone else for causing problems for songwriters -- never once recognizing that maybe the problem is that the rest of the world has moved on, while he and his group haven't even tried. He blames the record labels (well, we agree on that one), every internet service out there (not kidding: "I am not a fan of any particular online company since I have had to spend the last three years of my life fighting them...."), and, of course, Google: "I am not a fan of Google because I believe their search algorithm reduces all art to the lowest common denominator. That's a real culture-killer if I ever saw one."
Yup, hand this man one of the greatest tools for promoting, discovering and distributing new music for songwriters, and he hates it. It's a "culture-killer." Actually, what he really means is that it's a killer of legacy structures, and apparently he'd rather not recognize what it enables, but will complain about what it's taken away.
Carnes goes on to complain (again) about certain business models that don't work for songwriters (concerts, t-shirts), again apparently not creative enough to recognize the scarcities offered by songwriters, and then comes my favorite part:
The most infuriating thing about being lectured to by anti-copyright groups about how songwriters need to get a new 'business plan' is who gave them the right to tell us how to make a living? Who are they to say we shouldn't fight to defend our rights? In truth, I find their suggestions are unbelievably arrogant and self-serving.This is a common complaint that we hear, and I'd like to address it head on, because it's 100% strawman, and it needs to be debunked and discarded. No one is telling them they "need" to get a new business plan. All we're doing is (a) explaining the changes in the economic and technological landscape and (b) explaining how that opens up new possibilities and (c) noting that if they choose (and it's their choice) not to adjust, they're going to be in trouble. The problem is that part (c) is happening, and rather than recognizing part (a) and (b) they're lashing out at those of us who tried to show them that there is a better way. If it's self-serving to show songwriters and musicians better ways to make a living and warning them that fundamental changes in the marketplace mean the old way can't survive, then so be it. But it's not, as Carnes and others (including Sheffner) seem to believe, an attempt to harm musicians. Songwriters don't need to change at all, but then they'll go out of business. The problem is that Carnes wants to blame everyone else -- including those who tried to suggest a better way. No good deed goes unpunished, of course.
I'm sure buggy whip makers were upset, as well, when people suggested they needed a new business model, but how many of us are really that upset about the diminished buggy whip industry these days?
Both Castle and Carnes take separate turns to suggest that anyone who's never put out a song shouldn't be allowed to comment on the matter at all -- which I'd argue could (again) easily be flipped around. Those who have never bothered to understand basic economics shouldn't be allowed to comment on business models either. Musicians are free to talk about music -- and I'd never try talking about what makes a great song, since that's not my area of expertise -- but it's somewhat ridiculous to claim that only musicians understand the economics that impact music creation. Besides -- as we've seen from our own Blaise Alleyne and Adam Singer -- there are plenty of real musicians who do, in fact, recognize the power of these issues.
And, finally, Carnes' big finale is quoting a totally unnamed "real economist" who claimed that "nothing competes with free." I could come up with a pretty long list of of examples showing musicians and songwriters who have, in point of fact, successfully competed with free and earned millions doing so. But, why let reality seep into a discussion when some unnamed "real economist" says it's impossible. But, if Carnes and Castle apparently only take lessons from real economists, rather than reality (which, of course, goes against what they said earlier in their discussion), I'd be more than willing to point them to various real economists who have shown how to compete with free -- including our most recent Nobel Prize winner.
So, of course, now that we have both real world examples and "real economists" showing how it works, I'm sure Carnes and Castle will admit that perhaps they were a little closed-minded? Or... maybe not. Cognitive dissonance will probably seep in and we'll hear about how economists don't know anything, but only real songwriters can comment on it. Well, okay, let's go back and look at the songwriters who, rather than whining and complaining about times gone by, actually bothered to understand basic economics and do something about it. How about Corey Smith, who not only figured out how to "compete with free" but figured out how to use free to make $4.2 million last year.
And then there's Trent Reznor. He figured out how to make $1.6 million in a single week for music he gave away under that "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con" of a Creative Commons license. And, you know what? It didn't even involve t-shirts or concerts. But, you know, according to Carnes, Castle and Sheffner, that's impossible. And, we're all thieves or something. Now, Reznor and Smith are both performers as well as songwriters, but both employ a number of folks to help them do what they do (managers, tech guys, other musicians, etc.). If you're bringing in that much money "competing with free" I'd imagine spending some of it on songwriting help (for those who need it, of course) isn't that big a stretch, is it? Reality's a bitch, sometimes, ain't it?
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
Filed Under: ben sheffner, business models, chris castle, copyright, rick carnes, songwriters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wonderful post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
assholes
We called them "assholes".
sorry if that doesn't raise the intellectual level of this whole discussion but I thought I'd just throw that one in there to get things started. 'kay?
'kay....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rats, here I go again...
You have to stop writing posts that I generally agree with. I am going to start getting a reputation as anti-copyright, which is untrue.
The market has already changed. I recently discovered that BMG Music, the people that essentially took over Columbia record club (then Columbia House, and Play, and who remembers what else), is going away. CD sales continue to drop (though old timer that I am, I still buy them). They may make a long, slow decline to nothingness as electronic media and storage get cheaper and better.
What I find annoying is that there is currently no one, either on the radio or on the internet, that adequately caters to my music taste, and I suspect the music tastes of many others (read, business opportunity awaits). I would love to find a music site that lets me "try before you buy" that categorizes music into nice genres I can explore and hear samples (or whole songs, as a teaser), like my favorite, progressive rock. The market has been ripe for expanded internet offerings of music for a while now, and yet very few people are exploiting those opportunities. I do not count iTurds or whatever they call themselves. I do not have an iPod or subscribe to iTunes or iAnything, and probably never will.
While I am sad that music is not as accessible in some ways as it once was, what saddens me more is the best artists get insufficient exposure on corporate controlled media that cater to mediocrity (American Idol flavor of the season, anyone?). What saddens me most is the apparent lack of entrepreneurship in music on the internet. Yes, some artists are doing it, but an insufficient number to have a real affect, so far.
Can someone please point me to a web site where I can hear great new progressive rock groups and buy their music on CD? Please? Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
"What saddens me most is the apparent lack of entrepreneurship in music on the internet. Yes, some artists are doing it, but an insufficient number to have a real affect, so far."
I think that may be the overall point of Mike's article. Because of Castle, Carnes, and other crones, signed artists aren't allowed to use the Internet to it's full potential. And they even convince some of the not signed people that the Internet is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pandora.com
I don't know if pandora.com sells CD's but you can certainly try before you buy. I listen to all kinds of bands that I've never heard of. Yes, just like the internet, there's lots of garbage available but there's always some golden nuggets in there to pick up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
If you're _really_ picky about what you like (as I am), try this too:
http://playground.last.fm/multitag
Lets you type in as many 'tags' as you want to search for music that fits those categories. Quite nice to play around with. And once you build up a profile (many music players can upload what you play to the site - I even have my iPod uploading) it'll start giving you recommendations. The best (IMO) is the 'neighbor radio' station, because that will look for other people that listen to the same stuff you do and play whatever else they like. Works quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
Amazon of all places. DRM-free too, if I am not mistaken.
Or perhaps CDBaby, who uses longer free samples and even carried a South African indie band I used to work with.
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
Well, I personally had not heard music I wanted to buy on the radio since the 70s. However, I wanted to comment about your problem.
The first has to do with advertising. I remember reading an article about how people over 40 were the largest buyers of music in CD format, ba overwhelming wide margin. However, in terms of advertising dollars, that same market was at the bottom in dollars spent.
Of course someone in the advertising industry was asked why the the largest group of CD buyers were mostly ignored by the music industry. That someone responded with complete BS: the musical tastes of those over 40 is too diverse. But of course the fact that advertisers are not telling those over 40 what to listen to will cause them to search out and find their own music, which necessarily will lead to diverse tastes among the entire group. So that response is nonsense. To put it another way, there used to be (and still are) plenty of soda bottlers. The reason the vast majority of soda drinkers focus on either Coke or Pepsi products is due solely to advertising focusing their tastes.
The real reason advertisers ignore those over 40 is because the entire advertising industry is geared towards the young. Way back in the 60s advertisers started to gear to the "new" youth market. They started hiring younger copy writers. Then they started using even younger interns.
It's a simple fact that a 20 year old has no fricken clue how to create an ad for someone in his 40s. (Much in the same way that someone in his 40s had no clue how to advertise to a 20 year old back in the 60s.) To summarize, despite the fact that those over 40 have the most disposable income, we're also compeltely ignored by the vast majority of advertisers.
"Can someone please point me to a web site where I can hear great new progressive rock groups and buy their music on CD? Please? Anyone?"
For most of the 80s and 90s I bought music based on word of mouth from my friends. One of them would hear about some new band and pass it on to everyone else. In the early 90s I went to law school and couldn't hang out with freinds. Accordingly, I stopped buying music because I was not exposed to new music.
Napster (the original) changed that. Because you were downloading from one person (as opposed to hundreds as you are with bittorrent) you could check out his or her share folder for new music. Basically, if he was downnloading Fishbone from you, maybe there is something he has that you'd like. Suddenly I was being exposed to new music and started buying CDs again. That basically ended with Napster's death.
I wish there was a similar program that would help me buy music, but unfortuntely the music industry killed it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rats, here I go again...
You are so right. If the artist is anything other than a mega seller like Hannah Montana (just put me out of my misery now, please) or any of the other cookie cutter teen bands that NO ONE remembers five years later, it seems that music promoters are uninterested. Too bad. There was a time when artists like The Troggs, Cream, The Kinks, and dozens or hundreds more appealed to relatively small niche markets. Some of these groups went on to become big sellers. Many are now considered classic rock. Many of those considered classic rock were never big sellers, even by the standards of the 60's and 70's. Yet, even lesser known groups are famous because their music is enduring and different, especially from the commercial garbage foisted on us today.
I would buy a lot more CD's (yes, I am over 40), but it is tough to find good ones, and I have already bought most of the classic rock I wanted (though I could easily buy another couple hundred CD's of classic rock and other music, if it was readily available).
The old line music industry may be targeting the market that buys the most of any one CD or downloads of particular songs, but they are missing huge portions of the market (like me).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect
Actually you can do that esily in DC++ : just right click on an any user name and select Get file list .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
A little bit of a personal story in the event that the RIAA finds its way here. Once upon a time, I illegally downloaded music by a band called Lacuna Coil. It just so happened that I liked what I heard. I currently own (as in 'I have purchased') 4 CDs by Lacuna Coil.
If only it stopped there! Having been alerted of a band called Nightwish that has a similar sound as Lacuna Coil (even though they are different genres), I downloaded music by them. I have since purchased 6 CDs and a DVD by Nightwish. I then looked for similar artists in Pandora. I have purchased 5 Kamelot CDs, 2 Sonata Arctica CDs, 2 Symphony X CDs, 3 Within Temptation CDs, among many, many others.
What an evil pirate I was. Having discovered what kind of music I like, I now use pandora to find similar artists and, with the advent of Youtube, no longer have a need to pirate music to listen to it before I buy. (I'm sorry, but 30 second clips don't do a song any justice. People who actually understand music know this.)
Also, and this one goes out to the artists themselves: if you have music that isn't available on one of your CDs, please make it available on your website. I'm looking at you, Nightwish: I would like a copy of "While Your Lips Are Still Red".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
@Lonnie: Just a quick one to suggest emusic for your prog rock needs - they have most, if not all, of the Inside Out label's music there (at least, in the UK), amongst various others.
It's MP3 throughout and there's no DRM and it's significantly cheaper than iTunes or Amazon... I've got into more new music through them than any other online venue (though Pandora and Last.FM come close). Basically, at the price, it encourages you to try bands you've never heard of (with my subscription, I pay about 18p per track - about a quarter in USD).
Just don't expect to see Dream Theater there any time soon...
Cheers
--
Stuart Wood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rats, here I go again...
I'd recommend AmieStreet.com. They have a lot of quality indie bands on there (as well as the usual assortment of garbage, but I guess it's all a matter of taste). Unlike iTunes, Amie Street's songs are in non-DRMed MP3 files.
Amie Street is using one of those "new business models" that I'm sure Carnes thinks is impossible. Songs start out free. As people buy them, they rise in price to 98 cents. So you can either take a chance on a free/low cost song or stick with proven, popular, more expensive songs.
If you'd like, you can e-mail me and I'll send you an invite. (I believe that an invite gets you free credits for buying songs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-------------------------------
Your actions are what's killing the music industry. There are people like me who boycott the RIAA and major labels, choosing to buy either direct from the artist, independent sites like eMusic and AmieStreet or literally just go without.
10 years ago, I didn't care which label my CD was distributed by. Now, if I see an RIAA label on it, I ignore it. Not pirate it. Not "borrow" it. Not stream it. I pretend it doesn't exist and I look for other sources of music. Usually the music is of higher quality - I would much rather listen to Cheryl B. Engelhardt than Britney Spears any day of the week, and guess which one has the "professional" songwriters that are so promoted by the majors?
For every "pirate" you claim to despite, there's many people like me who - consciously or not - have opted to avoid the major labels and listen to something better instead. Some do this by ignoring new music and listening to their old CDs. Some don't buy and listen to radio or podcasts. Some pirate. Whatever they choose, the current action being taken do nothing to help the industry, and it will just get worse unless "professionals" start changing the way they do business.
Music will be around forever. The "right" to make money from a piece of work you made 50 years ago will disappear or become irrelevant. I fail to see the problem with this, and *I'm* one of the people you're supposedly trying to convince to pay you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, seeing everything in black and white, without shades of gray, must be truly gratifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MLS, even for you, you seem to have reached a new low in trolling today. In almost every post you are simply trashing me, sarcastically saying something similar to the point above, without ever actually offering a single point to refute.
This shows, once again, that you are simply lying when you claim (as you have repeatedly in the past) that you only comment to add facts to the debate, and that you never stoop to insults.
Of course, these days, you do insult, but you do so anonymously. It's not difficult to figure out who you are though.
If you have something substantive to add, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Instead, you simply swing by, insult, and leave. And you were the one accusing the "younger generation" of having no morals? Take a look in the mirror, Mr. Slonecker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am equally confident that Mr. Sheffner and Mr. Castle will be quite pleased to learn that their comments engendered much amusement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
MLS, I'm assuming you missed the point where we actually explained *WHY* they were being economically clueless. Unlike you who stopped by with a blanket insult backed up by nothing.
For someone who repeatedly accused us of misstating things, it's amusing to watch you try to justify your blanket insults based on nothing.
I back up my statements. Would be lovely if you tried doing the same sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a new business model for songwriters
2. Sell it
3. Repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is a new business model for songwriters
1. Sell service to write song
2. Write song
3. Repeat
I admit that getting started will involve a lot of "write song" first, but that's true of anyone trying to get started in a work-for-hire profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is a new business model for songwriters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here is a new business model for songwriters
Sure, it's extremely simplified. But I don't think it's inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a new business model for songwriters
Heck, isn't that how many artists get started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am pleased you liked it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How gratifying it must be to be an expert in every field of creative endeavor, and to find amusing the opinions of others who express concerns that run afoul of your "economics altar".
Yes, seeing everything in black and white, without shades of gray, must be truly gratifying."
I believe that he is actually commenting about what Castle and Carnes said, not what Mike said.
What Mike said is a vary wide scale of gray and what C&C said is vary much black and white. We are ether on their side or on the pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't even mind when other sites rip off the site and repost all the articles (with or without attribution) because sooner or later everyone reading those sites figures out that Techdirt is the real source and comes here. Mike's said this many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get paid --once
I am talented at what I do. Songwriters are talented at what they do (Well, some of them are. Some of them write the mediocre blather that the labels promote.)
I don't understand why songwriters think their great grandchildren should be getting paid for their work. But the reality is that the songwriters are not the ones getting paid in most casts. In most cases they sold their rights to the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I get paid --once
The other problem is that it's hard to put a value on a song before it's written. When you wire a sound system, the deal is basically that if you do it the way they want and it works, you get paid $x. That'd be like telling an artist that if they write a song and it sells over x copies, they get $y. But it's quite difficult to track sales if everyone is distributing their own copies. And it's difficult to monetize them.
But then, perhaps we shouldn't be paying for creativity at all. I mean, why should we pay for something that really has no cost of production?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I get paid --once
2) You're right, it needs to be much shorter.
3) The fact that some people have trouble figuring out how to make their business model works is not a good reason to enforce artificial monopolies.
4) Perhaps we shouldn't be worrying about how to enforce copyright when it's becoming ever more clear that creativity with continue with or without it. When the purpose of copyright law will be satisfied even if the laws are abolished... why do we still have those laws? Are they needed at all? I'm not sure. It's an academic point since they're obviously not going away any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and great article Mike. I hope we see Castle and Carnes in the comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because I'm sick of having to point to bands I don't really like (Radiohead and NIN) as examples of free working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 shay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer to this is simple: If you don't want to be lectured, stop asking for help. Solve your problem yourself.
In other words, once you ask the government, ISPs, or anyone else to help protect your outdated business model, we have the right to tell you to go to heck.
Some don't tell you to go to heck and will instead politely and intelligently give the music industry some alternatives that do not involve government protection of an outdated business model.
The fact that the music industry is annoyed by this help is in itself highly annoying. Once again, the fact that your business model is dead is not my problem. It's not the government's problem. It's not Google's problem. And it's certainly not my ISP's problem.
Fix it yourself or die trying. On the other hand, if you ask the world for help, expect the world to have opinions on how to best help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not anti-copyright, but I do think that it has been taken by some far beyond what is necessary to protect songwriters and is used instead to fill the coffers of some in the "music industry."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we get really upset, we may even darn you and the horse you came in on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
stealing is wrong and there are plenty of artists impacted.
your constant comparison to the telegraph and telephone dont really get the job done. Nice article though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
stealing is wrong and there are plenty of artists impacted.
your constant comparison to the telegraph and telephone dont really get the job done
I would argue that the telegraph and telephone comparisons are quite apt. That's because the issue isn't about "stealing" as you claim, but about how net technologies change the market place. In one case, it's that operators aren't needed to handle direct dial any more, and in the other it's because traditional distribution methods (plastic discs) aren't needed to distribute music any more. Both moves totally changed the economics of those industries.
But, your point about "stealing" is a total red herring. It's not stealing, first of all. No one is missing anything. It's copying, and potentially infringement. There's a big difference. And considering that we've been showing example after example after example after example of musicians figuring out how to make more money by embracing it, to claim that artists are "impacted" is pretty silly, don't you think? The only reason they're impacted is because *they* choose not to do anything to change with the market. Just like telephone operators who lost their job and didn't join the modern technology revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
stealing is wrong and there are plenty of artists impacted.
As much of a simplistic moron that I am (I realize I don't contribute much to the discussion on this site) at least I can recognize the fact that no one is giving the thumbs up to "stealing". Yet people like yourself continue to insist that anti-copyright proponents are all for theft.
Piracy simply is. You're NOT going to guilt people into buying something that they can steal anonymously. You're NOT going to find a magic bullet solution in the form of hardware or software protection/DRM. You certainly can't prosecute millions of folks from all corners of the globe. And the part that people like yourself just don't grasp is that you can whine about it, scream about it, break down in hysterics, write endless rants in your blog.....it won't change.
or...
You can try to change the game and work around it by finding new ways to extract income from your work. I'm pretty sure people like the attorneys who are the subject of Mikes deconstruction know this and are simply afraid to face their inevitable demise. Piracy will also become redundant as well once musicians understand that the day of advances from big publishers are over. They can reap the rewards of their work themselves without the need of an army of lawyers who are supposedly there to "protect" the musician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
The problem is that the *lawyers* are the ones calling the shots. They're telling the music industry that pirating music is bad because it means less revenue (which is easy for the music industry to understand) and they're telling the music industry that there are laws that can protect them. The *lawyers* are basically keeping themselves employed. These alternative business models don't threaten the artists, they don't even threaten the record labels, which can still have a role in promoting artists, they threaten the *lawyers*. The lawyers are simply PROTECTING THEMSELVES.
Even if we (incorrectly) assume for a second that the lawyers have the music industry's best interests at heart, their specialisation is *law*, not economics, and not business. They choose litigation because that's what they know and are comfortable with. They don't understand economics or business sense, so they avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
stealing is wrong and there are plenty of artists impacted.
this isn't about right or wrong. it's about the fact that you can't stop what's happening. it's happening now and it will continue to happen to a greater and greater extent.
if you think downloading is wrong, then don't do it. if you think you can stop it, then make your move. unless you are willing to put a bullet between the eyes of every downloader on the planet, i guarantee you that it won't work.
stop wasting your time and, in the case with the RIAA, stop wasting money on tactics that don't work.
suing people won't work, blocking P2P traffic won't work, digital rights management won't work, and filling up blog comments about how downloading is wrong won't work either.
people don't buy CD's in the quantities that they used to, and the quantities that are being sold at will continue to diminish until the CD is specialty relic for enthusiasts, just like vinyl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all BS
It's incredibly arrogant to assume that only "professional writers" make write good songs. Because most of the cr*p on the air today is from "professional" writers. I know... I'm a DJ... I hear it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was in a band...
We sold our CDs for $5 a piece, and hosted mp3s on our website for free. We made enough money to take care of our CD sales and pay for some of our equipment. So why the hell can't the recording industry manage selling $20 CDs and not distributing free copies online? Production isn't that expensive. It really isn't. Once you get the appropriate microphones and amps, all you really need is any old computer with a bunch of spare soundcards shoved into it. While yes, most bands use setups much more complex than that, professional recordings have been done on _much_ less (look up 'Heavenshore Studios'). There's no reason for anything that complex.
Part of the problem is this belief that you need the best equipment and experts and years of time to make a decent recording. The stuff that they used 20 years ago you could probably get now for $50, and any artist with moderate intelligence could probably figure out on their own. It was good enough then, it's good enough now. Grab an old computer with some extra soundcards, wire everything into that and get some decent recording software and you can make a high quality recording in a couple days at most. We don't need million dollar recording studios, we don't need million dollar sound guys. We don't need huge assembly lines cranking out CDs. We don't need massive marketing departments. We don't need full-time artists. Some of my favorite bands have other jobs. They still tour worldwide, and they still produce good music. They do it for the art, not for the money. And there's no reason with modern technology for the massive infrastructure of the record industry and the huge associated costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was in a band...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was in a band...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was in a band...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I was in a band...
http://www.gatewaymastering.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks...
I dislike Amazon for recommendations because they are somewhat incoherent in terms of genre. Part of that may be because I buy and look at too many genres.
Lastly, thanks to the person who pointed out Mike's characterization of the buggy whip industry; it was correct!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avast ye, matey!
I'm on a mission which has nothing to do with artists, but the very industry they signed with. My mission is simple: recoup the thousands of dollars I've spent on music in my lifetime for tracks I did not want.
I'm going to continue this quest until 500,000 songs are in my library, giving not one red cent to the recording industry. And best of all, I don't feel an ounce of guilt doing it.
I don't feel I'm taking anything away from an artist who contracts with the recording industry. That's their bed they must lie in. All the issues with the recording industry has nothing to do with me, except when it comes to actually buying music. Let them whine (as they have for the past 20 years) about their "royalties and payments" they expect. You greedy asses don't deserve my hard earned cash if you feel $10 million just isn't enough.
So, to all those out there who continue offering music to the world, thank you. I hope you remain under the radar to stay out of RIAA's grasp and continue with much success.
It's about time consumers fight back and the fact they can do so without supporting an industry that's screwed them for decades keeps me happy.
So, RIAA (and other moronic copyright defenders), go screw yourselves. You will never, ever, ever receive another dime from me again. I'd rather go without music than cater to your greed and creative stifling.
As for Castle and Carnes, you two have to be so mentally challenged, for you to contradict yourselves with your very blogs is appalling to anyone who actually takes the time to read your spouting crap.
If either of you two had any clue, I would consider trying to understand your arguments, but alas, you spit rhetoric which is inaccurate and misleading. I'll break it down for you to understand: you can not put a price on an idea, and that's exactly what copyright does.
But obviously, you two feel you can. I'll keep this in mind the next time you use the ideals of those who created the internet to give you a website to which you can spit your crap out but yet you pay nothing to them to use.
When Tim Berners-Lee notifies me you two has sent him millions for his idea, which was done without copyright by the way, I'll be more likely to take your side.
Until then, STFU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Avast ye, matey!
Why stop there? Why not go back to the ARPANET and its precursors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed this...
"The real role of songwriters in the music business is to add meaning to people’s lives.
That is not a job you want to leave to amateurs. It is a job for professionals. "
That's it, I'm divorcing my wife and finding myself a professional. I think I'll have a more meaningful life that way.
Sorry to be snide, but, seriously, how can they possibly think that the meaning in peoples lives only comes (or best comes) from professional efforts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed this...
Meanwhile, there are thousands of talented "amateurs" who simply lack the same exposure as they do, because the "professionals" traditionally hold all the promotional cards. That's changing, they're scared so they become defensive and pretend that their services are vital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get to the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a life
By the way, which of these Gershwin public domain songs should I listen to for an hour?
An American in Paris
The Man I Love
Of Thee I Sing
Piano Concerto
Porgy and Bess
3 Preludes
Rhapsody in blue
Rialto Ripples Rag
I Got Rhythm
The International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP.org) makes money by giving away public domain music scores (over 25,000 scores in the library). But wait, it's been 'proven' that you can't compete with free! It must be magic, or maybe just a different kind of business plan.
Their stated goals are: "The ultimate goal of the IMSLP is to gather all public domain music scores, in addition to the music scores of all contemporary composers who wish to release them to the public free of charge. However, another main goal of IMSLP is to facilitate the exchange of musical ideas outside of compositions: for example, the analysis of a particular piece of music. We hope to build a growing community of dedicated musicians and music lovers, who can use this site as a platform for enjoying music. "
This isn't exactly a huge money making scheme, but they do pay the bills when people buy scarcities like paper copies of the scores or books from links they have to Yahoo! Imagine that, giving away unlimited goods and making money from scarcities. Who would have thought it was possible? They also link to recordings of the scores and get paid when people buy the recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
In fact, if you look at both the history and current issues involving the recording industry you find countless examples of record labels exploiting musician's lack of understanding economics for their own financial gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where to find free music?
Where can I get some free music? And I don't mean free as a beer, I mean free as not related to guys who want the whole world to turn back just because they are not able to adapt - I want them to starve to death so I am not going to buy anything produced by a big label backed up by RIAA.
I would love to have some internet radio with some recommendation engine - you were talking about Pandora but Pandora is not available outside USA (and I think it's because of licensing... so it is not free music either)... do you know about any place where I could listen to free music easily? I don't have time to go over MySpace looking for good bands.
Thank you for your tips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where to find free music?
I hope a huge backlash arises if these creeps get their way. I will boycott all these companies!
I suspect that while all these lawyers and companies are busy twisting copyright to suit their needs, Chinese people and companies who have grown up with "piracy" and figured out how to live with it and make money, will come over here and eat their lunch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriters who don't perform
I'm having trouble seeing how they would succeed without the copyright lottery.
If you're an acclaimed songwriter, you could sell commissioned works to artists.
If you're a startup songwriter, you could give away songs to artists hoping they'll commission something later, and that could make money, but I don't see that as a real solution.
Or it could be that songwriters who don't perform really just won't succeed. Do we really need a market that pays songwriters for not performing? Most (good) artists write their own stuff, and there are songwriters willing to do work for free. Maybe that's enough for that particular market.
I've always wondered about this particular question, and after reading all this, I still don't see much of an answer. It seems like Mike is alluding to commissioned work (scarce time and skill), but is that all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Songwriters who don't perform
Just because you have trouble seeing it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to succeed.
If you're a startup songwriter, you could give away songs to artists hoping they'll commission something later, and that could make money, but I don't see that as a real solution.
Curious. How does a "startup songwriter" get noticed nowadays with the "copyright lottery"? How would it be any different without copyright?
Or it could be that songwriters who don't perform really just won't succeed. Do we really need a market that pays songwriters for not performing? Most (good) artists write their own stuff, and there are songwriters willing to do work for free. Maybe that's enough for that particular market.
There's that, but I actually think that there would be strong demand for good songwriters as well. It need not be "commissioned" work. What's wrong with salaried work? As we keep showing, there are numerous business models around music that bring in plenty of money. It's not difficult to see how a label could employ songwriters for its artists that need such help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Songwriters who don't perform
Also, it's important to note that commissioned works don't mean only writing songs for other recording artists. A lot of songwriters I know make quite a bit of their money writing original compositions for film and television.
I got into this sort of debate with a local songwriter last summer and he kept coming back to the point that "if artists aren't making money from their music, how are they supposed to have the money to pay session musicians or songwriters?" Once you realize that the premise of the question is false (artists are making money, with the right type of business model), then it seems clear that so long as artists need the services of songwriters or session musicians, there will be a market there.
Plus... some artists embrace the economic aspect without embracing free culture. For example, Trent Reznor is a shining example of these business models in practice, but he uses a CC BY-NC-SA license, which still remains some rights given to him by copyright (e.g. he can collect performance royalties for radio airplay, people can't sell his music).
I admit that the non-performing songwriter is a bit of a tricky case for me too, but if there's a demand for the service there will be a market and there will be some way that someone will figure out to make it work. The efforts of all these "protectors" of songwriters to insist that that way must involve copyright is doing songwriters everywhere a real disservice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Songwriters who don't perform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I am sure those who support copyright twisting will no doubt see some "flaw"in your write-up.
What I would love to see though, is an open debate on youtube between copyright holders and the people, such as yourself, that are trying to show them why they are hurting not only themselves, but different industries as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's wrong with "contingent payment" work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing. If the market will support that. And the evidence suggests it won't for much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Masnick,
Your post is generally thorough and poignant. However, you miss the mark widely with the following blow:
Carnes is clearly talking about the quality of life for society, not just the creators' own quality of life as you imply. He is saying that society has a vested interest in encouraging creativity, which motivates Congressional protections. Justified or not, it's a more interesting and nuanced position than you give him credit for. You do yourself a disservice in setting up and attacking the straw man of constitutionally protecting telegraph and phone operators from job cuts.
Carnes and crew have offered up a ridiculously easy target in the rest of their words... there's no need to misrepresent this particular quote for cheap points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL - Just looking from my desk right this second...
My office offers free coffee and yet, everyday I see lines of people from the office in line for Tim Hortons coffee across the hall. Same with water fountain all over the place. Yet hundreds of bottles of water are sold every day on this campus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over 40
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try selling quality rather than so loud.
The music industry tried to pitch the Super Audio Compact Disk because they claimed that the quality of the sound reproduced by an SACD Player was better than a standard CD. Because of the amount of compression used on most recordings a listener cannot tell the difference between the quality of an SACD a CD or an MP3.
One has to go back to classical music or popular music played by skilled musicians when the quality of the performance was the key to success. Most listeners are satisfied with MP3's which clearly cannot produce the same resolution of even an ordinary CD.
The music industry's new business model should use downloaded MP3's as samplers to give listeners an incentive to purchase music on high quality media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...they simply look at one or two business models being used by some (t-shirts! concerts!) and insist that's really all there is."
I think the main reason people have a tough time accepting "the new way" is precisely this: there is no one-size-fits-all model in the new scheme of things. And that is scary for a whole lot of people: earlier things were much simpler - there was one way of doing things, you just had to join the queue. There was one bandwagon to the pot o' gold and you only had to hop on to it. Now there are hundreds of roads, and each one driving his own vehicle. Which road do you take?
With this Internet thingy and all, each one has to craft a business model that suits him, which is a lot more hard work and one that may or may not pay off. The future's uncertain, the end is always near - and that's freaking out a lot of people.
"It's not that difficult to figure out how this works, if you look at a few other industries that employ "writers" and realize that songwriting can be compensated in much the same way."
Surely you should know that monetization is not all that easy, especially when "writing" differs greatly from industry to industry. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that songwriters can be compensated the same way as, say, textbook writers, or screenplay writers.
"Eventually, phone technology reached a point where we could all make those connections ourselves, putting lots of phone operators out of work..."
I disagree with that example. You're talking about tech obsolescence, he's talking about how tech is making, or threatening to make, a totally unrelated set of people and their job obsolete.
"Interesting. Makes you wonder why Congress didn't mandate full protection for telegraph and phone operators when technologies changed how those professions worked as well."
There you go aain! These professions are not creative endeavours...there's always the danger of a machine replacing a few hundred people, it's a given. But no machine can replace a creative person...however, what it CAN do is take away the traditional source of income.
"I'm sure buggy whip makers were upset, as well, when people suggested they needed a new business model, but how many of us are really that upset about the diminished buggy whip industry these days?"
I have to disagree again. Buggy whip makers were forced to change their business, not their business model - because no "new" business model would have saved their asses. It's time you started using a new analogy.
"Those who have never bothered to understand basic economics shouldn't be allowed to comment on business models either."
What about people who do understand basic economics, but who also realize that doing business and succeeding in it involves a whole lot of other things too. Shouldn't they be allowed to comment too?
Basic economics has been around for some time now, at least the whole of the 20th century, when a great many creative people were making a lot of money. Didn't they understand basic economics?
"But, why let reality seep into a discussion when some unnamed "real economist" says it's impossible."
Perhaps it is impossible for some, and not all, people to compete with free. I'd like to know what your take is: do you believe absolutely everyone and everything can compete with free? Or let's word it this way: is it at all possible, in your opinion, that there may be some who cannot compete with free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SGA
Are the SFWA writers just more in tune with current tech? Or are the SGA members more divorced from their leadership?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriter copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Songwriter copyright
If artists like Trent Reznor and Issa and Coulton etc. can make money with new business models (which may or may not involve touring), then they will have the money to pay session musicians and songwriters. Most session musicians, at least, get paid for their time anyways. If artists can make money who need to hire songwriters and session musicians, then songwriters and session musicians can get hired. If artists aren't making money, they might want to reconsider basing their business models on copyright.
I think you're confusing royalties and salaries. Copyright pays people for what they've already done, whereas a salaray pays someone to do work.
You seem confused. Do you pay Godin every time you play their guitar? My guess is no, yet copyright demands that a songwriter gets paid every time someone uses their song.
Making a one-time purchase to acquire something or have it created (where it's a guitar, or a new song you've commissioned for your new film) is quite different from having to pay every time you use something.
That's why people are increasingly paying less attention to copyright law. You simply can't use a computer and not run afoul of it.
Copyright law isn't becoming increasing irrelevant because people are being "doctrinaire," but rather, Mike is simply explaining why it's becoming irrelevant.
You are completely mistaking an explanation for the cause. Mike's ideas are powerful, but not that powerful as to change the nature of economics and digital goods!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not another John Philip Sousa!
Many people at the time complained about recording technology as a form of "stealing". They failed to see at first the new business models it enabled. All they saw as the end of live performances, with which they made their living! They wanted their old ways protected! Fast forward 100 years and, surprise surprise, new technologies came along and many want the old ways protected.
For a long time the technology for recording music, and making copies of those records, was not available to the public. The business model of selling copies of recordings made a lot of sense, and it was of great value to music lovers. Even when cassette tapes came along, cost and quality concerns limited their threat to that business model.
But now we have the internet, which allows infinite perfect digital copies at perceived zero cost. Selling copies is no longer a business model with much value. Instead of demanding protection to the old models, to the detriment of the online freedoms and rights of the rest of the world, creators must once again find new business models that do have VALUE. That's how business works!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters
Unfortunately, if that IS where we wind up after everything shakes out, performers who can't write and writers who can't perform will be left out of the mix. And, those are the people that currently provide majority of the music consumers are interested in obtaining.
So, while consumers may be demanding what they want today ... unobstructed access to music without compensating its creators - they eventually will not be getting what they actually want tomorrow ... the high quality musical variety we have today.
We all need to consider the long term unintended consequences of getting to the outcome you present as inevitable. There are rational options to your slash and burn point of view. All of us should be looking for ways to embrace them... for the good of our musical future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters
Moreover, think about it for a second: there are performers who can't write and writers who can't perform. Uhh, hello? As long as performers who can't write are able to perform, they'll employ writers who can't perform. I apologise if I'm having trouble wording this explanation, but it just seems so OBVIOUS.
Actually, this presents the PERFECT opportunity for a networking site that links performers and writers (I'm not patenting this idea, go ahead and make it happen).
Even better, some performers who can't write may be able to interface with fans who can write.
In the end, these alternate solutions may actually be BETTER for the industry than the current model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters
ah, wrong. THAT is what the industry has been shoving down out collective throats for 40 odd years now. Internet radio showed that many, many folks want something fresh, new and different but the industry is doing everything it can to shut down net radio mainly because their member clients aren't part of that scene. There are are countless groups and individuals making music....good music....without the help of professional hacks churning out shiite like Britney Spears, JayZ and the like. The "industry" has had a choke-hold on regulating what we listen to for years (via radio, retail, MTV/VH1, etc) and now we're all supposed to feel bad about their money pipeline now that they have painted themselves into a corner?
Fuck 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters
Unfortunately, if that IS where we wind up after everything shakes out, performers who can't write and writers who can't perform will be left out of the mix. And, those are the people that currently provide majority of the music consumers are interested in obtaining.
Did you not read the last paragraph? That's simply not true.
So, while consumers may be demanding what they want today ... unobstructed access to music without compensating its creators - they eventually will not be getting what they actually want tomorrow ... the high quality musical variety we have today.
Did you not read the entire post? THEY ARE COMPENSATING creators. They're just doing it in a different way than they used to.
You make little sense when you state something that goes 100% against what I actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the ending
The quote: "I find their suggestions are unbelievably arrogant and self-serving." I just have to say he seems like an incredible arrogant and self-serving SOB imo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gorilla in the songwriter's room
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've got to fight for our right to... make $$ from the creators!
Uhh, who's arrogant and self-serving? Aren't these guys the lawyers? "We" should defend "our" rights? Man, these guys are deluded! Is there anybody out there that believes the recording industry is trying to "help" artists? Please.
Sounds like it's okay when THEY tell artists how to make a living, but no one else better make any suggestions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your definition of stealing?
No matter how you rationalize it, this is stealing. period.
Also, the phone operater analogy in the article is flawed. No one ever stole free operater-assisted calls, they found better alternatives. In the case of music, the actual object that is being offered for sale - not a substitute - is being stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your definition of stealing?
Notice that the explanation you give sounds a lot like a description of competition. Getting something from somewhere else isn't stealing. If it involves unauthorized copying, however, it may be copyright infringement. You still have the thing you were trying to sell. If it were stolen, you wouldn't have it anymore.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Yes, it's still copyright infringement, and that's illegal, but it's not stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poverty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The poor poor songwriters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]