The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File

from the some-data-on-pay-what-you-want dept

Fri, Dec 2nd 2011 12:06am — Mike Masnick

We've written a few times now about the band Uniform Motion, who has been extremely transparent with their latest release, such as explaining how much they make from different streaming platforms. Andy Richard, from the band, has also been quite active over on our Step 2 platform, and recently shared the results of a survey the band did of fans after they experimented with "pay what you want," including his own analysis of what the results mean. Here's just a snippet:

5. What made you decide to download the music?

I wanted to sample the music before buying a CD/Vinyl: 28%

I wanted to sample the music before paying for the MP3�s.: 22%

I wanted to own the music but couldn�t afford to pay for it: 22%

I don�t really know. I just clicked the buttons!: 19%

I wanted to own the music but I don�t think music is worth paying for: 4%

I wanted to write a review about your music: 3%

6. Do you have any idea how many times you have listened to our album(s)?

More than 5 times: 45%

2-5 times: 30%

More than 50 times: 15%

Once: 7%

I have no idea: 3%

I didn�t even get past the first couple of songs, you guys suck! 0% (thankfully!)

7. What made you decide to pay for our music? (multiple responses ok)

(Only people who had made a purchase were asked this question)

I wanted to support the band: 100%

I wanted to own the music: 61%

I wanted to own a tangible version of the album (CD/Vinyl): 61%

The key take aways are summarized here:

People who buy music do so to SUPPORT you.

So the interaction with fans is key. In today's business, you need to 'deserve' people's support and just making good music is not quite enough.

The value is in the relationship not the MP3 file.

We keep hearing from critics that the music is the "only thing of value" that a musician really has to offer as an argument for why any business model should be solely focused on selling music. But, as we've explained over and over again, that's not accurate at all -- and Andy's summation here encapsulates what we've been trying to say for years much more simply than we've ever said it. None of this means the music doesn't matter. The music absolutely matters, and the relationship is only built if the fans like the music in the first place. But the real value isn't in the mp3 file... but in the relationship.

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, culture, relationships

90 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 12:51am

Patronage?
I hadn't really thought of this before, but that idea of paying because you support the band is really more in line with a patronage system than with current (read: major label) system. People, or at least the sort of people who are giving money to pay-what-you-can projects like this, are giving the money so that the artist can make more music, and not so much as reimbursement for the music that's already been made. Which makes sense -- there's no real scarcity when it comes to the music, but the actual artist is a unique commodity, which makes them actually worth paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 1:30am
  
  Re: Patronage?
  Many people nowdays actively dislike many labels.
  They do not want to give money to the label, and if there was a chance to throw their money directly into the bands guitar case they would take that route.
  
  Some bands don't do well this way and blame it on the evil pirates, rather than looking at the options of they aren't as good as they imagine, or they are not connecting with the fans who would pay them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Swedish Turnip (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 1:33am
  
  Re: Patronage?
  Patronage seems like a good word for the behavior of the customers. I act in much the same way when it comes to games (Not much of a music guy). I've quite frequently bought games to support studios that makes games that I find enjoyable even if I know I don't have time or interest in playing that particular game, but I only do this when the game is on sale or once the price has dropped to a reasonable level for what I feel like contributing. I've also bought a lot of old games from Good Old Games because I thouroughly approve of their business modell, the absence of DRM and because the games they release gives me that nice feeling of nostalgia. I buy those games because of the memories and not because I want to play the games again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:02am
  
  Re: Patronage?
  People, or at least the sort of people who are giving money to pay-what-you-can projects like this, are giving the money so that the artist can make more music, and not so much as reimbursement for the music that's already been made.
  
  Plus of course the internet facilitates crowdsourced patronage (actually even TV and phones do it - the paid for votes on "find a star" type reality shows can be thought of as a form of patronage - so it can work even for the mass market).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 1:57am

Key data missing on this one is the percentage who didn't answer or provided crap answers. I suspect the order of the answers in the survey effected it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 2:12am
  
  Re:
  "I don't like the results of this survey so I'll just assume it's flawed or invalid"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 3:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    And yet I bet he believe the surveys about piracy are completely perfect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    That really isn't the point. An informal wtudy that stacks the deck with leading questions and prefered responses isn't really telling us anything.
    
    Simple things, like rotating the order of the answers, or tracking how many people are just banging through hitting the first answer in each case is significant.
    
    Aside from that, it is also a self selecting survey, so the numbers reflect mostly people who desired to be engaged to start with. That would be a subset result, not a meaningful look at all downloaders.
    
    While it is easy (and flippant) to say "It's the relationship and not the MP3 file", without the MP3 file, there would be no relationship. The music isn't secondary to the relationship, it is the driver. Thae article draws exactly the wrong conclusion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It doesn't need to be representative of all music listeners ever born just the ones that listened to the music that the band made.
      
      Now lets be clear here the music is not the most important part of it all, I wouldn't listen to Obama singing Highway To Hell would you?
      
      Who delivers that performance is also important, how it is delivered is important, is not something you can slice it and dice it and put a price in each part, it doesn't work that way, that is also why I find it absurd that someone who perform the same music needs to pay another guy who didn't do all the work to deserve it.
      
      You think I will pay you for nothing?
      Keep dreaming LoL
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There we go, an actual discussion of why the survey might be flawed. Far better than the average AC comment, I like it :)
      
      Anyway, realistically every survey on this subject is going to be flawed by that assessment. It's a survey of the fans of a particular band and what they feel is important in their desire to pay for the music they bought if they did so despite having a free option. That's already self-selecting by any definition, so I'm not sure where else you'd expect them to get their candidates.
      
      "That would be a subset result, not a meaningful look at all downloaders."
      
      It's not meant to be nor claims to be a survey of "all downloaders". It's a survey of specific people who participated in a campaign and their reasons for doing so, with an additional section asking those who also paid for their reasons for doing so.
      
      It's targeted at a specific group of people by design, but that doesn't make their answers less relevant.
      
      "The music isn't secondary to the relationship, it is the driver."
      
      I'm not sure where in the article it's claimed otherwise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 5:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aside from that, it is also a self selecting survey, so the numbers reflect mostly people who desired to be engaged to start with. That would be a subset result, not a meaningful look at all downloaders.
      
      It selects out those who are likely to pay - surely the most important people to the band. I would call it a well targeted survey - rather than a self selected one.
      
      The theory that those who currently download but don't pay can somehow be forced to pay (as in the old days when a physical object was necessary) fails because these people fall almost entirely into the following categories.
      
      1. Those who have no money to pay (either because they have no money - or because they have already spent all they have on other music).
      
      2. Those who aren't really that interested in the music - and who will happily leave it alone if they cannot have it for free.
      
      3. Those who recognise the economics of downloading. They realise that the marginal cost to the provider is tiny and so feel cheated if asked to pay an entirely artificial price for the service offered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aside from that, it is also a self selecting survey, so the numbers reflect mostly people who desired to be engaged to start with. That would be a subset result, not a meaningful look at all downloaders.
      
      Tell us what questions you would have asked then (and what response choices you would have offered).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 5:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry I meant to quote this section
        That really isn't the point. An informal study that stacks the deck with leading questions and prefered responses isn't really telling us anything.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:29am
  
  Re:
  IPtard AC Shill: What about all the people who just lied? They are scumbag pirates aren't they?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy, 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:29am

Winston Churchill said "Only trust statistics you've manipulated yourself" so I'm not going to argue about how impartial our survey was. Our goal was just to get to know our fans a little better. We shared the results because we thought there was information in there that could be useful to other independent bands.

I stand by our conclusion though, and I think you may have misunderstood what we were trying to say. First of all, it wasn't "It's the relationship and not the MP3 file" it was "The value is in the relationship, not the MP3 file".

So if I follow your logic, the music starts the relationship and the quality of that relationship is what allows the artist to monetize the music. The fan values the music more because of the relationship or shows how they value the relationship by buying the music.

You'll also note that the term MP3 file was used. We're not saying the music has no value. We're saying the MP3 file has no value.

So perhaps it would have been better to conclude that it's the relationship that allows the artist to monetize their content but that wasn't as clear cut!

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you though.

Cheers,

Andy
Uniform Motion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:42am
  
  Re:
  Who are you again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - grumpy (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    The guy making money by trusting his customers. Yes, it's sick but what can we do?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  Thanks for releasing the information. It is helpful to other artists. The industry apologists can quibble all they want about whether this is a poll or a survey.
  
  The important thing is that you are asking questions that the big companies are not. They don't care very much about the artists and they care even less whether the fans want to support the artist. In their paradigm it is publicity and distribution networks that drive sales and they don't want to hear anything that contradicts that world view.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:19am

Whether or not the "survey" was flawed, it looks as if about 50% of those to got a copy of the music could have cared less about supporting the band. They just wanted something and decided not to pay for it.

The "takeaway" to me is that while one can make money despite piracy, there are a lot of people in this digital age who are selfish beyond belief. I can only wonder what makes so many so selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:34am
  
  Re:
  The "takeaway" to me is that while one can make money despite piracy, there are a lot of people in this digital age who are selfish beyond belief. I can only wonder what makes so many so selfish.
  
  I have the same thought - but usually I am thinking about those who want to continue to be paid for work they did many years ago - and demand retrospective copyright extensions when the contract they originally made with the public nears its end.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Even if you throw copyright out of the window, there still remains about 1/2 who appear to have consumed the work and could care less about supporting the author of the work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what?
      
      According to the pareto rule 80% of your income will come from 20% of your customers aka fans, why not try to focuse on that instead of trying to squeeze water out of rocks?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And this is your justification for simply ignoring the 80% who appear inclined to give you the finger?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SabreCat, 2 Dec 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty much!
        
        Why fret over it? Working up a moral outrage over people who like to download free music doesn't help the artist any. And if these folks aren't likely to buy at any price, it's also wasted effort to chase after them.
        
        So what's your justification for expending time, money, emotion, etc. on a fruitless endeavor?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And this is your justification for simply ignoring the 80% who appear inclined to give you the finger?
        
        I think it is a good idea to enjoy continued mental health.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Erm, yes.
        
        If that 80% give me only 20% of my income and that's the hardest section of people to convince to give me anything at all then I'd say f**k you, enjoy the music, maybe you'll play it to someone who gives a shit.
        
        But, I'm not an obsessed moron...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 4 Dec 2011 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Economically speaking, yes. It is far easier to monetize a small subset of fans, so long as you provide them with a reason to support you.
        
        See also, Metallica, u2, Trent Reznor, and the article's Uniform Motion for examples on both sides of this debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      consumed the work...
      So they ate it?
      It ceased to exist?
      Loaded words are loaded.
      
      Or they listened to it, and possibly did not care for what they heard and then did not want to pay anything. It was after all a pay what you want promotion.
      
      The band has not ceased to exist because they are now trapped in a pirates hard drive for all time and no one else will ever hear them.
      
      Why should people who did not enjoy the work be compelled to support the work?
      
      1/10 loaded words, and trying to deflect the issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why should people who did not enjoy the work be compelled to support the work?"
        
        Why should people who did not enjoy a dinner at a restaurant be compelled to pay for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because the restaurant was asked by the customer for the dinner. How many customers ask musicians for a song? The musician was going to make the music anyways, so . . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why would analogies be required to be relevant?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " there still remains about 1/2 who appear to have consumed the work and could care less about supporting the author of the work."
      
      Which proves...?
      
      Many of those people will not have liked the music and decided not to support them for that reason. By your logic, if I don't buy a song that I hear on the radio and hated, I'm "stealing" because I didn't support the artist.
      
      Many will simply not have been able to pay for another reason, even if they liked the song. By your logic, if I don't pay for every song I hear on the radio, I'm "stealing".
      
      Many will not have paid for the song after the free download, but will have supported them in other ways. By your logic, even if I attend a gig by the artist after hearing them on the radio, I'm not supporting the artist because I didn't pay for the song.
      
      I'd go on, but all of this is clearly spelled out in the results of the survey. A shame you can't see past the figure you want to cherry pick.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh...someone did pay for the song in order that you may hear it...the radio station, which then recoups its expenses via advertising.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        IronM@sk, 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just like Uniform Motion paid for the song in order that you may hear it... and the recoups its expenses from the people who liked it enough (lets call them fans) to contribute monetary restitution?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. But *I* didn't pay for it.
        
        Same with the music from the band above. It was offed (legally) free or for money. To the people who downloaded free, there was no difference between the free downloads and a radio station. Nobody gives a shit about the back end deals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re:
  there are a lot of people in this digital age who are selfish beyond belief.
  
  I'll take your made up statistic of 50% of selfish people in the digital age and contrast it to the 99% of recording label executives who are selfish beyond belief, use shady accounting to cheat the artists, then publicly lie that manipulating and corrupting our political system is all for the artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    50% takenk from numbers in article, so it is hardly made up. Whether or not the cited numbers in the article are accurate is another matter.
    
    Many record label execs do make incredibly high amounts of money as compensation, but then so the senior execs in virtually every other industry. If you base your purchasing decision on such a metric your home/apartment/garage/etc. would be empty. What is far more important as a metric are the people who actually do work for such companies, be they in the entertainment business, software business, manufacturing business, etc.
    
    Frankly, this comment you made sounds like you suffer from envy, and not something that is a principled.
    
    BTW, if the 50% (or whatever the number should be) were not so selfish that coping a freebie is of no moment to them, you would not see DRM, SOPA, Protect-IP, etc. because they would not be deemed necessary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There still not deemed necessary.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Many record label execs do make incredibly high amounts of money as compensation, but then so the senior execs in virtually every other industry. If you base your purchasing decision on such a metric your home/apartment/garage/etc. would be empty.
      
      No - I live in the UK - so I can buy much of that stuff from John Lewis/Waitrose.
      
      Plus - Josh was complaining about the record exec. immoral business practices - not their high income as such.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  And of course you are not right?
  
  Go try that to someone who cares, I don't care and I will rip every single artist that is part of the big 3 labels or every studio and TV station in America and sleep like a baby at night.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't forget indie artists. You rip them off all the time too.
    
    Real classy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The pseudo indie artists that are under the umbrella of the big 3?
      
      Of course I would.
      
      I also would rip any indie that is part of the RIAA or the MPAA, or anybody that is part of the BSA or any institution that supports this IP crapoula.
      
      And I will do everything in my power to teach everyone I know and will know how to rip you off even further.
      
      There is no law you can hide under, I will rip you off no mater what.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words, cheating others in your mind and by your actions has a positive connotation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, just like you cheating others in your mind and by your own actions have a positive connotation to you.
        
        Do I feel back ignoring IP law?
        Not a bit and like I said before there is no law that you can hide under, I will rip you off, no mater the weather.
        
        So you know after ripping you off and teaching everybody I know how to do it, I will sleep like a baby at night.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 12:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You insinuate that we don't support independent artists, yet when an actual independent artist comes by to show his results your response is a callous "Who are you again"? http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111119/01564816843/value-is-relationship-not-mp3 -file.shtml#c321
      
      You're the one who's being belittling to this independent artist just because he got results you didn't like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mom and Dad's guidance in your case seems to have gone in one ear and out the other.
    
    An unselfish person would either play by the rules and pay for what they consume, or they would go elsewhere and spend their money there.
    
    Your comment makes you a poster child for "selfishness".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If only copyright didn't last so long, that's why I pirate trillions of songs per month.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dude, I got beaten in my youth protesting a dozen times and you want me to buy that cheap shot guilty trip moral BS?
      
      Even the pigs can do better than that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  Actually, the takeaway is that you will never get 100% of any group of people to pay 100% of what you want. You're wasting time if you think that most of those people would have paid if the the free option was not available - many of them will just have taken the free sample and moved on. Many of those who paid also may not have done so without the free sample.
  
  "there are a lot of people in this digital age who are selfish beyond belief."
  
  Same as it ever was. You're an idiot if you think that anything's different just because it's more publicly visible.
  
  "I can only wonder what makes so many so selfish."
  
  Welcome to Earth. I'm not sure what life is like on your planet, but here this is known as "human nature". Learn to love it, because you won't change it.
  
  Meanwhile, those who understand this can leverage it to increase their sales without trying to act like Canute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    There will always be some number of people for whom the word "ethics" has no meaning. When that number grows from a small minority to a majority society has a real problem. Right and wrong is eliminated and replaced by "I will do as I please and everyone else be damned."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gordon (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that first sentence in your comment....in fact your entire comment applies to the recording industry just as much as it applies to anyone else.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There will always be some number of people for whom the word "ethics" has no meaning. When that number grows from a small minority to a majority society has a real problem.
      
      Ethics would say things like "freely you have received, freely give"
      
      Copyright violates ethics.
      
      Etgics would say things like "turn the other cheek"
      
      Relentless pursuit of those who you believe have wronged you (even verbally as you do) violates ethics.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  Pot, meet Kettle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  Whether or not the "survey" was flawed, it looks as if about 50% of those to got a copy of the music could have cared less about supporting the band. They just wanted something and decided not to pay for it.
  
  The "takeaway" to me is that while one can make money despite piracy, there are a lot of people in this digital age who are selfish beyond belief. I can only wonder what makes so many so selfish.
  
  That makes no sense. He offered it for free, and some people took it. What's your complaint.
  
  I offer this site for free, but there are optional ways to pay me.
  
  You have not. Based on your own logic, you are one incredibly selfish bastard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 3:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Anent your title, there is no relationship to establish without the file, so downplaying its significance seems a bit off the mark.
    
    As for your site being "free", to me that would mean that you secure no compensation or benefit whatsoever from your labor. You do it out of a spirit of Christian charity while expecting nothing back in return. Of course we all know this is not the case. Compensation/benefits come in many forms, and this site is no exception.
    
    I note as of late that you are becoming more inclined to use "sailor" language in your responses. In my opinion this is not a wise strategy to employ because it diminishes the persuasive force of your arguments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anent your title, there is no relationship to establish without the file, so downplaying its significance seems a bit off the mark.
      
      You really think that? You're so clueless.
      
      As for your site being "free", to me that would mean that you secure no compensation or benefit whatsoever from your labor. You do it out of a spirit of Christian charity while expecting nothing back in return. Of course we all know this is not the case. Compensation/benefits come in many forms, and this site is no exception.
      
      Nor is it the case with the users that you trashed above. Why the distinction? Other than that you're full of it.
      
      I note as of late that you are becoming more inclined to use "sailor" language in your responses.
      
      Only to you, and only because you're full of shit. I can be as polite as can be to most folks. But you've been playing this stupid game forever on this site and actually reasoning with you was clearly pointless. So now I'm just calling it like it is. You're full of shit.
      
      And, really, "sailor language?" What are you, 105 years old?
      
      If you can't take me calling you full of shit, why not stop being full of shit? Then I'll stop calling you out for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are not calling me out on anything. If expressing a personal opinion that I view certain conduct as "selfish" or "unethical" gets your dander up, then I have to wonder why this is so.
        
        As for my last comment, �When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both�.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are not calling me out on anything. If expressing a personal opinion that I view certain conduct as "selfish" or "unethical" gets your dander up, then I have to wonder why this is so.
        
        I've called you out repeatedly. You show up every day, make some cryptic pedantic insulting comment, in a vaguely hands off manner, and then when anyone calls you on your bullshit, you say "merely fyi, I never stated my opinion."
        
        As for this instance, you calling people selfish and unethical for merely listening to music is insulting and obnoxious. How could you possibly know their motivations or reasons? It's presumptuous and obnoxious for you to make such broad -- and broadly insulting -- accusations.
        
        As for my last comment, �When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both�.
        
        "When a man quotes a pithy aphorism to support an argument, it indicates, he's full of shit."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, I find there is a tendency here to simply step away from the table when a substantive comment is made that runs contrary to the beliefs of those who rant about the "badness" of our laws.
        
        When I first visited your site I did so out of curiosity to try and get a feel for why our laws were being vilified and ignored by a segment of our population. I get the scarcity/infinite distinction. I get the "connect" and "reason" equation. I get that the internet opens up a whole new way to communicate, and that it is a platform and not a broadcast medium. I get that piracy will always be around and is impossible to eliminate. I get these and the other points that are made here repeatedly.
        
        What I do not get is the attitude of those who see nothing wrong with consuming something without paying for it. I see a lot of attempts to rationalize why those who deliberately do these acts are doing nothing wrong, but their rationalizations ring hollow.
        
        Perhaps the underlying problem is that here economics is the overarching principle, and that other considerations are not particularly relevant. I happen to believe otherwise, i.e., that there is much more involved in an ordered and just society than merely economics, and that there are a host of other considerations that are equally important and relevant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What I do not get is the attitude of those who see nothing wrong with consuming something without paying for it.
        
        Who says people are consuming without paying for it? Haven't you ever heard of alternatives?
        
        I see a lot of attempts to rationalize why those who deliberately do these acts are doing nothing wrong, but their rationalizations ring hollow.
        
        So you get it, but you don't really get it... Fascinating...
        
        I happen to believe otherwise, i.e., that there is much more involved in an ordered and just society than merely economics, and that there are a host of other considerations that are equally important and relevant.
        
        Such as what...? Morality in copyright law? If people don't pay for a product they shouldn't get it nor find a suitable alternative for a song, movie, or game from another vendor that suits their needs?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, I find there is a tendency here to simply step away from the table when a substantive comment is made that runs contrary to the beliefs of those who rant about the "badness" of our laws.
        
        That's bullshit, frankly. I'm happy to have substantive discussions. You've never brought one. I may not follow every discussion because (as you may have noticed) we have a lot going on here. So perhaps I've missed the one time in years you made a substantive comment. But I'm more than willing to go into the details with anyone.
        
        The worst of the worst though was your bullshit on SOPA, where you flat out lied and claimed we hadn't cited language or gone into the details. Both Karl and I called you on your bullshit, and you just came back with some snide comment about the way I quoted the law.
        
        What I do not get is the attitude of those who see nothing wrong with consuming something without paying for it.
        
        Again, you consume this site without paying for it.
        
        Let's make this clear: if *you* wish to comment again, you should send us a check for $10,000. That's the new price for you to comment on the site.
        
        If you don't, you'll be getting the comment for free that I am charging for. Is that unethical?
        
        Perhaps the underlying problem is that here economics is the overarching principle, and that other considerations are not particularly relevant. I happen to believe otherwise, i.e., that there is much more involved in an ordered and just society than merely economics, and that there are a host of other considerations that are equally important and relevant.
        
        Bullshit. I've explained time and time again: morals and ethics do apply -- but only in specific situations. The problem here with you being an obnoxious, pompous blowhard is the fact that you refuse to actually respond to the reasons that people have given, but rather provide snide responses in return.
        
        Nowhere did Andy complain about people listening to music for free, yet you vilified anyone who did so. I find that to be morally distasteful, in that suddenly you -- the pompous, out of touch windbag -- thinks he gets to decide what is, and what is not right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do not get to decide who is right and wrong, and it misstates my views to state otherwise.
        
        I do express my opinions about what I happen to believe is right and wrong, just as you express your opinions on subjects you write about.
        
        I also express my understanding of substantive law, which is based upon my professional understanding of applicable statutory and common law as articulted by our federal and state judicial systems. If a statement is made that I believe does not accurately articulate the law I will on accasion comment to try and clarify court rulings and why some articles and comments have overlooked key components of such rulings.
        
        When I mentioned what I believed to be broad generalizations concerning the bills pending in Congress, I did so because by my reading of the bills they did not reflect the generalizations being attributed to the them. The devil is always in the details, and one must analyze such language to determine if a generalization is correct or not.
        
        Where we may happen to differ is perhaps due in part to the fact I have faced many of these issues in a wide variety of situations, and from this I have learned that seldom are the issues as cut and dried as some might believe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "When I mentioned what I believed to be broad generalizations concerning the bills pending in Congress, I did so because by my reading of the bills they did not reflect the generalizations being attributed to the them. The devil is always in the details, and one must analyze such language to determine if a generalization is correct or not"
        
        You're really full of it. You have said nothing substantial for your argument, merely dismissing people who have actually told you the problems of Sections 102, 103, and 106 respectively. When the law was presented in the other thread, you had NOTHING to say. People have given you the benefit of the doubt multiple times to engage in conversation with you. Yet here you stand, making the same cryptic statements in another thread instead of engaging in conversation or clarifying your meanings.
        
        Mike has said it.
        Karl has said it.
        
        Now I'm going to say it.
        
        You're full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To the best of my recollection, no specific parts of Section 102 were ever identified, so it was not possible to addess issues with specificity.
        
        The same is true of Section 103, except that I did refer to one specific section and noted the use of the term "primarily" as what in my view is an important qualification. Yes, there was one instance where a portion of 103 was replicated, but there was no analysis of how it was being interpreted by the poster.
        
        Section 106 has not, again to my knowledge, ever been mentioned. Perhaps because it is a non-substantive section dealing solely with reports to Congress.
        
        If people are inclined to make broad, generalized assertions about what a pending bill includes, at the very least I would expect that they point to specific paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, etc. and explain what they believe the paragraphs, etc. say and why it is that they are believed to support the assertions that have been made.
        
        I am more than willing to get down and talk about specifics, but it is impossible to do so without those specifics being identified and explained. If a request for specifics is being "cryptic", then I must plead guilty. However, for a site that engages in extensive analysis of studies, polls, economics with reference to specific sections thereof, it does not seem at all unreasonable to ask that the same be done for bill pending in Congress.
        
        Seriously, I have been trying to truly understand many of the arguments made, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the arguments when they are basically generic in nature. Believe it or not, I do not profess to having all of the answers, and I can be quite easily persuaded by cogent arguments that are directed to specific issues. Without specificity, however, I am left with trying to guess what is being said and why.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seeing as how Karl did put up posts in regards to 103 that you did not respond, merely stating you are "not inclined, except on very limited occasions, to respond to comments/questions when they are presented in a manner that would require a treatise to formulate what I believe to be a thoughtful response," I see no point in posting parts of 102 that you will merely dismiss. I already see the problem of an AG not having a clear paper trail in allowing a site to have a hearing before being taken down. They could send a snail mail to another country but in the interim, the site is taken down in two days. That makes no sense. But it's up to you to read the parts of it because I have no faith that you'll actually respond to the posts here.
        
        "I am more than willing to get down and talk about specifics, but it is impossible to do so without those specifics being identified and explained."
        
        Again, this was done. You ignored them by saying it's not specific enough. First you asked for a car, then you ask for a hood ornament. Now you're asking for a spark plug. You keep changing your demands to detract from ever having to argue your point.
        
        However, for a site that engages in extensive analysis of studies, polls, economics with reference to specific sections thereof, it does not seem at all unreasonable to ask that the same be done for bill pending in Congress.
        
        Guess what? The public has said they don't WANT this bill. The technology industry doesn't want to lose the 230 safe harbors of the DMCA. The ones that don't want to debate are Lamar Smith and the MPAA, who have provided the language of this bill.
        
        Seriously, I have been trying to truly understand many of the arguments made, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the arguments when they are basically generic in nature.
        
        I find that highly debatable given how you have yet to substantiate your claims.
        
        Without specificity, however, I am left with trying to guess what is being said and why.
        
        Which would be well and good if there wasn't already a lot of material on why this is bad. I can show how gamers feel about it. The regular people hate the fact that it's censorship. Here is another explanation. There is no small amount of detailed arguments against this bill.
        
        To say that there are not enough cogent arguments against this greatly debated bill is to be misleading.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 12:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "when a substantive comment is made"
        
        Have you ever made one of those? I must have missed it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 3:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually the people who tend to step away from the table are those who accuse a lot of the regulars on here of spouting FUD (what does that actually mean any way? That's a genuine question). The modus operandi tends to be drop in, drop a few insults and call a few names, maybe bring up a situation with similar words but no actual parallels and then don't hang around to respond to any of the challenges.
        Today's example is accusing people of being morally deficient because they've taken something for free that's being offered for free.
        It's like having a go at someone who takes a concert flyer from someone handing out concer flyers, how is that a moral issue?
        Do you ever walk past a busker and think "actually that guys not very good, i'm not going to put anything in his hat"? This is an equally valid argument. I have loads of music that I have (legally) downloaded for free, listened to a couple of times, and then decided it's not my thing. No-one is harmed by this action!
        I have waaay more music that i've downloaded for free and subsequently bought the CD (i'm old school) and/or gone to live shows from the band. Because I was able to determine (at a time and place of my choosing) whether or not I really liked the band.
        Words are powerful things, try using ones like "share" instead of "consume" (really, what exactly has been consumed here?) and see how you get on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 3:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "FUD (what does that actually mean any way? That's a genuine question)"
        
        It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". It's usually applied to situations where rather than compete, a company tries to spread lies about its competition to undermine confidence in their product - see Microsoft and SCO's early attacks on Linux and open source for example.
        
        Of course, the term doesn't really apply when the accusations are true...
        
        Oh, and I like your music by the way. You made a sale directly from this post :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        , and I like your music by the way. You made a sale directly from this post :)
        
        Make that two!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you very much sir! I'm glad you enjoyed it, feel free to share it around ;~)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And thank you again! Very much appreciated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously I picked the wrong article to proffer my views. Of course, if something is offered for free by its creator there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking advantage of his/her generosity. This is decision made by the author.
        
        Where I part company is when someone does not offer it for free, but for compensation or other limitations. In such cases I happen to believe it is wrong to ignore wholesale the wishes of the author, and those who say "I don't care because I will do as I darn well please (as some here have stated in no uncertain terms)" have in my view a very poor sense of ethics and are selfish.
        
        The difference? In the former the author has made the decision, and the latter should be accorded the same deference. That is the right thing to do.
        
        I also believe that there is more to these issues than just economics. Simple courtesy should not be cast aside.
        
        If that makes me "old school", then so be it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem
        
        There exists a cultural ecosystem where those in the "old school" want to control the whole, but that is a silly way of dealing with any ecosystem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 1:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where I part company is when someone does not offer it for free, but for compensation or other limitations. In such cases I happen to believe it is wrong to ignore wholesale the wishes of the author, and those who say "I don't care because I will do as I darn well please (as some here have stated in no uncertain terms)" have in my view a very poor sense of ethics and are selfish.
        
        Earlier in this thread, I *SPECIFICALLY* told you that for *you* to comment on this thread, you must first pay $10,000.
        
        You have ignored wholesale my wishes as the author.
        
        I conclude that, based on your own ridiculous sense of morality, that you have a very poor sense of ethics and are selfish.
        
        I'll leave out the full of shit part, because that's been well established.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2011 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I find it telling that when I offer substantive comments you once again ignore them.
        
        This is the "tendency" noted at #62, and your comment here is merely more grist for the mill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 5 Dec 2011 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Title I � �Combating Online Piracy:�
        Sec. 101 lays out definitions of certain terms used throughout the bill.
        Sec. 102 deals with actions against foreign infringing sites initiated by the attorney general. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, �Sections 102 , 103, and 201.�
        Sec. 103 deals with actions against foreign infringing sites initiated by copyright holders. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, �Sections 102 , 103, and 201.�
        Sec. 104 grants immunity to anyone - payment provider, advertising service, domain name registry, etc. � who voluntarily takes steps detailed in sections 102 and 103 to block access or end financial affiliation with a site believed to be a foreign infringing site.
        Sec. 105 grants similar immunity for taking action against sites offering counterfeit drugs, or offering drugs without requiring a prescription.
        Sec. 106 is bureaucratic � it orders that the Attorney General should develop an official process for taking the actions described in the bill, and declares that the Register of Copyrights should perform a study to determine the effectiveness of the bill, including recommendations on provisions that may need to be amended to deal with �emerging technologies.�
        Sec. 107 declares that the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (an office which already exists today) should conduct an analysis of �notorious foreign infringers,� and submit the findings to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate. The study and analysis of these infringers is the extent of this section.
        
        Title II � �Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft:�
        Sec. 201 deals with streaming of copyrighted works. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, �Sections 102 , 103, and 201.�
        Sec. 202 details increased penalties, including fines and jail time, for trafficking counterfeit goods and pharmaceuticals, and further increased penalties for goods distributed to military and law enforcement agencies.
        Sec. 203 increases penalties, again including fines and jail time, for economic espionage, for example stealing trade secrets.
        Sec. 204 declares that the United States Sentencing Commission, which establishes sentencing policies and practices for federal courts, should �review, and if appropriate, amend Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements� regarding offenses dealt with by the bill.
        Sec. 205 is concerned mostly with bureaucracy of matters dealing with copyright and infringement. For example, it declares that intellectual property attaches be appointed for each of six defined geographical regions. Nothing in this section relates specifically to enforcement of copyright laws.
        Sections 102 , 103, and 201
        Sections 102 and 103 both deal with foreign infringing sites, and the actions that internet service providers, search engines, payment network providers, and internet advertising services must take against these sites upon being notified of their infringing status. While section 102 deals with actions brought by the attorney general, section 103 describes methods by which copyright holders can protect their copyrights against foreign infringing sites without necessarily having to enter legal proceedings.
        Section 102 contains provisions for the Attorney General to deal with foreign infringing sites. First, for a site to be determined to be a �foreign infringing site,� the site must, in general, satisfy the following requirements � It must:
        be intended for consumption by U.S. citizens
        be used by users in the U.S.
        be in violation of certain statutes of the United States Code � generally, copyright infringement
        if it were a domestic site, be subject to seizure (presumably based on the above violations)
        Once a site is determined to be a foreign infringing site, the Attorney General will issue court orders to various entities to attempt prevent the site from continuing to do business with users in the United States:
        Internet Service Providers will be ordered to take �technically feasible and reasonable measures� to prevent its U.S. customers from accessing the infringing site that is subject to the order, �including measures designed to prevent the domain name � from resolving� to the correct IP address.
        Internet search engines will be ordered to prevent the site from appearing in search results as a direct hypertext link.
        Payment network providers, which according to the bill�s broad definition could include anyone involved in a site�s payment process, must take measures to discontinue and prevent processing of payments between the infringing site and U.S. users.
        Advertising services must take steps to prevent their services from providing advertisements to, and making advertisements available for, the infringing site. Advertising services must also cease providing or receiving any compensation relation to any such advertisements.
        Notably, the latter two of these four sections include a clause that specifically states that the service has no duty to monitor the infringing site beyond the initial steps to dissociate from the site. No such clause is included for the sections regarding service providers or search engines.
        Section 102 then includes a broad immunity clause with two distinct parts: first, it states that "no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court...for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order." Second, it states that "inability to restrict access ... in spite of good faith efforts" shall not be used in any claim or cause of action against an entity ordered to restrict access against a foreign infringing site. That is, if complying with an order under this section causes harm to the blocked site, the entity doing the blocking shall not be accountable in any U.S. court.
        Section 103, speaking in general terms, has the same goal as section 102: to handle foreign sites participating in copyright infringement by preventing them from doing business with U.S. users. However, there is a big difference in how section 103 allows that to be done, section 103�s methods are unique to (as opposed to PROTECT IP) SOPA: while Sec. 102 covered the power of the Attorney General over infringing sites, Sec. 103 now specifies that a �qualifying plaintiff,� that is, a copyright holder being harmed by the activities of a site, can call for some of the same actions to be taken. Specifically, the section states that a qualifying plaintiff can send notice to a payment and/or advertising provider calling for the provider to discontinue associating with the site in question, much like an order sent by the Attorney General for section 102. The payment/advertising provider then has 5 days to comply with the request. If the infringing site files a counter-notice, then the provider, caught in the middle, has immunity whether it chooses to comply with the request or not. However, if a counter-notice is not filed, the bill only specifies immunity for the provider if it complies. So it may be unsafe for a payment/advertising provider to continue to do business with a site, if that side does not decide to take on the responsibility that comes with counter-notification. (which is mainly that the site consents to U.S. jurisdiction, and then presumably must bear the cost of fighting its case that it is in the clear for whatever accusations of infringement have been made) This, compared to current law, seems to be a significant shift of the burden from the plaintiff to the potentially infringing site.
        Finally, section 201 of SOPA is a broadly written section that seems to be intended to codify the illegality of streaming copyrighted works. However, the way it is written, it could easily be interpreted by a plaintiff who so desired, to mean that streaming video of someone singing someone else's song, or using a copyrighted computer program is criminal infringement. This section, unlike 102 and 103, does not prescribe technical solutions for blocking, etc., as the section assumes a domestic infringer.
        
        As found here
        
        I doubt you have anything substantial to add. But here is the arguments in plain English. Though I doubt this will cause you to suddenly debate anything with your cryptic non-answers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:46am

Yes! People want to support artists
#7 totally corroborates my own less formal findings. People buy Sita Sings the Blues DVDs to support me, and because they want a tangible object for their libraries. The survey's 100% was nice to see, and not surprising:

I wanted to support the band: 100%

I wanted to own the music: 61%

I wanted to own a tangible version of the album (CD/Vinyl): 61%

I'm not sure what "own the music means" though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- grumpy (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: Yes! People want to support artists
  I think "own the music" can be translated to "I want to be able to hear it again no matter what some nincompoop does to the website that hosts it or the key that unlocks the DRM". Videos disappear because of invalid DMCA takedowns, DRM'ed material can be inaccessible if the key service shuts down or someone decides that you really shouldn't have the item you paid for (Amazon and 1984), little things like that. I very much prefer to own stuff, electronic or otherwise. I may be too old for this new world... ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:49am

You can't live on love. They're going to want /money/ sometime...
But this one item should make you throw the whole POLL of obvioulsy biased participants (NOT a"study") out:
"I don�t really know. I just clicked the buttons!: 19%"
By its own internal evidence, 19% of the other answers are random too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jeremy760, 2 Dec 2011 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: You can't live on love. They're going to want /money/ sometime...
  Care to explain how one leads to the other?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re: You can't live on love. They're going to want /money/ sometime...
    he could explain it to you, but he needs to charge you to recoup his 100M.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 8:16am

It's also shifts the skill set from making music to being a good relationship builder
Whenever I read these discussions, it makes me think about how some musicians I know are terrible at building relationships. I also know much loved musicians who aren't the world's most creative at music but are great relating to people.

So the dynamic can change, and the music may become secondary to the interaction. I'm not saying this is a negative. In fact, it opens doors to people who don't necessary excel at music, but have the interaction and paid friendship stuff down pat. I mean, if people like you and want to have you around, you can turn that into a business proposition. Or if having you around creates a community, you're valuable. (I was just listening to a promoter talk about the Grateful Dead. He said he could never get through an entire show of theirs, but the fans were great.)

In other words, making great music is always stressed, but may merely be a means to an end. If you can reach the end via other options, that works too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: It's also shifts the skill set from making music to being a good relationship builder
  I'll toss out another thought. Maybe instead of targeting people who like music, musicians who want to make money should target people who will pay for relationships.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - drew (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 3:14am
    
    Re: Re: It's also shifts the skill set from making music to being a good relationship builder
    Very good points Suzanne, whether people will feel comfortable around the second one is an interesting question (feels a bit like preying on the needy!) but your first point in particular makes me think about the pre-recording, pre-copyright era; it was all about the performance. The same songs and same tales made up the bulk of any bard or peformers routine, you made your reputation on how it was delivered.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's also shifts the skill set from making music to being a good relationship builder
      (feels a bit like preying on the needy!)
      
      It sounds that way, but what I meant is that there are already people spending money on whatever, so maybe it is easier to pitch to those who have already shown an interest in buying something rather than trying to convert a music listener into a money-paying fan. In terms of live performance, that's the principle behind a festival. Promoters know there's a group of people who will come to a festival for the festival experience. The acts from year to year are often secondary.
      
      Similarly Esty targets people who want to buy homemade stuff, so if you are selling homemade stuff, that's where you set up a page.
      
      Selling at your show is probably a more likely conversion point than selling online because if they have paid to get into your show, they are already paying fans.
      
      Giving away a lot of free stuff in hopes to reach the small percentage who will then pay you money may turn out to be more inefficient than marketing yourself to a group that already spends money and then trying to convert them to becoming your fan/patron.
      
      I'm just tossing this out to get people thinking about a different approach. People are doing that now with vinyl. Rather than just hoping to get current fans to buy your music in vinyl, you go after vinyl collectors and hope they will buy your release (even if they haven't been previous fans) because they like the look or collectibility of your vinyl release.
      
      In other words, let's turn this around. Instead of going after fans and hoping to turn them into buyers, go after buyers and hope to turn them into fans. Direct marketers have done this for years by buying lists of people who have purchased products from similar companies. You're not just going after eyeballs (or in the case of music, ears), but going after demonstrated purchase history.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - drew (profile), 4 Dec 2011 @ 3:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's also shifts the skill set from making music to being a good relationship builder
        Very interesting indeed, i suspect you're right on most of this, the challenge then, as always, is finding your buyers and understanding what they value. Then working out if you're in a position to supply it.
        Much food for thought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rosspruden (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 12:30pm

Start with why
Simon Sinek's TEDx lecture, How Great Leaders Inspire Action, poignantly sums up why people buy:

"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 3 Dec 2011 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: Start with why
  This is going into my playlist. Thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2011 @ 5:33pm

I believe you meant to say "Section 512" of the DMCA, the part dealing with safe harbors for user generated content.

Section 230 is a separate law contained in Title 47 and relates to immunity for a certain class of service providers regarding torts committed by its users. Importantly, intellectual property is exempt from the immunity accorded by this section.

Your car analogy is apt, but I would probably change it to car, engine, spark plug...each that follows being a component of its predecessor.

This is not a debating parlor trick trying to avoid an issue. It is how one hones in on an issue to try and determine what it is that is contained in a legislative provision that lends support to how a statute is being interpreted.

For example, Section 103 has been cited as coming into play when a site facilitates infringement. This is, however, not quite right since a necessary predicate is that the site be "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of..." I italicize primarily because it is a condition that must be met before the rest of that section can be asserted against a website. From my perspective it would be very unlikely that a court would hold sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook (the examples repeatedly used) as running afoul of 103 because of this necessary condition.

Thus, when I read a broad, generic statement asserting that Section 103 of SOPA may very well result in sites like the above being taken down, I have to ask what part of that section can be interpreted to achieve such a result. My reading of the statute suggests otherwise. Perhaps, then, there is another class of sites that might come closer to the line, and if so then perhaps what the legislative provision means can be more fully explored.

BTW, I for one would be very surprised if either SOPA or Protect-IP are sent to the floor for debate and vote without changes being made to them. In the case of SOPA, one portion that particularly jumps out at me is the notice/counter notice provision. The stated timeframe for action is so short that I believe it is manifestly unfair and calculated to cause much mischief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:28pm

Boiling it down
The real relationship taking place is with the music, not the MP3/CD/Vinyl/container. That's the only reason anyone cares about the musician in the first place. We support and respect the artist so that the artist can make more of said music, and out of a sense of common decency. Hence, COPYRIGHT and the importance in adapting it for the internet.

PS -- The record label system as it exists runs on a consumer patronage model, a "crowdfunding" model already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]