UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
from the dear-mandy dept
A little while back, we posted about Dan Bull's excellent song protesting Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, which (among other things) would force ISPs to kick off users accused of file sharing, and grant the UK Business Secretary incredible sweeping powers to change copyright law at will. And while the stated purpose behind such a law is to "help protect the entertainment industry" it seems that it's actually incentivizing the creation of new works in a different way. Martin points us to a competition that was recently held for songs about the Digital Economy Bill. The "winning" song is called "Only Idiots Assume" and is a punk ditty with some choice words for Peter Mandelson.
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: digital economy bill, music, peter mandelson, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Only Idiots Assume"......that they can have only one slice!!
As I'm sure you're aware, he'll become a real expert at cooking and, especially the pizza making (and baking) processes. I'm sure soon he'll sometime open a boutique in the Greater SFO area to make Mike's most scrumptious Kosher pizza pies. He'll be much more recognized and welcomed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Only Idiots Assume"......that they can have only one slice!!
For a really bad analogy, include a motor vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much did the songs cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much did the songs cost
Sorry, but as a troll, you generally fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Here
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100202/0216227999#c220
You said $250000 for a recording in a paragraph that referred to $0.99 per song - so a reasonable inference is $250000 per song.
There are >4 songs on that site so $100000 is a plausible result from your figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
partially discussed in this thread:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0028137983.shtml
(search the page for "albini").
So once again, someone is trying to quote me out of context and twist my words. How quaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
You clearly state that it costs $250,000 per song, without citing a source for the figure. You were accurately quoted.
However, YOU are guilty of taking Albini out of context. The only place where he states $250,000 in that article is the following:
"The first year's advance alone is $250,000."
ADVANCE. Not the recording costs. Not the distribution costs. He breaks it down later in the article, and most of those costs are either negotiable/variable (cost of studio time) or not necessary for many artists (video shoot, buyout of contract from previous label, new instruments). The real figure is almost certainly lower than Albini states in his informative but rather outdated article, even if you mistake the advance for mandatory costs (it was originally written in the early 90s, well before current distribution and recording techniques had been invented).
Again, you have been caught out in... well, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say you weren't lying but merely mistaken. I also enjoy the irony of you, the great defender of the status quo, getting your data from one of the great articles exposing and criticising the traditional models that rip off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
it isn't even a mistake, it's just taking numbers put out there from someone in the industry. I don't see anyone else putting numbers out there, so I have to go with what I can see.
So in the end, I didn't say it costs $250,000 to record a new song, the 4 songs used in this example didn't cost a million to produce, nor did I suggest that in any way.
Too bad you guys are busy trying to set up a high tech lynching for me rather than anything else. Keep going, it doesn't make me want to go away, just makes me laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
1. The figures come from an article originally written in 1993. This is before most modern recording techniques existed, before digital distribution was possible, and when the only ways to get real widespread exposure were to tour, get radio airplay or get on to MTV. The industry then is not the industry now.
Albini could only have dreamed of the drop in recording and distribution costs that have happened since then due to technology. You might as well be citing Hollywood figures in the silent era for all the relevance they have right now. Hell, even the Negativland repost of the article has been online for years, and that starts by apologising for the outdated figures. How is this proof of the modern industry we're discussing?
2. When you originally stated those figures, you failed to cite a source. Therefore, the AC you originally argued with could not have known your source and therefore assumed you were plucking them out of your ass instead of from a 17 year old article.
3. See the post I made directly after that. Yes, Albini's article does suggest album costs, but your original post was worded in a way that made it read like you were talking about songs. Again, if you don't bother citing your sources, people have to go on what you write. It's your problem if you're not clear.
4. If you didn't troll every thread with half truths and dumb theories, you wouldn't be "lynched".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
1 - There is plenty of vague stories out there about advances and costs, but this is the only one that actually details it out. If you have something newer, I would love to see it.
2 - if the AC was reading Techdirt as a whole, he would have seen those numbers come up in the previous discussion (which this AC actually posted in after my comments and a fairly long discussion back and forth on the issue). The AC was just trying to troll by bringing unrelated information into this discussion, trying to get my goat. He instead gave me a good laugh.
3 - My original post does not suggest that a single song costs 250,000. Few artists (if any) product just singles, they produce albums (even the sainted Corey Smith makes albums). If I cite my sources for all my comments in each post, the comment section might run 20 pages. That is meaningless.
4 - So you are saying that only Mike and this AC can run with half truths and dumb theories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Sadly I don't, but then the recording industry is as notorious as the movie studios when it comes to accurately reporting their costs. Unless another major label insider has written a similar article, I don't think there's any non-independent figures available to the public. Given your usual form, I'd guess you really want major label figures. But, please, if you do come across such figures I'd be happy to look at them and see whether my own assumptions are correct.
My main point stands, however - you cannot possibly claim that figures from an album made 17 years ago, in the pre-digital, pre-internet days have any direct bearing on the costs of an album today. Pretending that they do is disingenuous at best, especially when you don't cite where you're getting the figures from.
"if the AC was reading Techdirt as a whole, he would have seen those numbers come up in the previous discussion"
If the AC is like me in any way, he may only read the site sporadically. For example, I only tend to log in here while I'm at work during quiet periods. Unfortunately, the site is set up in a way that doesn't provide an easy way to see new posts in a discussion without finding the article and scrolling down to where you left off. Therefore, it's easy to miss parts of some discussions.
It might be a pain, but if your entire argument depends on a previous thread, it's better to repeat the information or link back to it, rather than assuming that every reader will have read the previous discussion.
"My original post does not suggest that a single song costs 250,000."
You wrote 2 sentences, one after the other. The first said "songs", the second said "studio recording". A song can be a studio recording. The reasonable assumption, without any further clues to your intent, is to assume that you were referring to songs in both sentences.
It's unfortunate that your words were misunderstood, but the problem was your wording and not an attempt to attack or misrepresent you.
"So you are saying that only Mike and this AC can run with half truths and dumb theories?"
You're free to refute any of their claims, citing good reasons and evidence of why they are wrong. You don't do this, and instead make wild and easily disproved claims (e.g. your claims last week about WEP being secure) or defend even the silliest corporate actions. Hell, your very identity here is as a contrarian to everything Mike says, often regardless of whether he's correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost FUCK YOU TAM!
"2 - if the AC was reading Techdirt as a whole, he would have seen those numbers come up in the previous discussion (which this AC actually posted in after my comments and a fairly long discussion back and forth on the issue). The AC was just trying to troll by bringing unrelated information into this discussion, trying to get my goat. He instead gave me a good laugh."
Oh, like you didnt JUST chew me out about referring to previous discussions and how you "dont have time" to "go through all the comments" to find where I replied in many instances?
Oh right, you are a HYPOCRITE, so you only see things one way.
FUCK YOU TAM!
"3 - My original post does not suggest that a single song costs 250,000. Few artists (if any) product just singles, they produce albums (even the sainted Corey Smith makes albums). If I cite my sources for all my comments in each post, the comment section might run 20 pages. That is meaningless."
Oh, you mean, like how you DONT constantly call people to the SAME carpet when it comes to relevant references and citing the statistics they claim? You do this yourself ALL THE TIME.
Oh right, you are a HYPOCRITE, so you only see things one way.
FUCK YOU TAM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Sort of classic, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Those damn people who do that. (I'm looking at you anti mike)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
....
So once again, someone is trying to quote me out of context and twist my words. How quaint.
and that person would be you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flame war
Both right, both wrong... both ****ers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Numbers?
LMMS $0
Hydrogen drum beat $0
TuxGuitar $0
PC $3000(high end)
Social Netowrd $0
ISP $200(in the high end of the scale maybe)
Guitar to USB $100(maybe)
Arduino board $5
Electronic parts $50
Egg box to cover a whole room to create an ambient $0 - $500
Foam mold for plating a room $50 + $5 for wood
CNC(Computer Numeric Controller) drill - $200
Thingverse ideas for trinkets $0
Public Domain Music Sheets $0
Youtube $0
Vimeo $0
Miro $0
MythTV $0
Apparell $1000(maybe?)
Blue/Green sheet $0-$1000
Cinerella/openmoviemaker/jashaka/jokosher/avidemux $0
Kino/gnome subtitles/subtitleseditor/gaupol $0
Audacity/rosegarden/denemo/musescore/muse/blender $0
MIDI/fluidysynth/timidity $0-who knows.
Joomla/silvestripe/ $0
TinyERP $0
xamp(LAMP tester) $0
Public Domain media $0
Gimp/synfig/inkscape $0
Cinepaint 0$
Total: $6000 minimum to make music today with art cover, website, promotion and everything.
For commercial artists:
Rent: month/year $500/$6000 (per starving artist)
food: month/year $500/$6000 (per starving artist)
Total: $18 000 with fix costs at $12 000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Numbers?
ISP month/year $200/$2400
Fix cost are $14.400/year
Legal representation not included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Numbers?
Gorgeous steampunk bus for touring $3500-$10 000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ooh, a rare double apostrophe fail. Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]