No Musicians Have Ever Been Guaranteed To Make Money Selling Music
from the let's-get-rid-of-this-myth dept
Another day, another "pundit" takes a righteous stand about the music business dealing with "thieves," but gets the whole story wrong again. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous alerted us to a writeup by a reporter/analyst, Ellen Ratner, entitled simply "stop stealing from artists," which discusses a musician friend who apparently is suffering because "She can't be guaranteed that what she records or performs will be compensated." Can someone point out when anyone was ever "guaranteed" compensation for recording a song?Also, as the anonymous submitter pointed out, the artist in question seems to be doing just fine on her site, with a list of tour dates, and a merchandise site that includes some unique items (signed concert poster, handmade cowboy hats) in addition to CDs. Basically, she's like pretty much any musician both now and in the past, who has every opportunity to get "compensated," simply by putting in place good business models combined with good music. No one should have a right to compensation if they don't give people a reason to buy.
The rest of the article is a confused jumble of a few different issues, from performance rights, to China, to (seriously) comparing music sharing to copying a book on a photocopier. I can understand how someone approaching these issues for the first time might take such a simplistic view, but it's quite a jump to go from "it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work" to "Congress needs to recognize this and act now." Why? Every musician has numerous business models at his or her disposal to get fair compensation for their work. There's no need for Congress to get involved. What Ratner seems to be saying is that her musicians don't want fair compensation -- they want guaranteed, gov't-backed compensation. In other words, she seems to think the government should be providing welfare for musicians. If that's what you believe, then fine, defend why musicians deserve welfare. But don't claim that musicians have ever been "guaranteed" compensation.
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: business models, guarantees, musicians
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Entitlement
Um, I would not even go so far as to say this. The entitlement mentality in this nation is out of control. No one is entitled to anything. You earn it. It is great to live in a nation capable of providing for it's people when they can't or won't provide for themselves. It's a wonderful privilege and provides peace of mind. But it is not an entitlement. Once upon a time, over 200 years ago, lots of people earned that privilege for us.
People need to quit whining about what they deserve, and go out and get what they want or need, honestly and ethically. Is it hard? Sure, but it is for everyone else, too. Just because this woman wants to make millions, or even a living, from writing music does not mean she is entitled to it. She can, however, take a lot of small steps in the right direction to lead her closer to that goal. Whining is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement
Of course, you have to define "fair". "Fair" is whatever the worker and the employer/consumer agree upon.
And you have to define "compensation". Compensation can be money, favors, bartered services or goods, fame, glory, or something else.
That original statement is fundamental to economics. The "unfair" entitlement only happens when someone misunderstands the words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entitlement
I dunno aboout that, let's look again....
"it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work"
You can charge whatever you want, it doesn't mean people will pay what you charge. You are entitled to set any price you deem fair, but if people don't think it's fair, they won't bite. They'll... just download your stuff. So set a realistic price and expect the money to flow. Conversely, set an unrealistic price and expect more pirating than purchasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entitlement
If she produces something that easily copied, then she should expect competition based upon the complete lack of market entry barriers.
If on the other hand she focused her energies on things that cannot be readily reproduced: like the experience of a live concert, or personalized merchandise, or even a cracker jack type prize in the box, if she can produce something, anything with both intrinsic value AND actual scarcity, then she has the basis for a good business model and a reasonable expectation of earning a profit.
It is not her creativity that is being protected by copyright, but the lack of creativity to do something, anything more than simply recording her precious music onto a shiny plastic disc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entitlement
Yeah, especially the government. What makes them think they're entitled to a portion of my income? And then there's child support payments. What did those little brats ever do to earn a monthly check? Nothing! Yet some judge seems to think that they're somehow "entitled" to it.
Once upon a time, over 200 years ago, lots of people earned that privilege for us.
Back when a man "owned" his children and they weren't "entitled" to anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entitlement
As to taxes, want to try that, again? Yeah, they waste a LOT of our money, but the government isn't saying they're entitled to the money. They're saying 'you want this? You're going to pay for it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way is by sending a e-mail, wich I'll probably do, with a link to this article, if you don't mind Mike.
I find it very sad to see someone pointing a finger to filesharing as the root of evil. By definition, sharing, is an act of kindness, of interest, even of praise.
I'd also like to point the: "There was no Internet and certainly no way to share music files. You simply had to purchase a record, and that was that." because that is absolutely untrue. We shared music cassetes, recorded from friends albums, radio broadcasts, or even direct copies from commercial cassetes. It was different in scope, I grant that, but not in intention and purppose.
This comentator, claims to be a liberal, and be proud of it, and yet... demands government regulation and protection? Maybe I'm confused about what liberals stand for in USA, but I thought freedom was a point.
If Ellen Ratner reads this, please educate yourself and your friend on several other SUCSEFULL business models that have been largely discussed here in this site.
Don't think that because someone shares a copy of your friends records they have stolen her anything, in fact, by doing that, and sharing that copy it is making your friends work reach persons that she wouldn't otherwise reach. Consider it free advertising. Consider it praise. Consider that we only share what we care for.
Please, act as liberal, and use a FREE MIND, instead of corporativistic mumbo-jumbo.
Have a nice one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, both parties stand for "freedom", they differ in how to go about it. Generally, conservatives favor less federal intrusion, more control at the state/local level, and a more market-oriented system. Liberals favor more federal controls, homogenously adopted at the state/local levels, and are more end-consumer oriented. Neither is bad, both have good aspects, and most Amerians believe (I think) that the best approach is somewhere in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have absolutely no political orientation, so my knowledge of the issue is near zero.
I do, however, have a strong community orientation, and sharing is one of my main directives in life.
Maybe that's why I feel so strongly about being called a "pirate" or a "thief".
Anyway, I stand corrected and educated. Thank you. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess we're supposed to buy her $20 CDs based on her looks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will somebody think of the artists?!
If you need the government to step in and enact regulations that ensure you will be compensated for your product than one of two things is likely to be true: A. You are not selling something that people want, or B. You are not selling it in a way that people want to buy it.
This is the case with any industry - music is no different. To suggest that it is just causes it to lose yet more credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S. liberals are generally populist and advocate for the government liberally passing laws and regulations infringing on individuals' rights and freedoms. Conservatives are more on the side of property rights and limited government in theory, but the Republican party has lately been more concerned with legislating morality and exploiting terrorism for increased surveillance and the like.
Anyways, the views of this woman, as hegemon13 pointed out, are emblematic of a more general entitlement complex across the U.S.(and much of the world as well), and not just symptomatic of the music industry apologists. The newspaper industry, as pointed out on techdirt, is making all the same arguments. I also see a lot of commenters online defend the U.S. government's recent actions by claiming that higher taxes and government intervention are necessary to provide them with the things they need, as if the American people are incapable of achieving that on their own without being babied.
This mentality seems somewhat cyclic, and I can only hope that the backlash against this kind of populist shit will come soon. Some people are too stupid or stubborn or lazy or whatever to adapt and make a living for themselves; this woman feels that those people should be rewarded. I say let them eat cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
todays radio..?
and if we like it ,talk about,buy tickets to see them,buy cd's,and mdse.to show what we like..that said we resent the fact that we must spend $17 or so for a cd that has one good song.i tunes is a good answer but as we all know the music co. what that big $17. sale not the $1.29 for one song.radio cost us nothing and now is digital,cd quality.to my mind there is no difference,it's all getting fans to spend money and we do...!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photocopying?
You wrote that Ratner was wrong in "comparing music sharing to copying a book on a photocopier."
Could you give a quick explanation as to what difference you find between someone digitizing and distributing a printed publication and someone doing the same with an audio recording? For example, if I scan a book and distribute the pdf is this different than ripping the author's audiobook cd and distributing the mp3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photocopying?
Well OK, most modern photocopiers are scanners that digitize the image and use it to produce an immediate print output, however they do not store the image for later electronic distribution. If they are storing the digitized image etc, then they are not a photocopier, but a scanner.
I think the issue here is that paper and ink are scarce goods. Therefore photocopying a book is not converting the book into an inifinitely reproducible form (electronic), but converting it to another scarce good composed of paper and ink.
I may be wrong, but thats how I read it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, no on Repub/Demo because BOTH get campaign contributions from the industry, you see. As far as liberal/conservative...well, in theory, BOTH would be against the copyright maximilists, at least in my opinion:
Liberal POV: the common man is getting what he wants for how much he wants to pay for it. Big business certainly isn't starving. We're for it.
Conservative POV: You want to write a law in Washington DC that has ANYTHING to do with Washington State on the other side of the country? No way. Let the counties handle it.
Dems/Repubs: Waaaaahhhhh. They gave us MONEY!!! Waaaaahhhhhh. Our parties are different, honestly! Waaaahhhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Liberal POV: Slavery is wrong and should be abolished nationwide by the federal government.
Conservative POV: Abolished nationwide? No way. Let the states or local governments handle it.
The liberals won that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old School
It seems to me like what this artist needs is a manager, who is familiar with the new landscape, and can guide her on the best business decisions to make so that she can focus on the music, which seems to be her area of expertise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say that all the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y'all miss the point again!
Writers, publishers, and the owners of the master recording do have rights! Just because joe public and the rest of the stunads don't agree don't make it untrue.
Keep taking what you want, go for it... Pretty soon there will be nothing left but horrible bedroom recorded crap for you to have because there is no life left in an industry.
I wish all of you who steal the woderful experience of having your livlyhood STOLEN by a bunch of dick heads such as yourselves who only know entitlement....
All the best and fuck you too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'all miss the point again!
What rights are you referring to? There are two types of rights: natural and legal. Music artists have a natural right to make music and to distribute it, just as consumers have a natural right to download it.
You must be talking about legal rights; but legal rights are based upon property rights and incentives for the public good. Since downloading does not infringe upon property rights--those artists still have their resources after you've copied it--any rights they have against downloading are strictly legal rights designed to improve the public good, not for the sustenance of the artists. Which means that if "joe public and the rest of the stunads don't agree", they should not be entitled to any legal rights against downloading music.
And plentiful empirical evidence refutes your assertion that nothing but "but horrible bedroom recorded crap" will be left if we relax file sharing restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'all miss the point again!
But to classify that as "bedroom recorded crap" is harsh. Did you ever think that people would take many hours out of their day, research subjects and write about them, FOR FREE? Welcome to most blogs. Welcome to Wikipedia.
The problem is record labels (and other media corporations) had a monopoly which drove the price up. Now that it is relatively easy to create and distribute music, news, videos, etc, the market is adjusting. If you cut out the record labels, there is more than enough money to go around to each artist. Unfortunately, there will be some grey suits on the street; boo-hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
Neither is gravity, but that does not mean it can't have a predictable effect. Plus, gravity can be used quite well to assist in sorting stuff out, especially items of vary mass or density.
I understand that free market!=gravity. I am only pointing out that sentience has no bearing here. NO economy is sentient. It is the collection of the actions of all involved in commerce.
"Our blind faith in the free market's abilities has recently caused a near-global meltdown, in case you hadn't noticed."
Blind faith would have been much better, actually. Instead, we had politicians who talked like they loved the free market, but didn't allow it to operate. And I think it is quite clear that having the government throw billions around to fix and regulate it has not done much good, either. The propping of corporations over the years has created the meltdown. If the free market had been allowed to operate and those entities allowed to fail when they should have, we would not be in this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'all miss the point again!
I invite you to come along and try to "steal" my livelihood. The skill set I have cannot be copied and I get payed for having that skill set. If you want to obtain that skill set you ether have to create a brain sucker (probably make more money that way) or spend decades working at it. That doesn't mean that other people are freely enriched by my efforts, I just don't get payed every time they do.
For the record I don't download music nor do I buy it for the exclusive reason that I don't want to support assholes who think like you in any way shape or form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
If you'd like to 'get' my skill set, it'll probably take you 4 to 6 years, depending on your current education and background, and likely tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree from an accreditted university. Nevermind that even after all that you might just not be very good at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'all miss the point again!
You are right. A lot of people don't respect the law, and download music illegally, without the artist's permission, just because they can. They feel entitled, so they just take it without considering what the consequences are. And that's wrong. Its illegal, and its immoral.
But that's not what most people around this site promote. Instead, we try to encourage The Artists to consider a new approach... One where they leverage the internet and file-sharing to their advantage, so that they can make more money and make more music.
And one of the ways we encourage this is by highlighting artists who have given their music away for free and still been economically successful. We also examine business models which incorporate the idea of 'free' and use it to increase their paying customer base.
The internet has changed the landscape. For better or for worse, it seems like people need to adapt to that change, or else they will get pushed out of the way by people who have made the switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'all miss the point again!
Aside from that you don't own me, or my thoughts and actions. To think that just because you wrote a song or sang a tune somehow makes you the master and commander of whether or not I get to perform, re-write, or simply share it with my friends is the most absurd, audacious, anti-democratic, feudalistic, tyrannical BS I've ever heard of.
An inaccurate, though in a sense true, account places Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher in a pub one day.
Churchill says to Thatcher, "Meg, would you bed me for a million quid?"
To which she reportedly replies, "Certainly, a million quid is a million quid!"
Then he turns right back and says, "Would you do it for sixpence?"
"What do you take me for? I am no whore, sir!"
"Ah, but we've already established that fact, madam. Now we are simply negotiating a price."
You see, you don't own forms, you simply cannot own ether, it is vapor, it is the wind. Once you've shared an idea, a thought, a tune, a concept - in whatever medium - like it or not you have given up the goods, per se, de facto. You can no more claim it back than you can your virginity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Y'all miss the point again!
The idea behind all of this copyright-related stuff was to encourage people to share those particular expressions by guaranteeing a limited monopoly: a guaranteed amount of time in which the creator, and the creator alone, could attempt to earn something by way of that creation.
Because if you go through the effort to create something, it's valuable to you and it represents your efforts. For someone else to come along and capitalize on those efforts doesn't really seem fair. So, to keep that fear at bay, the limited monopoly was established.
Also, this makes good sense. If we, as a culture, want people who are really good at creating fixed expressions of ideas to continue doing so, then we have to make it possible for them to do so and still do things like eat and have shelter. So again, makes good sense.
None of this, of course, is about guaranteeing anything more than the opportunity to earn.
This is a reasonable agreement and fair compromise between the culture as a whole (which is benefited by the creations), the individuals (who want them), and the creator (who spends time and effort making them). This all assumes that the creations are, in face, desirable and/or beneficial to the culture or some subset thereof.
Where this all gets screwed is when "limited" becomes forever, when "opportunity to earn" becomes government-sanctioned extortion, when "benefits to culture" gets curtailed unreasonably (by overly-strict limits of fair use and works inspired by other works), and when "creator" becomes major corporations that influence legal action with their deep pockets.
So, Jason, there is a reasonable and fair claim from the creator of a work that he or she should, in fact, be able to place certain limits, for a limited time, on what you can do with that creation in order to afford him or her the opportunity to earn from that creation. This claim is a reasonable compromise among the parties mentioned earlier. So, when one party begins violating that compromise (like your claim does), it leads to a breakdown of the whole thing.
If you want to get pissed off and threaten people, threaten the original violators: the corporations. However, realize that your own violations do very little to bring us back to a balanced place of reasonable compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensate Me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compensate Me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously around here, the answer is no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ellen Ratner: "She can't be guaranteed that what she records or performs will be compensated."
Shouldn't they have the opportunity? If they are good, shouldn't they have the opportunity?
Mike Masnick: "Also, as the anonymous submitter pointed out, the artist in question seems to be doing just fine on her site, with a list of tour dates, and a merchandise site that includes some unique items (signed concert poster, handmade cowboy hats) in addition to CDs. Basically, she's like pretty much any musician both now and in the past, who has every opportunity to get "compensated," simply by putting in place good business models combined with good music."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Ryan pointed out, that's *exactly* what Ellen said.
Shouldn't they have the opportunity? If they are good, shouldn't they have the opportunity?
Yes. Which is exactly the point we've made.
Obviously around here, the answer is no.
Obviously, you've never read this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welfare for Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop stealing from artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT...
I don't support in ANY way, that everytime a recording of an artist playing it's music, is played, copyed, transferred, shared, etc... that the artist is entitled to a payment. NO.
If and when, the artist performs, he/she should make sure they receive payment. If and when the performance is recorded, they can ask for a payment to receive it in special conditions. Like a boxset with extra content. But NEVER for copies of said recordings.
Furthermore, if I find said recordings, and I download them, and afterwards share them in the same way I receive them, I'm actualy creating advertising for the artist, I'm helping in the distribution, I'm promoting that artist. If enough persons are interested, like the music, it's almost guaranteed that that artist will be called more times to perform and get payed for it.
What the music business is saying is, the artists deserve to be payed indefinitely for a work performed only once. And I am the "pirate"? Is that ethical? Is that Moral?
What would you answer someone that performed some work for you, and after you payed, they'll tell you, that anytime you would use it, or let anyone else use it, you had to pay again? Imagine you buyed a paint, and it had a visualization counter, that would bill you for each time the paint was seen?
Money for nothing, and we are the "pirates"? Sueing to get that money, is tantamount to extorsion.
Sorry, but I really can't accept that a digital copy should be treated as a physical copy. They are NOT remotely similar. If you need to regulate, ok, do it, create SPECIFIC laws to digital content, that concern the digital nature. Don't use the same laws, because you wouldn't apply the same set of laws to potatoes and to airplanes.
And please... don't call it "theft". Or I will have to start insulting you also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So does a really good BJ, but they shouldn't always result in cash...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The easy inference is that music requires no 'work' (i.e., skill, effort and unique knowledge). I hope that's not what you're saying ... so say something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress needs to act. Now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok y'all.... Answer me this
I am a producer. I am a writer. I own a record label. My music is available via most legal download sites like iTunes, beatport, Traxsource etc etc...
So I have a recording which I wrote, am the publisher, am the master rights owner, and have it registered with the us copyright office.
I earn good enough money to get by, I'm not rich and I'm certainly not one of those evil corperations...
So tell me, is it wrong for my music to be shared via p2p, torrents, blogs etc without my permission ?
Please do tell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok y'all.... Answer me this
It's not about right or wrong. It's happening. So why not figure out ways to embrace that to make more money? It's not like you're going to stop it from happening. Yet, we see musicians every day who end up making a lot more money than they were able to in the past because they embraced having their music on file sharing sites.
It's got nothing to do with right or wrong. If you and your fans can both be better off when you actively encourage file sharing... the whole question of "right" or "wrong" goes away.
We're not arguing whether or not it's "right" to have music shared without your permission. We're explaining how the question doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she stopped to raise a family ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright infringement isn't theft. To say it is is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone can pull it off, giving the artists true options and true help, it can really make a difference.
I consider evident that the business model the record companies are fighting for, no longer applies to the reality, so, it's about time that somebody starts presenting artists with valid options.
It was mentioned that artists aren't allways cappable to find their place in this brave new world, ending up following the only one method that is presented to them, that they can cope.
Somebody, somewhere, needs to start helping them. And, both could make money.
Just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Musicians Have Ever Been Guaranteed ANYTHING!
Copyright is really about someone nicking material and putting their own name to it. If fans like your music so much they spread it all over the place by sharing the one or two CDs they did actually buy, that's the sort of advertising money simply can't get!
Any musician/songwriter who is signed up to a major label can and frequently does have their material held by 'the company' which can even be given/accredited to another artist on that label. Yes that sounds nuts but there are cases in court where artists are trying to get their rights back all over the world. A great record deal is in most cases a rip-off which is why so many stars end up on drugs or living in the bottom of a bottle!
I am a performing artist myself. I have been for years and I enjoy entertaining my fans. Yes I know they copy and share my tracks but I make money from selling tickets to gigs,.. and playing a gig is the biggest buzz I get out of it, even playing a free 'open-mic'.
If anyone thinks they are owed money for sitting in some bedroom/garage and churning out music on CD from a computer with no live performance,... honestly,.. get a f**in life!
Music is a LIVE PERFORMANCE art-form and historically, most artists are only famous after they are dead!! If you need a 'business model' for that fact, take a look at classical music. Beethoven, Bach, Handel, Paganini, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Debussy,.. did any one of them make a single recording? Nope, so how come they are such icons of music history then? Simple, Millions of musicians play (copy/re-arrange) their art!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Musicians Have Ever Been Guaranteed ANYTHING!
How people relate to each other is what makes the business, and what differentiates those who make money from those that don't.
Copyright is necessary up to a point to encourage folks to produce intellectual property whether it's a recording, a book, a piece of software, or whatever. Pirated downloads are on the one hand wrong, and taken to extremes would pretty well destroy a lot of musician's careers, but on the other hand in the real world are really a distraction as they really don't take away from the artist's 'real' income.
We'd have to get into a discussion of marginal costs, price elasticity and all of the other wonders of economics but in a nutshell that 12 year old kid downloading whatever tune it was was never going to spend $15 as he didn't have it to begin with, wasn't going to run out and buy the CD at that price if he had it, might have bought at a lower price but as the only lower price happened to be $0......
So calling each pirated download "lost revenue" and equating that lost revue to full retail is, well, just a big load.
At the end of the day, what makes music work is the interaction of the various people in the chain of play from artist to audience, wherever that audience happens to be. People at shows, people in their cars listening to the radio, people in clubs listening to recordings, people talking about what they like, what they don't etc.
I've often wondered if we've lost a little something through the advent of mechanically recorded sound. It did in live music in a lot of places. That's had profound impacts not only on musicians but also the listening public. There was a time when there was a gig to be had every time a movie played, and now they have such a predictable musical experience at times I think they've forgotten that there's a human somewhere in the loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, so now you're explaining to Mike what he means, huh?
(and by the way, I've never seen Mike say that either)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love it when people tell me what I believe, when it totally contradicts what I actually believe. You clearly do not "fully understand" because you are repeating back stuff I do not believe.
I did not say you "cannot" make money. I said that there are other business models that are better, and you should focus on those. Continuing to try to make money directly off the *sale* of music files is likely to become an increasingly bad business model, but that you can use that music to make everything else you sell more valuable. I still consider that to be making money from the music. I'm not sure why you do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radio
I actually thought that was a great question so I forwarded it on to ASCAP to get a response. They responded:
"First, Tgeigs, please stop referring to ASCAP as NAMBLA, as NAMBLA is a trademarked name. Secondly, the money collected by ASCAP is a pooled fund which is to be distributed to member parties in amounts equal to contributions of the whole, in terms of percentage. Once we, collect the money, we divide the total number of commercial records produced by the total number of member records produced, then we get a percentage. Unfortunately, by that time we're tired of doing math and we just keep the money for ourselves. Pretty cool, huh?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um... not sure about that comment Mike
"No one should have a right to compensation if they don't give people a reason to buy. "
I don't understand how writing a kick-ass song is not a reason to want to purchase that kick-ass song. Which means the artist gets paid for their art not their stage show...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article Information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]