Wayne Coyne Of The Flaming Lips On Twitter, Pirate Sites, Coldplay v. Spotify And How To Use 'All Technologies' To Reach Your Fans

from the knocking-down-barriers-faster-than-the-gatekeepers-can-set-them-up dept

Fri, Nov 18th 2011 7:28am — Tim Cushing

Rose M. Welch sends in this brief interview with Flaming Lips lead singer Wayne Coyne, which touches on a lot of the band's recent activities, including its use of social media like Twitter to stay connected with its fan base.

Coyne himself is prolific user and has nearly 75,000 followers. Add The Lips' 560,000 more, and you've got a potent medium for getting the word out, right now, about the band's many new projects.

And the band has several new projects. In addition to a recent Parking Lot Experiment (where Coyne got 30 people together to play 30 different Flaming Lips songs from 30 different cars), the Lips have also cranked out a 6-hour song and a 24-hour (!) song, the latter of which is available embedded in a skull(!!).

As tireless and prolific as the Lips are, it's tough for anyone to keep up with them, whether it's the internet itself or their record label, Warner Brothers. In fact, the world's biggest distributor of digital music isn't responsive enough for Coyne:

iTunes is a bit formal and slow and wonderful, but still seems based on release dates and albums. We've moved into an area where there is actually no outlet other than our Web sites and a lot of pirate download sites where a portion of our audience will have fun and get easy access to our spontaneous output. I announce something on Twitter for a week, and sometimes it generates quite a bit of interest. We have done some of our recent recordings, tweeted about them, and a week later, it is out in the world. That's still hard or impossible to do on a giant record label.

I'm sure many of you caught Coyne referring to a legitimate use of a "pirate" site as a convenient distribution point. I'll just leave that hanging in the air for SOPA-boxers.

Coyne also has a rather blunt but interesting take on Coldplay's recent decision to withhold their new album from Spotify:

It seems like a bad idea. Maybe they need more cash?

Coyne would rather take advantage of "all technologies" to get the Lips' music to their listeners:

Our philosophy is that we love our fans and we realize that having our music available virtually for free allows some of our audience that doesn't have much money to still hear it. We've found that a lot of people will listen to it for free and still buy it.

The interview ends with Coyne stating that he doesn't think major labels have much to offer a band like the Flaming Lips but believes that, like the irrepressible optimist he obviously is, the labels will come up with something in the future. After all, "they're smart."

It's tough to scan that last statement for any traces of sarcasm, seeing as this was an IM interview, but Coyne seems good natured enough to actually mean it. If the labels are smart, they'll give more of their artists free reign to come up with innovations and solutions of their own, even if that means distributing their music through "rogue sites" or via a four-disc album that's meant to be played on four different stereos simultaneously(!!!).

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: connect with fans, flaming lips, record labels, sharing, wayne coyne

118 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeff (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 7:02am

Awesome stuff! I only have a single question about those four stereos...

Do they go to eleven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  And I also enjoy the fact that tye use whatever means to get their tunes out.Same thing I do is to tweet and post and I seed my own music on TPB,etc.
  My music is all freely shared.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, but your music is crap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 7:46am

Typo
"free reign" should be "free rein"

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/reign.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Typo
  Reign: The period during which a sovereign rules.
  
  I see no problem there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Typo
  Nice link thank you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr Evil, 18 Nov 2011 @ 7:57am

Coyne also has a rather blunt but interesting take on Coldplay's recent decision to withhold their new album from Spotify:

It seems like a bad idea. Maybe they need more cash?

*****
correction: maybe Coldplay needs LESS cash. No buzz, no new audience=less cash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  Re:
  Coldplay has infinitely more cash than Mr Coyne: their latest album released a couple weeks ago, sold hundreds of thousands its first week, and debuted at number one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Was also pirated like a motherfucker in the first few days!!
    
    mmm... Does piracy kill sales? Doesn't look like it!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We know what a serial law breaker you are, Planespotter, but yes, more sales would have resulted if parasites like yourself weren't availed to ripping off the record.
      
      You're only hurting music when you do that, as you reduce the ability for labels to take on risk and have venture capital for new bands.
      
      You all are worthless, non-contributing gutter scum that have made society worse.
      
      Congratulations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        grrr argh, I have no argument or facts so I am just going to attack you and insult your mother grrrrr!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Planespotter admits to ripping off all his music- major label, indie label, all of it.
        
        He's a classic freetard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        grrrr argh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And his ripping off led to how many fewer sales?
        
        None...that's right, none fewer sales (imagine Nigel Tufnel saying it).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did I admit to ripping off all my music or did I just say it was readily available all over the networks that facilitate infringement?
        
        I own all the music I have here, every "illegal" download has been done to replace an album or single I already own on tape, vinyl or CD.... Given that I've paid for it once I consider those nothing more than legitimate backups.
        
        How many of those "illegal downloads" resulted in the person simply "trying before buying"? Cannot answer that one can you... just more "piracy costs sales" which has reports available to disprove it and also reports that show people who download the most also buy the most.
        
        2011 not 1984, adapt or die!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You all are worthless, non-contributing gutter scum that have made society worse."
        
        Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're only hurting music when you do that, as you reduce the ability for labels to take on risk and have venture capital for new bands.
        
        Actually, the biggest pirates are also the biggest spenders. For instance, I regular pirate Walking Dead and AHS episodes, because they're not available when I want them. Otoh, if the music or episode is available to purchase when I want it, I'll buy it.
        
        Pirating isn't about saving money, it's about saving time/effort.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Nov 2011 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I "pirated" The Walking Dead, then paid for the first season on DVD when it was out, and bought a few of the trade paperbacks of the graphic novel as well. I'll pay for the second season when I'm allowed to as well.
        
        But, I guess I'm stealing from the industry because I didn't decide to wait and blind buy the first season when they decided to offer it to me. Which I probably wouldn't have done until the set was at least half the price I paid for it this way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josef Anvil (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: ??????
    "Coldplay has infinitely more cash than Mr Coyne: their latest album released a couple weeks ago, sold hundreds of thousands its first week, and debuted at number one."
    
    Correction: Coldplay's record label has "infinitely" more cash than Mr. Coyne...
    
    Now stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and give up trolling. You're not very good at it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ??????
      Still lying and saying artists make no money off of record sales?
      
      Continual lying is a signal that you are a sociopath.
      
      It's also usually a sign that you have no real argument.
      
      But we all know you're just trying to rationalize how you rip off musicians.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ??????
        "Still lying and saying artists make no money off of record sales?"
        
        Not no money, just pennies per dollar on what the label makes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 20 Nov 2011 @ 5:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ??????
        "Continual lying is a signal that you are a sociopath."
        
        Excellent. Recognising your problem is the first step to curing yourself. Good luck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Which was increased significantly by withholding it from Spotify, right? Right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    did all those record sales result in them being recouped? did they profit from the sales, or do they still owe millions to their label? the millions they have that isn't "borrowed" is probably not a result of record sales.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Name a band that owes "millions" to a record label, lol.
      
      What a complete clown you are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That you've routinely ignored the ones who do is no excuse, but no surprise coming from you.
        
        Fucktard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Coldplay has infinitely more cash than Mr Coyne"
    
    Incorrect, nobody can have:
    in�fi�nite Pronunciation (nf-nt)
    adj.
    1. Having no boundaries or limits.
    2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
    3. Mathematics
    a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
    b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
    c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
    n.
    Something infinite.
    [Middle English infinit, from Old French, from Latin nfntus : in-, not; see in-1 + fntus, finite, from past participle of fnre, to limit; see finite.]
    infi�nite�ly adv.
    infi�nite�ness n.
    Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal
    These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth. See Also Synonyms at incalculable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anus presley's brown eye blinks for you alone, 11 Dec 2011 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Coldplay and their cash flow only reflects the lack of creativity of the market they are in. Don't expect anything interesting out of them without a serious cashflow. Generation echoboomer will follow the blandest dribble as long as it is marketed to them as status quo. No boat rockers welcome. Enjoy yr parents tumors generation blah..they will look as fabulous on you as they did them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:00am

If the pirate sites didn't exist, they could and would use other methods to get the stuff out, as they see fit.

What I think that many pirate apologists seem to miss is that nobody in the music industry is against new ways to distribute content, new ways to contact fans, new ways to make connections. They object to being forced (by the choices of others) to be on pirate sites, and to have their content pirated and distributed without permission and without any control from the rights owners.

What the Flaming Lips are doing is controlling their content. You may not like it, but that is what it comes down to. It is their choice what gets out and what does not get out.

If everyone would understand that it would work better if the stuff being traded was the stuff that the artists and right holders willingly put out there, than there would be no issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  "They object to being forced (by the choices of others) to be on pirate sites, and to have their content pirated and distributed without permission and without any control from the rights owners."
  
  You can't fight a force of nature. Have you ever tried to swim against the tide (literally speaking)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're delusional. Go see a mental health professional.
    
    Look what happens to world class douchebags like yourself:
    
    http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/11_-_November/Appeals_court_re jects_request_by_serial_downloader/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No it is you that is deluded.
      
      And by the way - you have NO reason to assume that the AC you replied to actually pirates stuff personally.
      
      Keep shooting the messenger and you will stay ignorant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm delusional because I accept reality?
      
      I make software for a living. At where I work, we have accepted that our software will eventually be pirated and there is nothing we can do about it. So we have adapted to that reality by pretty much giving the software away for free, and charging for support/installation.
      
      It's been working well so far.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It works until someone else comes along, offers support and installation for your software at half the price, and then you are fucked, because what you are selling isn't what people want, it's a pure cost. If they can get them same thing cheaper (using your great software) then you are screwed and done.
        
        Sell people what they want, not what they don't want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But people WANT support, given by those that know the ins and outs of their systems and the software that was installed. They want someone that they can call at 3 A.M. to get their network back up because one of their routers got fried, for example.
        
        Smart managers pay for that and that is not something that is trivial to replicate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, some customers want our applications tailored to their (often very specific) needs. What kind of "half-priced" software shop is going to give them that plus the support they need?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " What kind of "half-priced" software shop is going to give them that plus the support they need?"
        
        Probably the same geniuses that give tech advice to the labels.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can we count the number of Linux distro companies that give away their product but charge for support?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't a force of nature, it's just mob mentality at it's finest.
    
    Make it harder, make it more difficult, make it illegal and make the charges stick, and suddenly those people who are doing it become it is easy and safe will be gone.
    
    P2P and other forms of piracy depend on a certain critical mass to really make it work. Remove that critical mass, and it gets harder and harder.
    
    Don't confuse a deluded generation with a force of nature. This generation isn't any better than the hippies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are exactly right. That why the war on drugs ended all drug use, and the way on poverty ended all poverty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        don't forget terrorism, I know its easy to forget since we got rid of it in that war on terror, but its important to remember.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        :Lobo Santo (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks! Almost forgot...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know, there have been so many terrorist attacks here in the US.
        
        oh wait...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah because before the "war on terror" we had one like every other day, oh wait.
        
        Also our war on giant purple elephants is working great too I havnt seen any of those around.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, because giant purple elephants declared their intention to come here and kill us.
        
        oh wait...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wooosh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's post like this that remind me why your pro-copyright ... because you're an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That means the giant purple elephant repellent I sold you is working.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lobo, actually, what happened is that the drug manufacturing groups stepped up and doubled, tripled, even quadrupled production and pretty much flooded the US borders. They play on the "human shield" factor of those who support illegal immigration and hate to think of properly controlling the borders as a way to move their drugs.
        
        The important question is what would have happened if this increase in production had been met with no action at all by the government.
        
        The war on drugs is a poor example as well, because you are talking about a product that has no real legal equivalent. It's sort of hard to guide people to a legal alternative where there really is none. What do you replace herion with? Candy?
        
        Your justifications for piracy are incredible weak.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He isn't justifying piracy, he is just laughing at people trying to eradicate the inevitable.
        
        The alternatives to drugs are all the legal things you can do to have fun, entertain or lose yourself. People do drugs for pleasure and escape you replace those with other things that have the same effects, skydiving, junk food, video games, sex, socialization, competitive sports or all the other things non-junkies do to occupy themselves and make life bearable. I mean I know there is no legal equivalent of heroin, as in something else that gets you super high, but their is an alternative, find something else to occupy your time and please you than drugs.
        
        But even still, if you don't like my argument that the alternative to drugs is finding something legal to occupy your time, its a good example. You take something people do and say its illegal, then you ramp up enforcement and punishment. Does this make the activity stop or does it make it even harder to control? If companies embraced piracy and co-opted it it would be easier to track statistics, find advantages, find new revenue streams and still have direct access to your consumers and constantly ready to take their money when they offer it to you. Much in the same way legalizing heroin would allow you to have a closer interactions with junkies to help convert them, or at least keep them safe, keep them from hurting others, and make sure the drug isn't deadlier than it should be.
        
        I wish I had more time to word this better and really refine the point but sadly I don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd just like to say there is a legal alternative to heroin. Sorta. It's called "sex". Either solo or with a partner. When you have sex, the same chemicals that are released with heroin use are released during the act. Thus, you are getting the same exact chemical high (in a manner of speaking, albeit through a different "drug").
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Drug production apparantly in Afghanistan was at an all time low just before the Invasion.... now it's back to levels seen during the war with the Soviet Union.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The reason for that is because the Taliban strictly controlled the opium production in the area. Keeping amounts (of drug production) at low levels. However, with the invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction (for the most part) of the Taliban, control over opium production ceased. Thus many were able to begin producing it at levels previously unseen (since the Soviet invasion, as you pointed out). Which by cause and effect shows that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan led to the increased production and availability of opium (of which heroin is a by product) to the area (and the rest of the world as a result, since, and I may be wrong here but I'm pretty sure my estimate from what I've read is correct, about 80% of the world's opiate supply is from Afghanistan).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 19 Nov 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm guessing the war provided distribution channels.
        
        Take a look at Pembroke Ontario, Canada, to see what I mean.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It isn't a force of nature, it's just mob mentality at it's finest."
      
      "Don't confuse a deluded generation with a force of nature. This generation isn't any better than the hippies."
      
      You mean every generation is like this? Like maybe its part of human nature? Like maybe a force of human nature? Like maybe something that naturally occurs with human beings in nature as an internal force?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCX2, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There are two mistakes with your line of reasoning.
      
      The first is that removing the critical mass will end piracy. No, it will not. There will still be the sneakernet. People will still record songs off the radio. People will still record TV shows and movies for their friends and family.
      
      The second is the implicit assumption that ending piracy will increase revenue for content producers. The vast majority of pirates are not customers and were never going to be customers. If you take piracy away from them, they will not go in search of that content to pay for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact that you people constantly drag out the strawman of "ending" piracy, shows that you have no argument.
        
        We don't care about the greedy selfish people that will try to use sneakernet to hurt musicians. That has always been around.
        
        We care about people wide out in the open, flagrantly abusing the internet to rip off musicians and keep the profit for themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        setaside (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We care about people wide out in the open, flagrantly abusing the internet to rip off musicians and keep the profit for themselves.
        
        You're talking about the record labels and SOPA, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you have to lie to make your argument, you've already lost the debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        setaside (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh come on ... you totally set yourself up for that one. How could you expect someone, anyone, to NOT call you out on it? Just laugh, say "good one" and move on.
        
        but back to feeding the troll ...
        
        What lie? Are you saying that the labels don't rip off musicians and keep the profits for themselves? Are you saying that SOPA won't result in a flagrant abuse of the internet (much like bogus DMCA takedown requests do today)?
        
        Can you support those assertions with any facts?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        a flagrant abuse of the internet (much like bogus DMCA takedown requests do today)?
        
        hahahahahahahahahaha
        
        yes, and wantonly accessing other people's work against their wishes isn't a flagrant abuse of the internet and DMCA.
        
        hahahahahahahahaha
        
        good one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And no, you willfully blind buffoon, the labels don't keep all the money.
        
        The Beatles stopped touring in 1966.
        
        You might have noticed that they still became wealthy and it wasn't from picking up what the freetards refer to as "a real job". In fact John Lennon stayed home with his wife and raised their child for much of the 70s.
        
        You people are just lying when you say musicians don't make money from record sales.
        
        It's your way of trying to rationalize ripping them off.
        
        Everyone knows this, yet you persist with the meme.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Beatles stopped touring in 1966.
        
        You might have noticed that they still became wealthy and it wasn't from picking up what the freetards refer to as "a real job". In fact John Lennon stayed home with his wife and raised their child for much of the 70s.
        
        You people are just lying when you say musicians don't make money from record sales.
        
        When you have to highlight the 1 or 2% that become successful via the labels your argument falls apart. The majority of acts signed by the labels never recouped the advance with the way the labels set up the accounting.
        
        In today's environment there is no doubt in anyone's mind that there a lot more artists being able make a decent living than ever before and a lot of them are doing without a label contract.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have no idea what you are talking about.
        
        Then again, how could you?
        
        An artist's income from record sales is commensurate with their success. The Beatles, obviously a very successful band, made enough money to do whatever they wanted, including staying home for years with the family.
        
        But every other band gets paid when they sell records too. An advance from a label is a loan, just like venture capital. If you don't sell enough records to recoup and pay back the advance, you don't all of the sudden get your house or car repo'd; the label eats it.
        
        All of these things have been explained by musicians on this blog dozens of times.
        
        You people like to try and remain willfully blind to these facts because you want to try to rationalize your ripping off of musicians.
        
        Snore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All of these things have been explained by musicians on this blog dozens of times.
        
        Really? Got some links for those?
        
        What I am describing has been highlighted here on Techdirt. Just click on the first two links in my post below.
        
        You people like to try and remain willfully blind to these facts because you want to try to rationalize your ripping off of musicians.
        
        You must have me confused with someone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        An artist's income from record sales is commensurate with their success. The Beatles, obviously a very successful band, made enough money to do whatever they wanted, including staying home for years with the family.
        
        But every other band gets paid when they sell records too.
        
        Care to state the % of artists who ever recoup.
        
        Thanks.
        
        An advance from a label is a loan, just like venture capital.
        
        1. Venture capital is not a loan. It's a purchase of equity. Extremely different.
        2. If you want to compare venture deals and label deals, you're going to look really, really bad. But if you want, I'm prepared to wipe the floor with you to show your ignorance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Give it a try, asshat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Three years after the fact and still not a cheep from you. Chickenshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, really? You've been beaten down yet again in your most recent attempts to attack him, so now you're digging up old threads in attempts to resurrect the old arguments(*) you failed with?
        
        Get help.
        
        (*) By arguments, of course, I actually mean one-sided childish rants where you're throwing tantrums because Mike won't obey your every whim. I can't help but notice that you refused to answer the questions he asked you while you were doing this, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Nov 2011 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But every other band gets paid when they sell records too.
        
        Most major label artists do not get paid any money whatsoever from artists' royalties for record sales.
        
        According to the RIAA, most records do not make back their production costs. In 2000, Hillary Rosen testified before Congress that it was "less than 15%" (including majors and indies). In 2002, Cary Sherman claimed in testimony for the RIAA that 9 out of 10 artists who get signed never recoup. Now, keep in mind that during 1999-2002, when this testimony was given, the music industry made more money than at any other time in its entire history.
        
        Now, the costs for creating the album come entirely from the artists' advance, which must be paid out of their royalties. That means that until the album is recouped, artists do not make a single penny from royalties for record sales.
        
        Oh, but that's not all. Because even if the artists aren't making money, that doesn't mean the record label isn't. You see, artists' royalties are only about 15% of the profits from a recording, but they pay for 100% of the production costs. That means that by the time artists make any royalties whatsoever, the recording has already grossed roughly seven times the costs of production.
        
        Now, I'm not saying the labels are making money hand over fist. They have their own costs: manufacturing and distribution, promotion, staff salaries, payola, funding lobbyists, or the multimillion-dollar bonuses of the executive officers. Even when grossing tons of money, the margins are slim. Recorded music sales is simply a business model that has never worked.
        
        But in any case, the claim that most artists make money from record sales is a total lie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, with your Beatles example, you might be forgetting the small fact that the Beatles setup their own label, Apple Records in 1968, and John was probably living off the money made from that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hahahahaha
        
        Go read up on Apple Records some time.
        
        It was a boondoggle. They had no idea how to run a label and ended up losing lord knows how much money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you have to lie to make your argument, you've already lost the debate.
        
        It's not lying if it's the truth.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20110707/03264014993/riaa-accounting-how-to-sell-1-million-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml
        
        ht tp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/09574115549/dear-musicians-riaa-is-about-to-totally-screw-yo u-over-again.shtml
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110110/14112612596/major-record-labels-agre e-to-pay-45-million-copyright-infringement-canada.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact that you people constantly drag out the strawman of "ending" piracy, shows that you have no argument.
        
        Seriously, no one is talking about "ending" piracy. What, you think this thing is called EOPA? No, it's called SOPA. The "S" stands for "Stopping" which is totally not the same as...wait, where was I going with this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if they do rip off musicians they don't keep the money to themselves, it doesn't get put in a warehouse never to be used again it is ploughed back into the economy via some other way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, paying *foreign* cyberlockers for quicker speeds when downloading infringing content.
        
        Do you honestly think Congress doesn't know what is going on with that?
        
        They do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I couldn't care less what your Congress "thinks, at the moment they have their heart set on pleasing their paymasters who bankrolled their last election.
        
        Have you seen the approval rating of the US Congress?
        
        Looks to me like the US nation is starting to wake up. Don't piss off the American internet user, the threat of taking away their Facebook or Youtube and they'll stab you in the back at the next election.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "taking away their Facebook or Youtube"
        
        Haha.
        
        Yes, we've explained that little bit of lying fearmongering to them also.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And clearly you did a horrible job of it, twatmuffin.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 19 Nov 2011 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "We care about people wide out in the open, flagrantly abusing the internet to rip off musicians and keep the profit for themselves."
        
        So it is the internet that is the problem, Mrs. Universal?
        
        You wish to create scarcity out of abundance?
        
        Nice to see that you want to help contribute to society.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  What I think that many pirate apologists seem to miss is that nobody in the music industry is against new ways to distribute content...
  
  I can almost see that, if I squint really hard and ignore all history concerning player pianos, radio, cassette tapes and all the other things the industry has freaked out over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    When you've been beaten by facts in a debate, be sure to ignore what the poster said and bring up completely unrelated things that you want to talk about. It really helps.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When you've been beaten by facts in a debate, be sure to ignore what the poster said and bring up completely unrelated things that you want to talk about. It really helps.
      
      Wait. When did I get beaten by facts in an argument? Missed that somewhere.
      
      I quoted the part of the original comment I was responding too, so I am not sure how it's unrelated, since it was a direct response.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  I hope Coyne is releasing material to which he owns the rights (if their contract grants the rights to their label he could be in serious trouble). Remember artists, if you don't want someone else owning your work, don't sign with a label using a standard contract.
  
  What is truely sad is that the feels he needs to go to a pirate site to connect with his fans. It sounds like he's already very proactive in social media what would make the pirate site better for connecting to his fans? Probably the fact that piracy is so prolific among his fan base.
  
  There seems to be a huge potential for someone to create a meeting place that allows artists to share music and interact with their fans. Oh wait Facebook seems to accomplish that task for the vast majority of artists and their fans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    " Oh wait Facebook seems to accomplish that task for the vast majority of artists and their fans."
    
    It provides an avenue to talk to them, as does twitter, but it doesn't host files for you, as far as I know. The pirate sites allow him to release the music as quickly as he wants, without the redtape delays of his label and itunes and without having to host the content himself. He might be a big fan of the new google music store though since it allows artists to upload their music directly, it seems to be attempting to fill this gap between facebook/itunes for promotion and twitter/torrents for promotion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He doesn't need a pirate site to do that.
      
      There are these things called bandcamp, or even Flaminglips.com.
      
      The longer you talk the more you destroy your argument.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe it's because there are more people going to "pirate" sites than their own website.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like a problem the government should be looking into.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hahahaha. Except as this demonstrates, it isn't a problem at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nah, that's not a problem. lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly. The industry's been dying for decades, and not even doing a good job of THAT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The longer you talk the more you destroy your argument."
        
        What was my argument exactly that I destroyed? Was it he uses pirate sites because its convenient for him and costs him nothing, either time or money. If he did it through flaminglips.com he has to pay for all the bandwidth, torrents lets the fans carry the costs and makes it completely free for him, minus the original upload and how ever much seeding he decides to do. I imagine he doesn't use bandcamp because of label contracts, I'm know bandcamp pays you for plays so he would have the same redtape and hassle as releasing it through itunes. Although I am not entirely sure with the ins and outs of bandcamp I just know bands have reported their per song earnings from it, so I am not sure if he could have some free option and wouldn't need to involve the label. But of course then Bandcamp would just be making free money off his music and i know you would just hate that.
        
        Here is the whole problem with your wonderful argument though. If there are SSSOOO many great alternatives to just releasing a torrent and letting the music exist in the wild why the fuck doesn't he do that instead?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    "what would make the pirate site better for connecting to his fans? Probably the fact that piracy is so prolific among his fan base."
    
    No he says its the ease of use and the ability to quickly release things without hassle and redtape. But if you wanna read "he uses pirates sites because all his fans are dirty pirates," you go right ahead
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Nobody is being forced to use new services. People, content customers, are choosing to use those services and the content is not following the trend.
  
  If you were the owner of a store and a new store opened up down the road and all your customers left, you have two choices, compete to bring back customers, or legislate the new store out of business. Competing brings you life long customers and more revenue. Legislating the problem away gets you hated for monopolistic practices.
  
  If as a content producer, your fans tell you they want your music/movie/game/book/whatever on some new service, you have two choices, do it and get more revenue and fans or don't and die.
  
  Adapt or die. That is the law of the land. These attempts at legislating away the need to adapt will fail and fail hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  "What the Flaming Lips are doing is controlling their content."
  
  No they are giving up control of their content. Putting it out into the wild, because they believe their fans will support them because that is what fans do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  What I think that many pirate apologists seem to miss is that nobody in the music industry is against new ways to distribute content, new ways to contact fans, new ways to make connections.
  
  Unless those new ways have any sort of measurable negative impact on their existing (read:ancient) business model's bottom line ... then it's all lawyers and lobbyists from there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:03am

It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
"30 people together to play 30 different Flaming Lips songs from 30 different cars" -- And you think that innovative?

Anyway, NO ONE EVER says this -- already established and advertised band that got its start through conventional record label deal -- can't be an exception that makes your notions semi-work. And they can give away as many downloads as they wish, or not worry about torrents. They've a right, because they're the owners (I balk at "creators" for this bunch, but use it if you must).

However, that's no way to run an industry, simply won't work. The problem of getting noticed alone ought to dissuade from thinking that just any garage band can take the "free" give-away path to similar success.

"SOPA-boxers"? ... Avoid making up new words, not your forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
  "Anyway, NO ONE EVER says this"
  
  Actually, it gets said so often that there's a Techdirt "trope" for it: This will only work for big artists....
  
  "(I balk at "creators" for this bunch, but use it if you must)"
  
  Nobody gives two poops about your musical taste, since you seem to hate everything and love nothing, which I imagine is the exact same ratio for people in your life's opinions of you....
  
  ""SOPA-boxers"? ... Avoid making up new words, not your forte."
  
  Avoid life, living it is clearly not your forte....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
    @"Dark Helmet": You wrote in:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111031/03241116566/us-chamber-commerce-so-clueless-it-thinks -you-have-to-be-anti-ip-to-be-against-e-parasite-bill.shtml#c144
    
    "So, here's the thing. I want a real debate. I want the other side to show me where Mike, myself, and others might be wrong. But you're not doing it. All you're doing is walking up to a group of people discussing something, pulling down your pants, twirling your penis around, and then telling THEM that they're stupid. Stop that."
    -----------------
    
    What happened to your call for debate, not vulgarity and name calling? Just a passing gambit, as I expected. That's why I'd never trust you.
    
    Here, all you try to do is suppress opinion.
    
    But at least I've suppressed you from outright bizarre sexuality, and haven't seen a "man-sausage" riff for a while, either. -- Start those up again, DH, show us all how to elevate the tone here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
      "What happened to your call for debate, not vulgarity and name calling? Just a passing gambit, as I expected. That's why I'd never trust you."
      
      Oh, I'll have the debate with someone capable. Sadly, you declined my offer for civil discourse and then went on a campaign to apparently prove to the world that you're an idiot. Congrats, you're succeeding.
      
      Seriously, how can I debate with someone incapable of writing in common english, who goes around capitalizing the oddest words, throws slashes around like chinese stars, and then will just leave out a word here or there to ensure no one knows what the hell they're talking about?
      
      Seriously, lose Techdirt's URL. I don't know what kind of life you must have that you feel the need to come here day after day, to a place that universally despises you, and spout your nonsense. Half of it is invective, the other half the kind of weird political conspiracy crap that gives us good skeptics a bad name. At no point do you offer a cogent thought. At no point does a single person on this thread see you as anything but the boot grime that you are. Nobody's "suppressed" you, because nobody has to. You marginalized yourself so well, so long ago, that it'd be sad to see you here if you weren't such a complete douchebag about it.
      
      Oh, and man-sausage boobies spanky-de-wanky and fart-nozzle. Better, jackass?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 19 Nov 2011 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
        DH, let's try to be... Well I was going to say "reasonable" but I'm gonna go with "lenient".
        
        Ootb does make good arguments, but they're so parse in his regular recourse that it's lost when he's off (or on) his rocker with his tangential points. I have to admit when he does get it right, it scares people. But when he gets it wrong, like up above... Whoo boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
        "Seriously, lose Techdirt's URL."
        
        Nice way of saying "shut up, we don't want to hear any other opinions".
        
        Closed minded much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2011 @ 8:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
        Says the shill who always yells: "Shut up, and piss off prick" when he can't come up with a good reply to someone.
        Now do as you say, piss of shill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 1:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
        Nice way of saying "shut up, we don't want to hear any other opinions".
        
        Closed minded much?
        
        Kind of funny to see you say this just 24 hours before one of your comments -- which disagreed with the prevailing sentiment around here, won the "most insightful of the week."
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/16052516821/funniestmost-insightful-comments-wee k-techdirt.shtml
        
        What's clear is that the community is quite open to beliefs that disagree with their own, and are quite willing to discuss them when you present them in a coherent manner, and discuss them without baseless attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
        "Closed minded much?"
        
        To ootb? Yes. Yes I'm closed minded to him. He's a willfull jackass the likes of which I've never seen before.
        
        You? Not so much. Nice win on the weekend awards....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
      Because we all learned a long time ago their is no legitimate debate with you. All you do is spout your opinions as fact and then make wild assumptions about topics you know nothing about. Its way more fun just to poke fun at you since you won't go away, but you have shown us that an intelligent reasonable discussion with you is out of the question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
  Basing everythign on "how we used to do things" and "How industries used to work" doesn't wash... don't you realise that the digital era and the internet are a game changer?
  
  Adapt or die!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
  Thing is, "the industry" isn't needed anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
    That's why bands and acts don't try to get signed by a label anymore.
    
    oh wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's easy if your "music" is close to jet-engine noise:
      People still buy lottery tickets too...doesn't mean they're all going to win.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Wash, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:07am

Well, taking advantage of technology is a less expensive way to get dreams realize these days. By the way, his needs her needs is a must for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:09am

Free Rein
> If the labels are smart, they'll give more of their
> artists free reign to come up with innovations and
> solutions of their own

They had better, because the labels sure aren't going to come up with innovations and solutions.

They only come up with ways to eliminate innovations and hinder solutions.

Why is that?

Because the innovations and solutions change the music purchase transaction to be more directly between the consumer and the artist -- thus bypassing the dinosaurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:45am

Funny thing about this whole copyright/technology/pirate debate is this...

Three inventions that are now looked at as 3 *critical* turns in human history, perhaps 3 of the most important 20 inventions in all of human history... did/do the exact same thing as new media on the internet - copy.

First we have the Gutenberg press. What was it's purpose? To copy media. No other real purpose. Copy it in mass, actually - that was it's claim to fame. I'm sure it put many scribes out of work - if not all of them, at least 95%. Luckily for humanity the scribes didn't convince the king that it was 'infringing' upon them. Else, so many more people would have remained illiterate....

Then we have the phonograph. Probably the only reason a 'music industry' even exists today. Prior to that, sheet music and live performance was it. At that time, music was one of the very worst paid professions a person could go into - heck, Mozart was broke all his life practically. Luckily for human history, the sheet music companies and those that ran the theaters didn't petition the king to destroy their invention due to copyright issues.

I mean - what would have happened if Handel's family would have insisted on royalties for the first real recording and blocked it's production if they didn't get their demands, which would have been likely at the time. He died in 1759, so that's not totally an impossibility.

(The phonograph cylinder recordings of Handel's choral music made on June 29, 1888 at The Crystal Palace in London were thought to be the oldest known surviving musical recordings,)

Then finally we have the camera. A device that could run literal circles around any painter. No more were multiple hour long sitting sessions necessary for a photograph and eventually the art of making these pictures 'motion' has lead to one of the largest industries in the history of man.

In all of these cases, many multiples of Artists, Corporations, Investors, Entrepreneurs, Common Folks, small business and others have made much proft from. In turn these inventions spawned untold numbers of improvements and progress from.

Pretty much all modern media owes it's existence to devices that copied media. Without these copying devices, we wouldn't be having this debate, because the entertainment industry wouldn't even exist.

Proof is that entertainment industry in 1750... what was it? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  I almost logged into one of my proxies just so I could click insightful more than once... nice post!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ragaboo (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:52am

Still haven't heard the album ...
I'm a huge Coldplay fan, and I've loved both singles that have come out from their new album, so the day it came out, I immediately went to Spotify. I didn't see it on there, so I figured maybe I'd gotten the date wrong and double-checked. Nope, right day, so what the hell? I Googled and found out that they were holding it from Spotify. I don't really pirate music anymore now that I have an easier method to listen with a Spotify account (that I *gasp* pay for!). So, I still haven't heard the new album, despite being a big fan. Way to serve your fans, Coldplay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Still haven't heard the album ...
  "I'm a huge Coldplay fan..."
  
  There's your first problem...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:39pm

You people like to try and remain willfully blind to these facts because you want to try to rationalize your ripping off of musicians.

That is a generalization that is untrue. Many of us, for whatever reasons, simply do not download 'pirated' music or software.

But many of us will in fact INSIST upon being able to use technology that exists to:

Backup our media.

Convert it to different formats that are far more flexible than those offered.

Additionally, many of us already own music on Vinyl/Cassette/CD - where the media is bad or old or of poor quality. Since we have already purchased the songs, and could (if the media was good) rip them to digital format - why would it be a problem to get a copy of what you already purchased? After all; it's said that there an 'intellectual property' portion to media that we also 'purchase rights to' when we buy the physical media - does that go away just because it's a Cassette?

Plus, if we are buying a 'license' to listen to music - why isn't the RIAA/MPAA/whatever media company providing us with said 'license'?

If I did in fact purchase this mythical 'license' to listen to the music... where is it?

Microsoft provides a sticker/paper for the license they sell. If I have this license, I can install Windows from any media and use my license key to activate it... which is clearly value to the customer that all these other entities fail to even attempt to provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From one brown eye to another!, 11 Dec 2011 @ 10:24am

Coldplay are a bland steely dan to wilco's modern attempt at the eagles bland suburban cowboy schtick. And fiest is your ann murry. Generation echoboomer yor fate will forever be sealed when you recognize yr generations shanana whi,h was a tie between the strokes and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]