If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense

Music Industry

from the just-saying... dept

Mon, Feb 20th 2012 11:00am — Mike Masnick

David Lowery, from the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven (which I actually like), appeared at last week's SF Music Tech to talk about how things have never been worse for musicians. I unfortunately missed his session, but it's been getting some attention. Thankfully, it turns out that he had posted many of the details to his Facebook page, which lets us dig in... and raise some pretty serious questions about his claims.

However, before we get into the details, I will say that I do think that things may be worse for a specific segment of musicians -- and it's a segment that Lowery may fall into. Things are almost certainly worse if you were just sorta marginally successful under the old model and you have no interest in putting in much effort. Superstars are superstars no matter what -- and thanks to the nature of viral culture, that still gets them propelled to superstardom these days. But lower down in the market things have changed. The folks who used to completely fail out of the music world now have lots of interesting new ways to make money. And that means that there's more competition from below for the moderately successful acts -- who were neither superstars nor failures under the old system. Acts like Cracker and Camper van Beethoven. Suddenly, folks like David Lowery have a lot more competition for attention, and if he does nothing to leverage the new tools that are available, it wouldn't surprise me if he's worse off today than in the past. But that's for him. It's likely that for the vast majority of other musicians, the situation is quite different.

Of course, that's not even the argument he's making. The argument he does make actually makes so little sense that I'm surprised he chose this argument to make his point. First off, he's comparing totally different things:

We know this empirically. The facts and evidence are in. Let's start with the best case scenario. Let's just look at the division of gross revenues and expenses. The scenario where the artist puts out the record themselves on their own label.

First of all, I'm not sure that the "best case scenario" is when an artist puts out the record themselves on their own label. That certainly works quite well for some artists -- but it's not for everyone. So I think it's a little weird to call that the "best case" scenario.

Okay the vast majority of sales take place on iTunes and Amazon. How much does the artist get paid? Well if you are independent you get 61% of gross. cause you need either a distributor or an aggregator to get on iTunes. iTunes itself keeps more than 30% for simply hosting the songs on their servers. They do absolutely nothing else. This is why steve jobs was a genius. He was not afraid to be greedy. So now an old style record deal might have netted the artist 20-35% of gross (most reports of artists deals are wrong and low because they don't include the mechanical royalties).

Okay, what?!? Apple gets 30% for simply hosting the songs on their servers? At this point, Lowery loses all credibility. First of all, Apple does a hell of a lot more than that. It sets up a store, brings in customers, manages transactions, handles the distribution, and (on top of all that) sells the music playing devices that many people use to listen to the songs. To assume that's just "hosting the songs on a server" is just crazy.

But, here, I'll prove it: if Apple is really getting 30% for "absolutely nothing else" other than "hosting the songs on their servers," then that's a really easy problem to solve: just host the music yourself and take your songs off of iTunes. I actually don't use iTunes, but asked a friend who said that, indeed, Camper van Beethoven has 7 albums available for download on iTunes. Cracker has 10 albums. On Amazon, you get the exact same numbers. So, clearly, someone finds value beyond just having them hosted. Of course, if you look at the websites for Camper van Beethoven and Cracker, you'll see that, not only are they hideously designed (using ColdFusion?!?), but they don't really have a way for people to buy most of their albums. Hidden behind a "downloads" link on both sites, they have a very limited offering for sale. Hmm... perhaps someone finds something useful about iTunes and Amazon after all. Otherwise, why use them if they're doing "absolutely nothing else" other than hosting the music and taking a 30% cut? There also doesn't seem to be any way to buy any merchandise or any other way to support the band if people want to. Perhaps the reason Lowery is doing so much worse today is because he's not actually enabling any of the parts of the new business model that might help him succeed.

Also, as for the distributor or the aggregator, Lowery might want to check out something like TuneCore. While it does have a yearly fee, I'm pretty sure it actually lets artists keep all the royalties they make from iTunes.

As for the 20 to 35% gross number and how lower numbers are "wrong," that's sorta true, but not entirely. The lower numbers are correct for what your standard royalty is in a record contract. Those who are songwriters (as Lowery is) get an additional publishing royalty based on mechanicals, which are compulsory rates. So there's that.

The old deals weren't great on first glance but then if you start digging into it they weren't as bad as people think. And as i will show you were in most cases a better deal for the artists then the New model. 61% of gross is a lot better than 20-35% of gross until you consider the fact that under the new model the artist is responsible for all aspects of the records production, marketing and distribution.

Again, this assumes that there is one "New Model" and that it is being your own label and posting your stuff to iTunes. Since I don't think either of those things is accurate, it seems pointless to go much deeper on this point.

The Artist pays for the recording, the artist pays for all publicity, promotion and advertising. and here is the key thing. The artist absorbs the costs of touring.

Um. I hate to bring this up, but for the most part, that's true under the old model too. There is one difference: the labels will often front the money for those things, but they definitely want to get that back, and until they do, the money that you're getting from "royalties" (outside of the publishing royalties) is pretty much nothing because you haven't recouped. Obviously, for many artists, having that kind of money fronted is helpful, so I'm not negating that part. But there are alternatives these days -- including other "New" models (which Lowery ignores) like Kickstarter to help raise funds. Also, the cost of doing a recording has dropped tremendously over the years. As for publicity, promotion and advertising -- he's right. But again, under the old system, only a very small number of bands really would get the labels to do anything about publicity, promotion and advertising -- and these days, it's a lot easier for bands to do much of that on their own.

You know only a handful of artists make a living touring right? most artists need another job to go back to or they get tour support from the record label. Touring usually only pays enough to pay the crew and expenses. Touring only makes sense if it increases your sales. Artists often go on tour for free in hopes that the tour pays off in increased sales.

I recognize that Lowery's been in the music world for a long time -- which gives him some credibility -- but it also means he's kinda locked into the way things used to work, and not so much on how they can work. With new services like Eventful, bands are increasingly discovering that they can tour more efficiently, and figure out ways to make the tours themselves profitable, rather than having the tours support album sales.

Plus the new model makes the artist absorb ALL THE RISK. The risk of making a recording that doesn't recoup. The risk of going on tours that don't increase sales enough and become a loss.

This is definitely true. The labels do absorb the risk. Which is why we've said time and time again that there's still room for new labels that understand the new business models and can work within that framework. But, the "price" that the major labels charge for absorbing that risk is kinda crazy. Not only do you give up your copyrights for the risk, you also give up the vast majority of the income from your sales. Compare that to the startup world. There, venture capitalists will often invest in companies, and put up the "risk capital" on hugely risky bets (much riskier than an album). But rather than taking over all IP rights, all revenue and then paying back a mere pittance to the entrepreneurs, venture capital takes an equity stake, gets no rights to revenue and owns the percentage of the IP that they get via equity. Something's out of whack -- and it's the terrible deals the labels give.

Either way, again, there are other ways to absorb that risk. I've already mentioned two: crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, or more modern indie labels that understand new business models and leave more power to the aritsts.

Now consider iTunes and Amazon who are now the biggest music companies of all. They put up ZERO CAPITAL and ZERO RISK and they get 30% of the gross in return. At least the old record label system shared some of the risk! Wow the old labels were not so evil compared to the new labels.

Wait, what?!? Again, we're back to something that makes no sense at all. iTunes and Amazon are the retailers, not the "labels." It makes no sense to compare them. If we're going to actually compare apples to apples, then you would compare iTunes and Amazon to traditional retail outlets. And when did Tower Records ever put up the capital for musicians to record an album? What about Walmart? Seems like they're a lot like Amazon and Apple... and it looks like the amount of money they took may have been even higher. I'll let Jeff Price from Tunecore (someone who knows quite a bit about this) summarize how things used to work:

The financial food chain of the music industry used to be as follows. A distributor sells a CD to a retail store for a wholesale price (let's say $10). The retail store marks the CD up to $16.98 and make $6.98. The distributor takes a “distribution fee” of 20% of the wholesale price (in this case $2) and passes the remaining $8 back to the label.

A band signed to a major label could expect to earn a band royalty rate of $1.40 – $1.70 per full length CD sold. This band royalty was paid through to the artist if they had “recouped” the band royalty fronted to them by the label (i.e. an “advance”) – most do not recoup.

Ok. So, in that scenario, the retailer is making $6.98 on a $16.98 CD. That's... wait for it... 41%. Yeah, that's more than what Amazon and iTunes charge. I'm kinda shocked Lowery would make this comparison since it makes no sense and sorta takes away his credibility here.

So essentially THE NEW BOSS in the new model is iTunes and Amazon (also indirectly Google). And THE NEW BOSS is actually more greedy than the old boss.

Um. No. First off, we're still comparing apples to oranges. Also, I have no idea where Google comes in, as I don't see where they're charging 30% in this transaction. But, as noted above, it seems like these new retailers are actually charging less than the old retailers.

Now of course the independent artist can still sell so many albums that the higher percentage of gross 61% overwhelms the higher initial costs. But I bet this is not the case for most of your favorite artists. The increased costs and responsibilities make THE NEW MODEL a worse deal. The artists that do better under the new model are few and far between. That's why so many artists that seemingly could go independent do not. They still use record labels. Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label? A lot of smart well managed bands still on labels. Why? Because the NEW MODEL is actually worse.

Again, this is just ridiculous. He's making two assumptions that are just crazy. The first is that the new model means no record labels at all (it doesn't). And, secondly, that the only revenue source is sales (it's not).

I guess you can prove anything you want when you're setting up the straw men.

In the new model you have these parasitic entities (itunes etc) that take 30% of gross and provide no added value. As screwed up as the old business was there was this giant parasitic entity sucking out 30% of gross for nothing. This should suggest to any intelligent person that there is something seriously wrong with the NEW MODEL

Again, if they do nothing, then don't use them. But clearly they do plenty, because he is using them. And part of what they do is they have the audience, which is tremendously valuable. Second, they appear to charge less than old brick and mortar retailers, so his entire argument is... um... wrong.

Now I'm as surprised as you that we would evolve a worse system than the old record label system. But facts are facts. We have. And I'm not happy about either.

Facts are facts, but his interpretation is ridiculous.

And finally please don't be an idiot arguing with me if you can't point to real evidence. or you don't know the actual percentages or costs. You can't just drop hearsay, urban myths, fairytales and pretend they are facts. If you do I reserve the right to flame your ass for talking out of your ass.

This is someone who doesn't want to hear he's wrong -- shutting off anyone who disagrees with him. Of course, that shouldn't stop people from responding and pointing out his errors. The only point on percentages I made came from Jeff Price -- who I'd argue knows a hell of a lot more about this than David Lowery does. Not only is Price probably responsible for getting more artists on iTunes than anyone short of Steve Jobs, but he also founded and ran a successful indie record label for years. On the other points, they've got nothing to do with percentages, they have to do with reality.

Hey, perhaps it's true that musicians are worse off today than in the past. The evidence we've seen suggests something entirely different -- and Lowery's own argument is about as nonsensical as any we've seen to date. So forgive me for being less than convinced.

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, camper van beethoven, cracker, david lowery, economics, itunes, labels, music
Companies: amazon, apple, google

192 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:26am

Yes, Mike Masnick knows more about the music business that a man that has self released albums, released them on both indie and major labels, and owns a commercial recording studio.

LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  Wow, what a convincing argument! Look at all those specific examples and rebuttals full of logic and reasoning!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    you can tell by the epic "LOL"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DandonTRJ (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:33am
  
  My mind has been opened.
  I didn't know arguments could be won and lost simply by comparing resumes rather than conducting factual analyses! Man, I've been wasting my time trying to actually discuss things in life. I just need to get to a point where I can comfortably rest on my CV to validate everything that falls out of my skull as empirically true. Thanks for showing me the way, AC!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:35am
  
  Re:
  Well, considering that this could have happened wayyyy back in the late 1990s...
  
  And moreover, the article was used as a "scything" rebuttal of an earlier post by Mike. And I read it and lost nearly half my IQ, it was actually that full of logic fails, strawmen and general entitlement attitude.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward's Astroturf Supervisor, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  Excellent work. Deflecting the argument, ad-homs against Pirate Mike, *and* using common internet lingo that the kids will understand ("LOL").
  
  Look for a little something extra in this week's paycheck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    not to mention, his argument is that David Lowery knows the music industry? So? I'm sure miller George Mellor also knew the milling industry as well, doesn't change the fact that that the industry changed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  Is that all you've got?
  
  You didn't even read the article, did you?
  
  I did. Looks like Lowery was the one talking out of his ass.
  
  I so hope he flames Techdirts ass for daring to call his ass out for talking out of his ass.
  
  Also, just because someone is in the biz, doesn't mean someone out of the biz doesn't know anything about the biz.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I so hope he flames Techdirts ass for daring to call his ass out for talking out of his ass."
    
    Haha! it's funny because he actually did :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  Apparently so.
  
  I am not, by any definition, a music industry insider, but even I found Lowery's post to be somewhat misleading when I read it over the weekend by comparing retailers to record labels and completely leaving out everything about having to recoup all that money advanced by a label or losing control of your copyrights when you sign a label deal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Eventually artists like him are going to realize the enemy isn't piracy, its the record labels poor business judgement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  So in conclusion: Yes, Mike Masnick does indeed know more about the NEW music business then David Lowery does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    What NEW music business? Lowery works in this supposed "new" music business, and makes it clear that it isn't better for the musicians.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if you actually read the article, you would have noticed the very problem with trying to apply old with new that is mentioned. Old dog, meet new tricks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I did the article- thing is, I'm not the one in denial or with a reading comprehension affliction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently you are, since you cannot seem to offer a single convincing piece of evidence to validate your claims against Mike's article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What NEW music business? Lowery works in this supposed "new" music business, and makes it clear that it isn't better for the musicians.
      
      If he really works in the "NEW" music business he wouldn't think that the only way to make money in the new music business is to be your own label and sell on iTunes.
      
      And he doesn't make it clear it isn't better for musicians. He makes it clear that he doesn't know the difference between a retailer and a label.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think he makes it clear that he looks at the money from both sides, and realizes only one really pays off - and it's not the online one.
        
        Still waiting for a new business model that works. I read Step2, but damn, nothing there for more than a week. I guess we are fresh out of ideas!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think he makes it clear that he looks at the money from both sides, and realizes only one really pays off - and it's not the online one."
        
        Money doesn't magically appear in the "new" business models. You have to work at it, and you have to have some idea of what you're doing. Given that Lowery apparently thinks that iTunes is a record label and Google takes part of an iTunes transaction, I think it's safe to say he doesn't.
        
        I'm sorry, but someone who fails in a business of which he's completely failed to understand even the most basic components, does not undermine the viability of the model for those who do understand.
        
        "Still waiting for a new business model that works."
        
        There's hundreds of them. you just have to work out which one's best for you. But, nobody's going to do the work for you.
        
        "I read Step2, but damn, nothing there for more than a week. I guess we are fresh out of ideas!"
        
        You won't even think about a business model unless they're detailed on a single site? No ideas of your own? I think I've found your problem...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Lowery works in this supposed "new" music business
      
      No he doesn't. He's still working in the old music business. The one where you try to create artificial scarcities.
      
      A web page does not make a new business model. It makes for good cargo cult discussions, though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  Oh look, another AC that can't explain why the analysis of David Lowery is right or wrong. Just go and attack Mike for showing exactly where the problems lie in an assessment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, Mike Masnick knows more about the music business that a man that has self released albums, released them on both indie and major labels, and owns a commercial recording studio.
  
  Yup - rather like a vet knows more about dogs than a dog does..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 4:28am
  
  Re:
  You don't need to be an expert on the music business to be able to compare old style and new style deals. You just need to be able to do 6th grade math.
  
  I suppose I can understand why it's so hard for you to understand, in that light.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:29am

Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label?

I took him up on his offer and grabbed the two most recent CDs I've purchased; States' "Room to Run" (2011) and The Panic Division's "Eternalism" (2012). And looking at the back of each CD case, the copyright on the record is... to the bands. States is composed of members from Copeland and Lydia, both of whom were once on major labels (Universal and Columbia), and The Panic Division were on The Militia Group (a well-respected indie label) for the first half of their career. Interesting how both have eschewed the benefits of having any label involved in their recent work. They must be drunk off the toxic fumes of the new model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- qyiet (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label?
  I'm also pretty sure Nine Inch Nails, my favorite band since high school dumped their record lable in 2007.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, they got told they were "out-of-touch" with music trends.
    
    Then promptly made a bit of money from each of their albums since.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  After looking at the music i'm listing too right now, and the only thing under a major label is the Gorillaz. The rest is all independent stuff, heck half of it's random music people make and distribute for free on mediafire cause they enjoyed making music and sharing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  Amusingly, every album I've listened to since 2008 is not only non-label, but the vast majority have Creative Commons licensed.
  
  This guy can keep charging upfront for what others do for free, for all I care. He'll just end up being undersold by people who do it better for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kurt Overmeyer, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow - great business model for musicians you have outlined there. I know David a little and some members of his bands pretty well and 1. They are smart guys who work their butts off (everybody in Camper and Cracker has a day job plus a more than rigorous tour schedule) 2. They don't make their money from selling records anymore. 3. They were an "old" model band(s) that got ripped off by a label and are still beholden to said label in some ways. 4. Musicians work really hard on their craft and if they are good, they deserve to get paid for that work.
    
    Seriously dude - would you show up to work to lose money? Did you really think this through?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      a rebuttal to point 4:
      
      they only deserve to get paid if someone is willing to pay them for their output. they are just pissing in the wind until then...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did I say anything about a "business model?" I listen to music, I don't care about the so-called "business."
      
      Nor do I care what fees this guy thinks he's entitled to. As long as someone else does just as much work and releases for free, then that's what I'll listen to. I see no reason to pay for what others can do for free...that's me being smart about my own finances, and remaining guilt free about sinking so low as to actually give money to record labels or the sniveling, entitled whiners they claim to represent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:00am
  
  Re:
  I had a think about this too, and then I thought "erm, define "standard record label"".
  
  Some of my favourite artists either self-released their most recent albums or gave them away in order to promote touring and merchandise. Some are signed to labels, but those labels don't operate according to the legacy models, and even give away music by various means (e.g. at least 2 labels I listen to have monthly free music podcasts).
  
  So, for me the answer is somewhere between "no" and "I'm not sure". It's funny how some arguments fall apart when you base them on a faulty assumption...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:45am

He should now receive an email from iTunes that goes somewhere along the lines off:

"We have terminated the contract with you today. You are also prohibited on ever putting anything you create on iTunes by yourself or making someone else put it for you.

Sincerely yours,
Parasites"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 8:55pm
  
  Re:
  see, thats just it tho. the replacements to the labels (the new platforms, the "big search" (whatever the fuck that is), and itunes, etc) have no interest in being enemies with artists.
  
  They are not going to act offensively towards them, they will not offer kneejerk defensive reactions.
  
  They want to work together. They will continue to offer the musicians the other cheek, no matter how hard they just got slapped.
  
  Why are so many artists attacking the guy who's trying to give them a better life?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:45am

They should meet
Someone should introduce David Lowery to a little known artist named Kenny Rogers so they can talk about the old business model.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120219rogers#gq8-RMnkiSdOV0EsATdQrQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:51am

"THE NEW BOSS in the new model is iTunes and Amazon (also indirectly Google)."

WTF? Just got to toss a boogieman in there for good measure or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, these days you gotta find a way to work Google in and demonize them. It's just something you have to do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys, 20 Feb 2012 @ 11:55am

Are there any studies linking ranty, out-of-touch musician blogs with early geriatric senility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  Not yet, but I'm sure the MAFIIA could knock up one for you, if you ad in a bit of Google hate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 1:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Google cause of early geriatric senility among artists"
    That does have a ring to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kisom (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:21pm

Ummm..
Why do these David Lowery types keep using the term "new model'? Did they have amnesia for the past decade? Were they abducted by aliens?

Someone needs to catch-up these poor guys. I'll start.

It's called the "internet." On this newfangled "internet" you can sell your own service and/or products which is called "ecomerce." You can go with a company that already has a online "store" like iTunes or you can hire a professional to "develop" your own "store." These "store" allow people all over the world to buy your service and/or products! Wait.. there's more.. if you make the most out of this "internet", you might even be recognized by "search engines" like "Google" for your efforts!!

What's more, if you do not want to participate in this newfangled technology.. you don't have to!! That's right.. there are still a ton of people out there who are more than happy to take advantage of your refusal to join us in 2012.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- illuminaut (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: Ummm..
  That's what I thought when reading this. What's the point of complaining about the "new" model? Who is he trying to convince and what for? Even if he was right and artists would be worse off today than in the old days, that surely won't make the old days come back.
  
  A more productive post from someone like Lowery with all his experience in the music biz would be to give tips for newcomers to make it in the new way of doing business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruud (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:26pm

You cannot compare the 41% taken by old model retailers with the 30% taken by online retailers like Apple and Amazon without taking the differences between those models into account. The old model retailers do have inventory and write-off costs on the physical media, which do not apply to the new models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- illuminaut (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re:
  That's true, and I'm pretty sure Apple is making a lot more money off a sale than traditional retailers. However, they're also providing a much larger audience and effectively eliminate the role of distributor. It used to be difficult to even get your product into the shelves of traditional retailers. Nowadays that's as easy as uploading your song to iTunes. What's left is the marketing. That's by far the hardest part and has always been, but that does not diminish the value iTunes et al provide.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  If apple is making more profit by taking 30% than trad retail was taking 41% that doesn't make any difference to the guy who is now only having 30% taken away from him when he used to be losing 41%.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:59pm
  
  Response to: Ruud on Feb 20th, 2012 @ 12:26pm
  You also don't have manufacturing production, packaging and shipping costs to be incurred by the artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:59pm
  
  Response to: Ruud on Feb 20th, 2012 @ 12:26pm
  You also don't have manufacturing production, packaging and shipping costs to be incurred by the artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cody Jackson (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 10:14pm
  
  Re:
  Online retailers have to pay bandwidth costs, servers and storage, webmasters, software licenses, etc. So realistically the costs have just shifted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hobo, 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  Okay, say you own a business. A large company contracts you to do some work and all previous contractors have taken X hours to complete this work. You come up with a solution (software, process, what have you) that allows you to complete the same work in half the time (X/2). You're saying that the large company now gets to pay you half because you are more efficient?
  
  Your claim that the comparison isn't fair may result in lower retailer share down the road but there are points worth noting.
  1. The online retailers are already taking less. This will be a gross simplification but imagine getting an 11% raise, that's not shabby.
  2. The artist does not need to concern her/himself with what a retailer actually profits from their cut, only what they do for their cut. If the "new" online retailer is providing as much or more access to said artist's goods as the "old" retailer, the net is the same.
  3. It seems to me that if the "old" retailer is taking 41% and is losing a significant portion of that to "inventory and write-off costs," perhaps they are in the wrong sort of retail business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- matt, 27 May 2012 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re:
  a completely fair point from the POV of retailers, and a fair topic for discussion. Hut from the eyes of the artist, the only salient point is how much of the gross the retailers take.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:47pm

I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the artists. Artists are not businessmen, nor should we expect them to be.

What's needed are forward thinking intermediaries, to take over the RIAA's terrible job at business management. If artists wanna DIY it, more power to 'em, but they shouldn't be forced to. Some of them might actually prefer middlemen to help them along the way, which is totally reasonable since they have bigger things to deal with, like creating art. It's just unfortunate that the only choice they have for middlemen are the legacy players, who demonstrably add little to no value anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the artists. Artists are not businessmen, nor should we expect them to be.
  
  I don't know if it's fair or not, but the truth is that if you want to make money from your art, it's a business.
  
  I don't expect every artist to be a savoy businessmen, but every artist needs to make at least one smart business decision, even if that one and only decision is who you want to handle all the other business decisions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  "I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the artists. Artists are not businessmen, nor should we expect them to be."
  
  How are artists any different to other self-employed people? Replace the word "artists� with pretty much any other trade, and you might see how silly this argument sounds.
  
  "If artists wanna DIY it, more power to 'em, but they shouldn't be forced to."
  
  Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Why would you even say that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:04am
  
  Re:
  I'm going to summarize your comment as I understand it:
  
  1. Artists should be able to find a person who will manage the business part of selling music for the artist.
  2. We need publishers that aren't evil and who care about the artists.
  
  I don't understand what your point is, you seem to just be stating the obvious that we already know:
  1: This person already exists, it's called a publisher.
  2: We know current publishers suck and rip off artists - that's why artists are publishing on their own today. As for finding better publishers, how do you suggest we do this? Believe me when I say we're already aware that publishers are ripping off artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 12:59pm

Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass and trying to make a point, this is probably the most classic Techdirt post ever.

"So, in that scenario, the retailer is making $6.98 on a $16.98 CD. That's... wait for it... 41%. Yeah, that's more than what Amazon and iTunes charge. I'm kinda shocked Lowery would make this comparison since it makes no sense and sorta takes away his credibility here."

To quote you "If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense"

Where to start? There is so much bullshit here I need a shovel. Okay, let's start with something that should be incredibly obvious for someone with a business degree: Cost of inventory. Itunes doesn't have a cost of inventory, they hold a single copy of a song and generate a digital download on demand. Their inventory cost is effectively null. Their back catalog costs are pretty much only the disk space to keep them and the overhead of tracking their existence.

Amazon? As a download service, they have the same issues as Itunes - effectively no inventory. In physical product, they only have a dozen or so fulfillment centers, and do not need to stock inventory in all of them (as an order can be sent from a different location, and often is). They can effectively service a long tail market with almost no inventory - because they have no store front. Amazon can do back catalog from a single fulfillment center, making for a very small cost of inventory.

Retailers? For each retail location, they must have inventory. If they want a depth of catalog for artists, they have to put it in each store location. That creates an incredibly huge amount of inventory. Consider just a single retailer like Best Buy or Wal-Mart holding 10,000 CDs at each location (and still not having

As for the 41% markup for retail, that would only be on a full price sale, which is pretty rare. Bestbuy, Wal-mart, and others generally discount things pretty heavily. As an exmaple, BestBuy has the Taylor Swift Live CD with this: List Price: $26.98 Our Price: $19.99. So if there is a 41% markup on the 26.98 price... they cost is about $19, which means they are in effect making a very narrow margin on each sale, certainly not 41%, and certainly not 30%.

After that, you have to consider that Itunes (I will concentrate on them, but other digital sellers have the same issue) take 30% no matter what. You discount to get sales, they take 30%. You increase price, they take 30%. You sell a million copies, they take 30%. They are not taking any real risk on the product, they are not having to pay up front or stock inventory, and they aren't taking a bath on it if they have to bargain bin it. They get their 30% no matter what.

So you have inventory, pricing, market, risk... wow. These two business models seem so compatible. We won't even get into Itunes and others who pretty much enforce the pricing model and don't allow for much variation.

You have to compare apples to apples, which you just are not doing here at all. What you are doing is (as you often seem to do) is two sets of incompatible numbers, and try to draw a conclusion based on them. It's disappointing to read such a huge post that makes such as huge, basic error in it's logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  You missed the point that there are still sunk costs that have to be recouped. You need to also remember that Apple sells the songs as a loss-leader for their hardware: iTunes initially cost Apple around $0.05/song. Which isn't typically much, but if you're the only market in town, and they're buying, say, 100,000 songs a day, that's a considerable loss for something intangible.
  
  Pricing was set by the Big Labels, in the same way that the pricing for full film rentals on iTunes was set by the Movie Studios. There is really little risk involved.
  
  If you want to compare apples to apples, well, good luck with that. You're in the wrong business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  Nice going trying to distract from the point of the article.
  The fact that iTunes may be a bunch of money grubbing scum and get to keep more of their 30% than the retail stores got to keep of their 40+% still doesn't make them comparable to a label. And whether they are charging too high a percentage as a retailer or not 30% is still less cost to the artist than 41% last time I looked.
  As for the foray into "Taylor Swift Live", do you have any figures to support a wholsale price of $19 or were you just ASSuming?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "As for the foray into "Taylor Swift Live", do you have any figures to support a wholsale price of $19 or were you just ASSuming?"
    
    No, I am using the 41% figure provided in the article. I take the "list price" and take 41% off of that. Bingo, about $19.
    
    " And whether they are charging too high a percentage as a retailer or not 30% is still less cost to the artist than 41% last time I looked. "
    
    The point is that Mike looked at it from the wrong end, for the wrong reasons. The higher margin to a physical product retailer has everything to do with the costs involved in making that sale to them. Quite simply, they have more costs to cover in that margin, and more importantly, they are taking the risk on purchasing inventory for resale. Their money is tied up. Itunes has no money tied up in inventory, do they?
    
    Further, and this is very important: 30% of X and 41% of Y are not comparable. If the retail has to discount to sell, that 41% quickly becomes 20%, 10%, or a loss. Apple on the other hand gets the same 30% gross margin all the time, no matter what. They have little risk.
    
    Take it one step further: When you sell to a physical retailer at a wholesale price, your sale is complete - they take the risk (less whatever return policy you may have in place as a distributor). Itunes? You get paid when they sell, not when they take possession.
    
    So the net numbers in that are different as well, from start to finish, making it a very hard them to compare on a straight "41% is bigger than 30%" basis.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 4:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, I am using the 41% figure provided in the article. I take the "list price" and take 41% off of that. Bingo, about $19.
      
      Except, as usual, you're looking at it bass-ackwards in an attempt to muddy the waters AGAIN.
      
      A distributor sells a CD to a retail store for a wholesale price (let's say $10). The retail store marks the CD up to $16.98 and make $6.98.
      
      For a a start, that part of the article is a quote from Lowery and:
      
      Ok. So, in that scenario, the retailer is making $6.98 on a $16.98 CD. That's... wait for it... 41%. Yeah,
      
      is where the 41% comes from and is clearly referrring specifically to the Lowery example rather than holding the 41% up as a standard markup, so pretending it is is artful at best? I'd imagine for YOUR example a far more likely scenario is that Best Buy has negotiated a reduced wholesale price so they can still make most of their margin.
      
      The point is that Mike looked at it from the wrong end, for the wrong reasons.
      
      No, the point of the article was that the costs are less to the artist when you are talking about the similar function. How much money the retailer makes or whether it's "too much" is irrelevant, the point is that both are retailers and that iTunes is less.
      
      Further, and this is very important: 30% of X and 41% of Y are not comparable. If the retail has to discount to sell, that 41% quickly becomes 20%, 10%, or a loss. Apple on the other hand gets the same 30% gross margin all the time, no matter what. They have little risk.
      
      Aaaand that might be true for a single order of product, but are you going to claim that the wholesale price doesn't go down if a CD is old/not popular?
      
      Take it one step further: When you sell to a physical retailer at a wholesale price, your sale is complete -
      
      Indeed, if you insist let's take it a bit further. The price paid to the label is 80% of wholesale. I.e. on top of "losing" the "41%" of the example, the label is losing a futher approx 12% of retail value to the distributor. In the iTunes example there IS no distributor necessary beyond a fixed fee service so effectively the "label" gets 70% of RETAIL not wholesale.
      Again, whether 30% is "too much" is irrelevant, the artist or label is going to be better off in 90% of cases. The point was that Mr Lowery's assertation was that he was worse off using iTunes not how much iTunes might be making out of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, you are making the same mistake made by others here.
        
        41% is not always larger than 30%.
        
        "In the iTunes example there IS no distributor necessary beyond a fixed fee service so effectively the "label" gets 70% of RETAIL not wholesale. "
        
        Alas, you run into the problem. Yes, 70% of retail is better IN THEORY than 100% of wholesale, but net, it doesn't always work out. The most important on net money is that Itunes pays on retail sale, not wholesale. More importantly, they pay on net sales, so if they get stiffed on a credit card, you do too. Basically, that is something that a retailer use to absorb in their 41%.
        
        (side note: 41% is the number in the article, I am working with it, same as Mike did. I don't have any actual numbers to work from, I assume someone working in music has a clue on those things).
        
        Now, we can get past that and start talking about the difference between selling a CD (with say 12 songs on it) or selling a single on itunes. Itunes is pretty much a singles marketplace, with labels reporting only about 15% of sales being albums. For an artist trying to sell direct, that means you have to make a dozen sales of singles to make up for that one album sale. Plus, because of the pricing levels for singles on Itunes, there is often very little discount in buying the whole album. Yes, some artists have done really well (WTG weezy!) selling albums, but the market place has been shifted by the technology.
        
        Numbers I could see is that single / CD album sales crossed at about 600,000 units about 5 years ago, and since single sales have more than doubled, CD album sales have dropped by about 75%, and online sales of albums isn't making up the gap. So what happened is that while the volume of transactions are up, the size of those transactions are very much smaller. Effectively, the recorded music industry lsot most of the 12 track album sales, and replaces with with 2 or 3 single sales.
        
        So, the net after 30% by Itunes is likely much less than the net from album sales, only because of the volume still isn't their in singles to make up general what has been lost in albums.
        
        I won't even go into the intrinsic losses of not getting more of the artist's product into the consumer's hands, that chance to turn them from a listener into a fan.
        
        So you are right, it isn't how much Itunes takes or doesn't take directly, except to say that the net of their business is less than the net in other ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 8:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Essentially you are making an argument FOR digital distribution over traditional sales models due to lower production and distribution costs for the artist and/or label. No need to pay to produce filler content that the public doesn't want just to make a full album. No inventory costs for the retailer. No costly overruns or lost revenue from underruns. All this means lower costs for everyone involved such that a larger amount is profit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really. Absolute efficiency doesn't really work when it also includes a huge shift in responsibility and the point at which the money changes hands.
        
        If anything, having to take the responsibility on as a producer makes the digital model more risky and more management intense. You are also no longer dealing with a supply chain, but rather you are exposed directly to the consumer in both a positive and very negative way. More importantly, it really doesn't do a lot towards getting the product to the consumers all that much more quickly.
        
        I won't even go into the whole "music buying experience", because most people under 25 might not have a clue what I am talking about.
        
        The lower costs are not really there either. One problem you face at the low end of a price point scale is that percentage of the transaction that is overhead keeps getting larger as you push the price point down. The costs to do the transaction remain the same. Micro transactions are notorious for being very hard to do right.
        
        The overhead to sell a single track or to sell an album are almost the same. A little more bandwidth, but the actual tracking and such is all pretty much the same. It gets ugly at the low end of the scale, better at the higher end.
        
        As for "filler" material, I would say that the non-hit tracks are often what separates the poor acts from the good ones. If you can listen and enjoy an entire album, you have something. A real issue too is for acts starting out. Without a reasonable catalog of songs to work from, they are sort of in a position where doing a full on concert show is much harder to pull off. You need all that material to give yourselves something to work from.
        
        There is a reason for almost everything, sometimes it just isn't as obvious as we wish!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really understanding why you worry about how much the distributor makes. That's a herring, as it has no basis upon the rest of the discussion which is how much the artist makes per sale and overall. People are more willing to pop on a single song they want than on an album that only contains one good song and twelve tracks of filler. Sales may be less return each, but there is a much larger number of sales. Thus that 70% that's coming off a sale means more money at the artist end. THAT is where you should be looking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Where does this 41% number come from? There is no magical constant percentage cut that represents what retailers get.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kisom (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re:
  I'm going to put aside the perception of Amazon or iTunes being just a "download service," because many have already pointed out how untrue that is.
  
  What I don't get is why are musicians even bothering with retail anymore? I'll admit I don't know much about the industry, but I rarely see consumers at the big box retailers thumbing through music. In fact, our Best Busy has drastically reduced the music foot print in several of our area stores.
  
  If musicians did not sell their music at physical stores, wouldn't that be a huge savings? The artists wouldn't pay for packaging/manufacturing, retail profit, distribution and whatever else is associated with having a physical CD. Of course there is still the costs of marketing and production, but I would think you could decrease your costs by concentrating on one medium.
  
  And if a musician decides to sell on though digital means, what is the importance of a label beyond being an investor? Is the current function and influence of traditional labels even relative anymore? Couldn't a new group of investors accomplish the same?
  
  If the industry feels percentages are too high.. partner with someone who you feel is reasonable or do what every other retail product does and factor that into the final costs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    1. Surprisingly enough, physical sales still account for the majority of recorded music revenues. I can't recall the exact number, but I believe it's something like 70%. I'm a DIY musician, and the majority of money I make related to recordings is selling CDs at performances or USB sticks or download codes. Codes obviously deliver the highest margin, but CDs are more likely to move. Money from online digital distribution is basically non-existent, but online marketing is not something I aggressively pursue, so I wouldn't be a case-study for that.
    
    2. Not selling at music stores being a huge savings? That really depends on how you look at it. Sure, I can save a couple grand by foregoing CDs, but if those CDs would have sold in the store then I am effectively losing money. Or, more specifically, I'm leaving money on the table. It's a risk proposition. I have $1000 on hand, and I can either go all digital and keep the 1k, or I could invest it in CDs, pitch them to whatever independent stores are still standing, and potentially turn it into several grand.
    
    On the other hand, some artists are able to turn mp3 sales into income, but they're unable to move physical units. The strategy is different for every artist/audience combination. Personally, I wish I was one of those artists who puts out limited vinyl runs and sells every copy, but while I'm a vinyl junky most of my fans are not, so it isn't an option for me. That's life.
    
    3. Labels are more than investors, although that is a very important role they fill. They also lend legitimacy to an act. This is probably the biggest selling point of the labels; you're not perceived as "successful" unless you're signed. If you can convince people otherwise, please give my mom and dad a call.
    
    Labels also know how to sell music. They have the connections, they have the resources to make things happen. Producers answer their phone calls, bloggers and editors open their emails, etc.
    
    Times are changing though, and people seem to be giving less mainstream artists some healthy attention. I remember when I started releasing some music only as mp3s and wavs back in the late '90s and nobody, nobody, took me seriously. But, put it on a disc and people started to take notice--oops! It's one of those blue-backed CD-Rs! "Amateur!" cried my colleagues. Thank god those days are over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 5:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      All changes, though, take time. Some, if not a great deal, of the value to artists of traditional labels will stay with labels of some kind or other.
      
      As for your first point that CD sales still account for the largest portion of sales. I'm not surprised by that. For all the improvements in the mp3 format it still lacks the fidelity of a CD and likely always will. I can't say. either, with much evidence that indy bands do well from online sales though I do suspect some do.
      
      A label may be a mark of success though recent history says it doesn't need to be a major label. That's more of a return to "how it used to be" than something solely brought on by the internet. Smaller labels have, traditionally, been the indy artist's friend signing and distributing the recordings when the majors wouldn't. It's helpful to remember that small labels such as Sun and Chess kicked off the rock'n'roll era not the big ones.
      
      And labels DO have connections. I'd question at times if they're the right ones though a couple of examples come to mind that say they might. Fiest and Arcade Fire got their start as indy artists and their small labels pitched them to the CBC until the CBC got heartily sick of it and played the music in, what for CBC, passes as heavy rotation. The acts took off. I have no idea about Arcade Fire but Fiest still insists she's an independent artist.
      
      I still question if labels have the right connections anymore or are, for the most part, interested. It's called get it our there and get it played. Find an influential blogger to send new songs to while paying the blogger special attention is one way of doing it.
      
      Large labels can still saddle acts with unrepayable debt (advances not paid back and so on) and continue with the model they've always had but there is not competition from other models and ways of getting recorded music out there.
      
      All that said I firmly reject that bands "aren't businessmen" in the sense of promoting themselves . Long before they get signed to labels, if they ever do they have to promote their gigs and other appearances, note audience reaction and spread that just as a label may later do. It's part of being an artist, right?
      
      While it may be harder later on a global scale it's part of the same thing that new bands have had to do since forever.
      
      As much as anything it's the transition that causes confusion and concern. Who fits were now and who doesn't and who may replace the old folks if anyone.
      
      I'm happy for you that the silly notion that by selling blue backed CDs made some consider you an amateur. You're on stage performing, be it covers or your own material. I don't and never have considered that amateur. And I'm very happy that that way of looking at musicians is changing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  It's just more of the intellectual dishonesty everyone expects from Mike Masnick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:27am
  
  Re:
  "Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass and trying to make a point, this is probably the most classic Techdirt post ever."
  
  I have to give this AC some credit:
  
  #1 The AC calls this the most classic TechDirt post ever.
  #2 The AC follows with the least insightful response ever.
  
  "Where to start? There is so much bullshit here I need a shovel."
  
  Instead of piling on more bullshit, try a simple question. If Apple and Amazon do so little and reap such huge benefits, WHY didn't the labels make their own digital distribution infrastructure and do it THEIR way????
  
  Even better WHY don't they do it NOW?
  
  THINK for a moment. There is NOTHING that is stopping their entry into the market. The labels could compete with iTunes. Compete you say? What's that?
  
  You can whine at Mike and both sides can talk about bullshit numbers all day, but at the end of it, the labels are free to compete against iTunes and they can add all the DRM they want and they can price the product however they want and they can even pull their catalogues from iTunes if they want. So what is stopping them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    "WHY didn't the labels make their own digital distribution infrastructure and do it THEIR way????"
    
    They did try it their way. They therefore tried to apply so many restrictions, extortionate pricing and ridiculous DRM that made the end product totally unattractive, and they were afraid to even try to market the thing correctly lest it cannibalise the sales that were already shifting away from CD.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 20 Feb 2012 @ 1:03pm

Ok, so apple doesn't do nothing....
I've seen this a couple times today, the thing that people are calling "nothing", is that what Apple is doing is trivial. All the computer services are well understood and developed, nothing exceptional was done except lock customers in then build upon a captive consumer. They make the device the music plays on? There is nothing about their music players that isn't anything more than product evolution with the available technology. The only important thing Apple is doing is having their hand in each piece and keeping such a stranglehold on their products and services that everything (as my wife would say) "just works", which for many computer connected devices, is quite uncommon since every company wants to own propriatary standards for royalties or control instead of just working together on open standards that "just work" for the benefit of everyone. I am not going to find anything special in restricting the user to the point that it is difficult to do anything unintentional. Is that padded room what many users want? Yes. Is it extrordinary in any way? No. I find nothing impressive about a "play by my rules or leave" stance that Apple always holds. I'm not saying it is not a bad way to do business, and in fact it is an easy way. But certainly nothing impressive. Smart? Yes, Impressive? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reboog711 (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 3:10pm

ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
I just wanted to say that ColdFusion isn't a design tool; it is a server side technology.

If the web sites for Camper van Beethoven or Cracker are poorly designed it is not the fault of ColdFusion any more than it would be the fault of HTML, JavaScript, or Photoshop.

ColdFusion is a perfectly capable server side technology when compared to alternatives (Such as .NET, PHP, Java, Ruby, or whatever else people are using these days).

The ColdFusion "jab" in the middle of this article seems oddly out of place. I assure you that ColdFusion can be used as part of a technology to build usable web sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re: ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
  While you're essentially correct about what Cold Fusion is, it's still being sold and promoted these days as a design tool or part of one. Much in the same way as frameworks like Drupal and Joomla! are for PHP.
  
  Given some band sites I've seen I'm often struck by the bad design. So often that I often think that's deliberate on the part of the designer or the band as they find or establish a personna.
  
  I wouldn't use Cold Fusion. It's expensive and slow, just to start with. And compared to, say Joomla! or Drupal there's very little of substance out there to add to it.
  
  Back to the bad design. I'm more inclined to think that most of it's quite deliberate. Some designers need to remember though that there's bad design as goal and bad design as in "where the heck do I find anything!".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 8:19pm
    
    Re: Re: ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
    "Design" is a very broad term. There is application design as well as graphic design which are completely different things. Most people in the industry are one or the other or neither but not both. On the application design side, CMS packages like Drupal and WordPress have removed much of the need to hire application designers for small sites. On the graphic side, unfortunately many clients equate knowledge of technology with design which is a large contributor to poor design on the web. Knowing HTML and PhotoShop doesn't make you a web designer any more than knowing how cook some things makes you a chef.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - reboog711 (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 8:48pm
    
    Re: Re: ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
    I'm sorry; but I believe you are mistaken about what ColdFusion is and how it is sold / promoted.
    
    ColdFusion is an application server, like PHP or Java. Check out the Adobe page on it for more info http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion-family.html .
    
    ColdFusion is not a content management system like Drupal or Joomla; although it could be used to write systems like those. Some CMS-based CFML projects do exist.
    
    ColdFusion can be expensive in terms of up front costs. Many, myself included, feel the total cost of ownership is lower when compared to Java.
    
    I believe that some of the more recently popular server side languages, such as Ruby, are competitive in the total cost of ownership department.
    
    If the up front cost is a factor--and you want to code in CFML--there are two mature open source alternatives; OpenBlueDragon and Railo.
    
    If ColdFusion is slow; it is because it's running poorly written code or because the server was improperly tuned. This could be an issue with any server side platform.
    
    Performance is a subjective thing that relates to what you need to do and the resources you have. Any server-side technology can be written so it runs horribly, and can be optimized to perform better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2012 @ 9:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
      Coldfusion has been around for a long time - long before Adobe bought it. Unfortunately a lot of people confuse the platform with the development environment created for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason Dean, 20 Feb 2012 @ 8:51pm
    
    Re: Re: ColdFusion isn't a Design Tool..
    Clearly you don't have any idea what ColdFusion is. By comparing it to Drupal or Joomla you prove that. You make it even plainer when you say ColdFusion is slow. That's just not true.
    
    It's true that Adobe ColdFusion is expensive. But that is not the only way to get CFML. There are highly capable and well regarded Free and Open Source solutions. So, actually, it would seem that all of your arguments, and logic, are completely incorrect.
    
    Well done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

David C Lowery (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 10:52pm

digeridiot.
Wow. Mike you didn't even come to the talk and then you rebut me?

what the fuck? i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?

You should change the article title to

"If you're gonna rebut someones talk, you might ought have heard it"

1. whatever you took from Facebook was some ramblings from a few weeks earlier and it was not my argument that i presented at sf music tech. One of the paragraphs did share the title. But otherwise IT HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT I TALKED ABOUT.

2. The talk I gave was based on a University of Georgia bit of academic research. I teach at University of Georgia when i'm not out touring. I teach music business finance. Unlike TECHDIRT I can't make up things out of my ass and just print them.

3. you didn't even present my actual argument. It's quite narrow comparison of the percentage of gross revenue that flows to the artist under the new digital model vs the old record label model. my tentative conclusion is that less revenue

4. I have shitloads of data. nearly two decades worth. hundreds of artists. all kinds of artists. hobbyists to platinum.

5. I like most of you here expected that although the overall revenue for the recorded music business is down (-64%) I expected artists would be doing better. Disintermediation etc. direct sales to fans. long tail revenue. It turns out the data does not agree. Don't shoot the fucking messenger.

6. How the fuck can you say the argument don't make sense? you didn't even hear it.

7. for those of you who think i somehow don't understand the digital world? I have a degree in mathematics and i've been programming computers since you had to RPG on punch cards. my first job out of college was as a CPM/MPM system operator. Since the early 1990's i've been operating a successful WEB based business. It's called being in a band. Don't fucking tell me I don't understand the fucking digital paradigm. Finally if you still don't think i have digital/web credentials just google "david lowery groupon"

I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:40am
  
  Re: digeridiot.
  Wow. Mike you didn't even come to the talk and then you rebut me?
  
  I rebutted the Facebook post, not your talk. The parts where I quoted your Facebook post made that obvious, I thought. Also, the part where I said that I was going to dig into your Facebook post.
  
  what the fuck? i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?
  
  Is that a question? Because the answer is that sure, you could sue us. That's the way our legal system works. On what grounds? That's where you might run into some significant problems, because you really don't have any grounds to sue whatsoever. But do let me know if you find something. Just a warning: you might want to research what has happened to people who have made frivolous lawsuit threats against me in the past.
  
  1. whatever you took from Facebook was some ramblings from a few weeks earlier and it was not my argument that i presented at sf music tech. One of the paragraphs did share the title. But otherwise IT HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT I TALKED ABOUT.
  
  That's great. I'll look forward to hearing what you did talk about, and I hope it makes more sense than your FB post, because that one did not inspire confidence.
  
  2. The talk I gave was based on a University of Georgia bit of academic research. I teach at University of Georgia when i'm not out touring. I teach music business finance. Unlike TECHDIRT I can't make up things out of my ass and just print them.
  
  Except, well, we didn't make up stuff. I responded to your words. Do you deny them now?
  
  I do also love the appeal to authority logical fallacy, though. I mean, I could hit back with plenty too, but why bother?
  
  3. you didn't even present my actual argument. It's quite narrow comparison of the percentage of gross revenue that flows to the artist under the new digital model vs the old record label model. my tentative conclusion is that less revenue
  
  Again, that's great. Would love to see it. I've seen lots of data that says the opposite, but I'm a fan of data, so if you've got other data, would be great to hear about it.
  
  4. I have shitloads of data. nearly two decades worth. hundreds of artists. all kinds of artists. hobbyists to platinum.
  
  Great. I've got access to data on many, many thousands of artists, but okay. I trust that you have great data. I'll wait to see it before I comment on it. This post was about your FB post. When and if you publish something on this data you have, I'll be happy to look it over.
  
  5. I like most of you here expected that although the overall revenue for the recorded music business is down (-64%) I expected artists would be doing better. Disintermediation etc. direct sales to fans. long tail revenue. It turns out the data does not agree. Don't shoot the fucking messenger.
  
  Again, the data I've seen says the opposite. I'm not shooting the messenger for your claim there. Again, I was arguing against your facebook post. Which was just awful.
  
  6. How the fuck can you say the argument don't make sense? you didn't even hear it.
  
  All of your points seem to come back to the same thing. I was responding to your facebook post, not your talk. So no matter how many times you add a new number to it, making the same point that I wasn't at your talk really doesn't change anything.
  
  I responded to the points in your Facebook post which made little sense.
  
  I will note -- somewhat emphatically -- that nowhere in this comment do you rebut a single thing I actually wrote.
  
  7. for those of you who think i somehow don't understand the digital world? I have a degree in mathematics and i've been programming computers since you had to RPG on punch cards. my first job out of college was as a CPM/MPM system operator. Since the early 1990's i've been operating a successful WEB based business. It's called being in a band. Don't fucking tell me I don't understand the fucking digital paradigm. Finally if you still don't think i have digital/web credentials just google "david lowery groupon"
  
  Same appeal to authority fallacy, but that's great that you helped shape Groupon. I hope Andrew gave you a nice chunk of shares for your help. Unfortunately, it leaves me at a loss as to why you insist that there's no way to profitably do live when you yourself appeared to figure out ways to make live pay better.
  
  I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface.
  
  Okay. I apologize that you thought I was responding to your presentation when I pretty clearly was responding to your Facebook posting, which had the same title.
  
  I look forward to seeing the data that you claim to have and seeing how it fits with the data we've seen.
  
  I also feel sorry that you feel the need to resort to repeated ad hominem attacks when they are totally unnecessary and take away whatever valid points you might have.
  
  I retract nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jakerome (profile), 29 Jul 2013 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re: digeridiot.
    I would've thrown in a couple double dog dares, but this is pretty solid nonetheless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: digeridiot.
  "fuckface."
  
  Wow, that doesn't sound like someone with a degree in mathematics who teaches at a University would write. Then again, it is Georgia U, so I'm not surprised.
  
  "what the fuck? i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?"
  
  Just like the irrelevant old vindictive asshole you truly are. Again, not surprising coming from someone from the old legacy players.
  Speaking of which, none of us have ever heard of you or your crappy band. But considering how shitty your 'music' is, once again, I'm not surprised. No wonder you only made good during the label system. Marketing is a helluva drug.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:35am
  
  Re: digeridiot.
  If you're in charge of teaching people about the industry, I sincerely hope they demand their money back. You do them quite a disservice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: digeridiot.
  Calling someone a fuckface isn't a very good way to get an apology out of them ;D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Bay (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 10:53pm

GEMM.com?
Any of you artists try selling on GEMM.com . They only charge 13% and they got a pretty good international user-base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:07am

"I teach music business finance. Unlike TECHDIRT I can't make up things out of my ass and just print them."

Certainly... because professors in mushy, interdisciplinary liberal arts programs never pull stuff out of their ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bas Grasmayer (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 5:45am

Touring
The statements about touring are not that accurate.

In many genres, artists actually produce music to support their live existence. In other words; it's the music that's promoting their tour. It's not necessarily positive though; most of those artists are kinda forced to be always on-tour, because they haven't figured out another way to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

David C Lowery (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:24am

If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
Okay. Answer me this.

Is it intellectually honest to rebut my 1/2 academic presentation by going to my facebook page and digging up mostly unrelated comments that are a month old?

By your own admission you didn't even see my presentation!

Can you answer the following questions.

What was the main point of my presentation?

What was sub-point i made by engaging in hyperbole

What data did i cite? What data did i drill down into?

Was the tone of the talk "serious" or were there parts that the presenter and the audience took as humourous.

The last is important if you gonna accuse me of whining

Finally too bad you weren't in the room cause I also listed a definition of a "Digeridiot". Your article hit every point in the definition. I could not have created a better example.

Finally love the Non-Apology.

"I'm sorry that you..."

Why don't you man up? give me your tech dirt column and let me tell my side of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
  Didn't you read his comment? he agree's that he didn't see your presentation, he was just responding to your facebook post, so of course he couldn't answer your questions. And once again you haven't refuted anything about your facebook posts besides that they are "1/2 a presentation" and "unrelated"?
  Though I'm glad you left out the expletives this time :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  Is it intellectually honest to rebut my 1/2 academic presentation by going to my facebook page and digging up mostly unrelated comments that are a month old?
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  By your own admission you didn't even see my presentation!
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  Can you answer the following questions.
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  What was the main point of my presentation?
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  What was sub-point i made by engaging in hyperbole
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  What data did i cite? What data did i drill down into?
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  Was the tone of the talk "serious" or were there parts that the presenter and the audience took as humourous.
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  The last is important if you gonna accuse me of whining
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  Finally too bad you weren't in the room cause I also listed a definition of a "Digeridiot". Your article hit every point in the definition. I could not have created a better example.
  
  Let's try this again, since you apparently missed it the first time:
  
  I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
  
  Finally love the Non-Apology.
  
  I'm glad you were actually able to comprehend something that I wrote. Now try working upwards and understanding what else I wrote.
  
  Why don't you man up? give me your tech dirt column and let me tell my side of the story.
  
  Sorry, David, while I probably would have been thrilled for you to let you write whatever you want if you had merely asked nicely yesterday, considering the number of "fucks" and "fuckfaces" as well as other insults and threats to sue that you posted on this site, in the emails to us as a company and on Twitter, that's not going to happen.
  
  We have a general policy around here of not giving in to bullies who insult us to get their way. Sets a bad precedent and all.
  
  Besides, in order to let someone write, it generally helps if they can show (1) decent writing ability and (2) the ability to comprehend basic logic. You may possess both skills, but you have demonstrated neither. Should all of that change, perhaps we would reconsider.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re: If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
    "I DID NOT REBUT YOUR PRESENTATION BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE."
    (repeated for effect)
    
    "I unfortunately missed his session, but it's been getting some attention. Thankfully, it turns out that he had posted many of the details to his Facebook page, which lets us dig in... and raise some pretty serious questions about his claims."
    
    You did quite explicitly state that many of the details in the presentation were in the Facebook page. And you very much implied that you were seeking to discredit the claims in the session by "thankfully" utilizing the Facebook posting.
    
    I guess this is the New Model of journalism. Giving commentary on an event that was not attended but instead looking up rants on social networks. About par for the course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
      Can't we all just agree that the facebook post, which was named exactly the same as his presntation, was just mistaken as Lowery's presentation? cause there's not a lot elese to go on about what really in Lowery's presentation since he HASN'T EVEN POSTED OR EXPLAINED WHAT REALLY IS IN IT?!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: If you're gonna rebut someones presentation you should actually be there for it.
  The definition that goes like this?
  
  "Digeridiot
  A consumer of web content who has never
  actually, written code, run or built a website, or
  tried to make money by generating content and
  giving it away on the web.
  Must have blog or newsletter.
  Must be able to insist with straight face
  that anyone that does not agree with them �just
  doesn�t get it�."
  
  Since you seem to think that Mike hit every point in the definition, you've proven you don't know what you are talking about.
  
  Point 1: "A consumer of web content who has never actually written code, run or built a website, or tried to make money by generating content and giving it away on the web"
  
  Wow. Where to start? Why do they have to be a consumer of web content?
  
  Mike has written code (i am only guessing, sorry if I am making an assumption that isn't true), runs and built this website, and every single day he makes money generating content and giving it away on the web.
  
  So how has mike never done any of those things, when in fact he has done all (or, 2 out of 3) of those things?
  
  Regardless, your statement was an "or" statement, so any of those has to be false for the whole statement to be false, and I know for a fact that 2 out of 3 are false. Even if I am wrong about the making money on the web, he still runs and built this website. So since you are familiar with coding and math, maybe that point will resonate.
  
  Point 2: must have blog or newsletter.
  
  Ok, so freedom of expression is a liablity? You couldn't be more hypocritical.
  
  Point 3: Must be able to insist with straight face
  that anyone that does not agree with them �just
  doesn�t get it�
  
  He said you don't make sense, not that you don't get it. Its transparently obvious to everyone reading here that you actually do not get it.
  
  And then you said this article hit every one of those points, and then you failed to outline how that is true.
  
  And for the record, I have written code, I have run and built a website (more than one), and I gave it all away for free without ever asking for anything in return.
  
  And I certainly didn't call anyone a fuckface who disagreed with me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

David C Lowery (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:18am

all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
Bully?

Dude that's what EVERYONE says about you. You are not exactly liked in the music tech world. I believe "Ass-Clown' was the technical term used. but regardless.

I asked you to answer those 3 questions.

what was my main point.
my sub point
what was my data.

the reason you can't answer them is THAT YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT I"M EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  Dude. No one knows what you are talking about.
  
  Why don't you just publish this presentation so it can be rebutted properly instead of you yelling "You weren't there!!!" over and over again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David C Lowery (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
    yes i agree. I did ask that Mike let me post a version of the talk here. that is the first thing i asked. It would have preempted all this useless an uniformed gnashing.
    
    sorry but mike does equate the facebook comments and the talk in his first paragraph. go back and read it.
    
    If mike doesn't want me to do that here. then i'll put it up next month on my 300songs.com and i'll invite mike over there to debate on my blog.
    
    The sad thing about all of this? If he'd been at the talk i think he and his readers would see that they agree with much of what i said. at least that's my opinion judging by other things i've read on this blog before.
    
    I'm out of here. if you want to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about come over to my blog.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 11:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
      yes i agree. I did ask that Mike let me post a version of the talk here. that is the first thing i asked. It would have preempted all this useless an uniformed gnashing.
      
      Actually, the first thing you asked was: "Wow. Mike you didn't even come to the talk and then you rebut me?"
      
      Followed by: "what the fuck? i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?"
      
      Followed by: "How the fuck can you say the argument don't make sense? you didn't even hear it."
      
      And we can read the history of your comments. Where does it say you were asking to post your presentation here? This is the first time you've offered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
        Let me rephrase that. You offered three comments in: Why don't you man up? give me your tech dirt column and let me tell my side of the story.
        
        It was hard to tell with all of your "You weren't there" comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
      Why next month? does it really take that long to write up a transcript? or post a video?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hobo, 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
        Artificial scarcity and release windows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
      "yes i agree. I did ask that Mike let me post a version of the talk here. that is the first thing i asked. It would have preempted all this useless an uniformed gnashing."
      
      It is NOT the first thing you asked. I won't quote you, but your comment is up above for everyone to see that you DID NOT ask that at all.
      
      If you had asked, he'd probably have accommodated you. Assuming of course you did so polite and with respect. Calling someone "fuckface" isn't going to endear them to you, nor will it make them want to do YOU any favors.
      
      "sorry but mike does equate the facebook comments and the talk in his first paragraph. go back and read it."
      
      He equates them, only in so far as he assumed your Facebook comment was in regards and a repeat of your "talk". That was his mistake. You're drawing more from it than he is, he's willing to acknowledge the mistake. Of course, you keep going off about it. Rather than say "did you see it wre wre wre" over and over, you could've easily written your "talk" and posted it as a comment on here. That you haven't says something. Also, if you do so, please, for the sake of professionalism, use spell check. Try and use capitalization and proper grammar. Also, do avoid any excessive profanity or juvenile behavior. We have enough trolls doing that here as it is, thank you very much.
      
      "If mike doesn't want me to do that here. then i'll put it up next month on my 300songs.com and i'll invite mike over there to debate on my blog."
      
      You're more than welcome to do exactly that. You're also welcome to ask Mike if he'll let you do that here, however an apology FROM YOU might go over well in regards to that. (See previous bit above in regards to the term "fuckface".)
      
      "The sad thing about all of this? If he'd been at the talk i think he and his readers would see that they agree with much of what i said. at least that's my opinion judging by other things i've read on this blog before."
      
      That may or may not be true. Perhaps you can, as I already said, type up your talk and post it here. You seem to be able to post what are essentially angry rant-like comments. Do yourself a favor and redeem yourself (assuming you want to).
      
      "I'm out of here. if you want to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about come over to my blog."
      
      He did essentially tell you that, several times. In the article and in the comments. He pointed out the flaws in what you said on your Facebook post. Now think about this, if you don't want your Facebook post equated to your "talk", then perhaps you shouldn't post such things on Facebook. WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE THEM. And attribute them to you, as they should because it's YOUR Facebook page and those are YOUR words.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
        "If you had asked, he'd probably have accommodated you. "
        
        The funniest thing about it is, he doesn't even have to do that to make his point. He has hundreds of free sources he can use, including his own blog pages and Facebook, to post the full presentation. He can then use the linking ability provided to him RIGHT HERE, free of charge, no prior permissions required, to link back to that. He doesn't need Mike to approve a goddamn thing, unless Mike decided to block/censor the link. In that case, he'd definitely be in the right and could post evidence of that censorship elsewhere to prove that such a thing happens.
        
        Instead, he screams like an idiot child, not realising that he already has all the tools at his disposal he requires to make his work public, without having to bow down to gatekeepers in the process. Actually, that's probably his full issue - he doesn't know how the internet works, and his default position it to throw a tantrum rather than learn.
        
        He's achieved something, I suppose. There's no way in hell any of my money is going to anything he's involved with, and I hope to God that the many, many thousands of dollars I've spent on music over the years have not made it to his pocket. There's a million artists far more deserving. His industry is better off without him, and those who think like him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  Holy shit, can you read?
  
  NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT YOUR PRESENTATION.
  
  We are talking about your FACEBOOK POST. It's up there, for people to read and respond to. In fact, I've been linked to it by a few different people during debates about the music industry. So if you don't want to have conversations about that post, you should probably go update it or delete it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  That word you keep using "my presentation"... I don't think it means what you think it means... cause no one is talking about it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  Excerpts from Dictionary.com:
  
  Face�book [feys-book]
  Trademark.
  1.
  the name of a social-networking service and Web site, launched in 2004.
  verb (used with object)
  2.
  to communicate with (a person) or search for information about (a person) by using Facebook: My old boyfriend just Facebooked me. His future employer Facebooked him and decided to withdraw the job offer.
  3.
  to post on Facebook: I facebooked some photos of my cat. You should Facebook the event so more people will show up.
  verb (used without object)
  4.
  to use Facebook: Does your mom Facebook?
  Also, face�book for defs. 2�4 .
  
  Origin:
  1980�85; facebook, college student directory with personal photos and basic information
  
  Usage note
  The official trademarked name of the social-networking service and Web site is spelled �facebook,� all lowercase letters. Formal writing style�as exemplified by most news and book publishers�is to treat such names as regular proper nouns, in this case �Facebook,� using an initial capital letter. However, when a trade name begins with a lowercase letter followed by an uppercase one, such as eBay or iPad, this spelling is retained, even at the beginning of a sentence.
  
  pres�en�ta�tion [prez-uhn-tey-shuhn, pree-zen-]
  noun
  1.
  an act of presenting.
  2.
  the state of being presented.
  3.
  a social introduction, as of a person at court.
  4.
  an exhibition or performance, as of a play or film.
  5.
  offering, delivering, or bestowal, as of a gift.
  Origin:
  1350�1400; Middle English < Late Latin praesentātiōn- (stem of praesentātiō ) nomination (of a priest) to a benefice, religious dedication (of a person) by bringing him before God.
  
  If you can't understand the difference between "Facebook" and "presentation", none of us can really take you seriously.
  
  Post a link to your presentation, upload it for the public to see, then come back to us when you're ready to use the English language for what it means and not what you think it means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  "I asked you to answer those 3 questions.
  
  what was my main point.
  my sub point
  what was my data."
  
  Partner, are you completely batshit crazy? Can you not read? Spend a little less time on the insults and a little more time understanding that this post had NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR DAMNED PRESENTATION! Why should we not act as though your facebook posts stand on their own two feet?
  
  Actually explain why one should not rebut what is written on your Facebook post, or you've lost....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fairusefriendly (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
  so your argument he should not have a right to address the flaws in your facebook post
  
  because he didn't watch your presentation that fixed the flaws in your facebook post.
  
  And your not going to show him the presentation so he can comment on that because he addressed the flaws in your facebook post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
olivi�, 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:31am

mike, seriously....
I really don't understand how you can defend itunes, whose main fuction is to create artificial scarcity on infinite goods... Don't see any basic logic in your position...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: mike, seriously....
  How is Mike defending iTunes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 10:07am

Are you a spy?
Wait.... How do we know that it's really Lowery commenting... He might just be a troll o.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8P6g8y1gpo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David C Lowery (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:19pm

why is anonymous coward so concerned about mike?
dude are you trolling yourself?

I sent techdirt a private message. didn't you get it anonymous coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  Your paranoia is not helping your position. You might want to reign that in a bit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  why is anonymous coward so concerned about mike?
  
  I guess because Techdirt has fans? I'd have thought a musician would be familiar with the concept...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You know full well that real musicians don't have fans, they have serfs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  And yet, instead of waiting for a reply so you could publish your piece here (like Senator Ron Wyden) and we could debate it properly, you went ahead and decided to start posting your childish name-calling with elementary grammatical errors anyway.
  
  You already know what happens on the internet as soon as something is publicly posted. It allows those with opinions to respond. If they like what you say, they'll say so. If you begin swearing and name-calling, expect to be treated the same way.
  
  "Do unto others as you would have done to you."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  And FYI, if you wanted to submit a story, you could go to the front page and you'll see a link near the top called "Submit a Story."
  
  It'd allow us to see this presentation of yours and none of this defensiveness would've happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  why is anonymous coward so concerned about mike?
  dude are you trolling yourself?
  
  Wow. Paranoid much. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I had nothing to do with that comment.
  
  I will note, however, that you did not respond to the valid points he raised in his comment ripping apart your defintion.
  
  I sent techdirt a private message. didn't you get it anonymous coward?
  
  Well, I did get your private message, and while you might believe that you "did ask that Mike let me post a version of the talk here," that's not how the email came off at all. It started with a grammatically ridiculous sentence highlighted by a curse word. Accused me of a bunch of things, and then finished with a demand that we "make this right" and that you were "serious." Nowhere did you say "can I post a version of my talk on your site."
  
  If you want me to post the full email, I will, but it does not make you look much better than your angry comments above.
  
  I will say that it may set a record for the "fuck-to-non-fuck" words ratio in an email I've received.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You know, I'm starting to wonder if Watchit is right and this isn't really Lowery.
    
    If he's as respected as claimed (by whom, someone would have to tell me), then there's no way that his grammar can be this atrocious, especially if he can run a blog that people can understand without tripping over the misuse of the English language.
    
    Are you sure we're really arguing with the guy himself?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Absolutely, see his blog:
      http://300songs.com/2012/01/21/78-no-more-bullshit-the-top-10-lamest-excuses-for-stealing-art ists-music/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RonKaminsky (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 10:43am
        
        Internet remix
        Gee, what happens when you mixup that blog post, Lars Doucet's blog post about the four currencies, and Lowery showing off his impressive "communication skills" in this discussion?
        
        Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He might cause he keeps coming back even after posting this on his Re: Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.:
      
      "I'm out of here. if you want to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about come over to my blog."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 10:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe Lowery is angry dude. He doesn't want to sell t-shirts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not asking you to post the email without the sender specifically giving the okay on it, but now I'm actually curious as to what the "fuck-to-non-fuck" ratio is in the thing.
    
    I can only imagine, based upon the calm and reasonable display that's been shown so far it's got to be quite impressive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:02pm

The fun has been doubled!
This is the most fun I've had in the comment section in a while o.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: The fun has been doubled!
  You should read is blog post:
  
  http://300songs.com/2012/01/21/78-no-more-bullshit-the-top-10-lamest-excuses-for-stealing-a rtists-music/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re: The fun has been doubled!
    who's that in the picture on that blog post? is that Lowery?
    maybe it's some sorta implied threat... (haha not really)
    
    http://300songs.com/2012/01/21/78-no-more-bullshit-the-top-10-lamest-excuses-for-stealing -a rtists-music/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tim K (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: The fun has been doubled!
    Did he just make all those excuses up, cause I don't think I've heard any of them before
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The fun has been doubled!
      yeah they sound more like the ramblings of a pot head then real excuses you would actually hear... maybe he set them up as a straw-man?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jangobear (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 8:41pm

Re:
Sorry but the artists in the multimedia age do have to take responsibility for their careers and the marketing, promotion, and distribution of their work. If they don't want to do it themselves then they need to hire people to help them do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonathan, 22 Feb 2012 @ 3:01pm

ouch.
this whole conversation hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:21pm

Gone, gone, gone...
Well, well. In all of this conversation, David still has not responded to a single point I raised about his Facebook post. Instead he's just repeated (again and again and again) that I wasn't at his presentation. Of course, that's true. But I didn't respond to his presentation, but to the Facebook post.

Now, rather than actually respond to what I said about what he said... it appears that he's *DELETED* that Facebook post.

That's an excellent way to stand behind your words, David...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re: Gone, gone, gone...
  I didn't read the Facebook page, but I assume that this is the story.
  
  So if you want to update the story with this, you're free to do so. And yes, I'm taking snapshots so others can see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Gone, gone, gone...
    I didn't read the Facebook page, but I assume that this is the story.
    
    Funny. Paul is much more explicit in claiming that the FB post *IS* his SFMT presentation, and you don't see Lowery going ballistic and threatening to sue him.
    
    Perhaps it's because Paul didn't bother to go through and explain why the argument he made on FB is totally ridiculous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Gone, gone, gone...
      if you read some of the comments in that article, theirs some angry posters that sound an awful lot like Lowery... not that i'm implying anything. just saying... ;D
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is Dodging, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:22pm

First Paragraph
At the very least Mike was extremely careless with his wording. He very much seems to equate the Facebook post with the lecture. Doesn't mean the lecture was correct or factual, but still.......the first paragraph reads like the speech and post are analogous,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: First Paragraph
  This may be due to the fact that the facebook post had the same name as his presentation and that the actual presentation cannot be found anywhere else...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 22 Feb 2012 @ 5:20pm

Bottom Line
I don't even care about the argument anymore. I'm astounded that DL would insult his fan base because he disagrees with them. I even PURCHASED "The Palace Guards" for christ's sake. DL will never, EVER see another dime from me. All this talk about university research: Bullshit. I'm just offended and pissed off. Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:49pm

PaulT: "There's no way in hell any of my money is going to anything he's involved with, and I hope to God that the many, many thousands of dollars I've spent on music over the years have not made it to his pocket."

Tim: "I even PURCHASED "The Palace Guards" for christ's sake."

I would think it much more offensive that God and then Christ are invoked in an admittedly heated discussion on the business of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 12:53am
  
  Re:
  If it makes you feel any better, I was just using a turn of phrase. No offense intended.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:03pm

Nice rag you have hear mike. I am extremely sorry to see that this shit passes for journalism. Or debate these days. Ready? Batter's up fucker.

1. "I rebutted the Facebook post, not your talk. The parts where I quoted your Facebook post made that obvious, I thought. Also, the part where I said that I was going to dig into your Facebook post."

You should make that just a bit fucking more clear you benighted douche bag. Cause it is not:

"I unfortunately missed his session, but it's been getting some attention. Thankfully, it turns out that he had posted many of the details to his Facebook page, which lets us dig in... and raise some pretty serious questions about his claims. "

You claim that the substance of the talks, and the Facebook posts are the same. Your words. Not his. Since you did not see his talk, you have no grounds for making the claim that ".. he had posted many of the details to his Facebook page..."

Where can one draw that inference from available data? You did not see the talk? You obviously did not get a copy of the talk afterwards:

"That's great. I'll look forward to hearing what you did talk about,"

By your own admission in your own hand, you have not in fact been privy to ANY of the contents of his talk.

I mean in point #1, your are in shit so deep you need help to get out.

Ooops.

2. Do not talk about logical fallacies. Your writings are practically one logical fallacy training into another.

"...because that one did not inspire confidence."

So you attack the talk you did not see, based on the Facebook ramblings you did see. What do we call that? Hmm. Straw man? Yea, that is the one. I think I can soundly logically deduce that this makes you a fucking hypocrite.

"I do also love the appeal to authority logical fallacy, though. I mean, I could hit back with plenty too, but why bother?"

Actually, you did. See above. So really, you just spout inflammatory excrement out of your mouth. I am sure you learned to do this reading Dvorak back in the day, like most of your ilk. You should have been learning to debate.

3. "I've seen lots of data that says the opposite, but I'm a fan of data, so if you've got other data, would be great to hear about it."

Present the data, or shutup. David has actually posted data and charts. I have seen no data from you. Post data, or shutup. Facts, figures columns, charts, arrays and the data they are based on, at least two levels deep.

Do it, or shut up. Most of the stuff I have heard you spout is the same unsubstantiated bullshit I have to wade through at every shitty $200 a head dinner in the valley. It is like you guys are compelled to constantly apologize for what you are doing. They do not have figures either.

4. "Great. I've got access to data on many, many thousands of artists"

Which ones. Name some of them? Show some figures. Get some permissions. If you are right, I am sure they wouldn't mind sharing.

We will not see that data. Because you do not have it. You are a howler monkey that screams and flings shit, and does not have a single shred of data to back it up. And you will never present it. Mark my words.

5. "When and if you publish something on this data you have, I'll be happy to look it over."

I am just curious now. What gives you the right to be the arbiter of said data? I would rather have an impartial accountant take a look at either of your data. I see no evidence in this article that you could analyze your way out of a paper bag.

6. "Again, the data I've seen says the opposite"

Again this 'data'.

THAT
YOU
WILL
NEVER
PRODUCE

God, I am ROFL'ing now.

People that claim to have data, and are reluctant to produce it never have the data. EVER. Onus probandi, asshole. I will wait while you google that.

7. "Again, I was arguing against your Facebook post. Which was just awful."

Is that a logical argument? Can awful be weighed? Sounds like your subjective opinion.

I have one as well: You are a benighted shitprick. That is my subjective opinion.

8. "Same appeal to authority fallacy, but that's great that you helped shape Groupon. "

Man is stating his bona fides. What are yours exactly? MBA? Dime a dozen startup CEO titles? Fuck son. Let me know when you have SVP behind your name in a multi billion dollar enterprise, instead of a shitty little bully tech blog. Then maybe we will be on the same playing field.

9. "Okay. I apologize that you thought I was responding to your presentation when I pretty clearly was responding to your Facebook posting, which had the same title."

See point #1. You lying little sack of shit.

"I also feel sorry that you feel the need to resort to repeated ad hominem attacks when they are totally unnecessary and take away whatever valid points you might have."

You confuse ad hominem attacks for logical fallacies. One does not equal the other. I understand, you cannot tell. This is the sign of a low verbal IQ. It is o.k.

P.S.

Two more things:

A. I apologize for the grammer and typos, I am in iPad land. Busy, things to do, places to fly.
B. I would like you to know that words have consequences. I am saving this to evernote. The reason is simple. When hitting on VC's inside $300+ a head dinners, and they want to know who is hot, and who is not, and the phrase "techdirt" comes up, I want to have it handy.

I want everyone that would even think of writing you a check to see this. And I want to make sure they are laughing with tears in their eyes from both your stupidity, and the fact they dodged a very big bullet by avoiding you.

In closing, you should stop taking a shit on people. Because some of those people have friends. Some of those friends work in your business. Some of them have a higher net worth than you. Some of them could purchase your little shitbag blog on a whim, without you knowing it, and drive it into the ground. And then write the damn thing off. All while keeping your strapped in with three year golden handcuffs while the thing comes down around your ears and you have to watch. I mean fuck.... if I was a real fucking asshole, I could just make you work under Mr. Lowery. Perhaps then you would get a mustard seed of humility. Or at least a plot of an original web only sitcom. Hmm... actually, that is not a bad idea. Note to self.

Keep that in mind when you are shopping around. And that is why I am keeping this anonymous, windowlicking fuckface. Cause sometimes... I just love to shit on assholes. And maybe, just maybe... this year it is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:59pm
  
  Re:
  I think this might be my favorite comment ever on this site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You should be more specific.
    
    We know that you are not very good at that, but you can try.
    
    Next week, multiplication tables.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 12:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Two points.
      
      1.) The ironic part of your accusing him of not backing up his claims? It's the exact same argument he uses on pretty much every politician, RIAA, MPAA, and miscellaneous shill that happens to claim that they know what they're talking about when they obviously don't.
      
      The difference? Masnick actually delivers the evidence.
      
      2.) You should be more specific.
      
      We know that you are not very good at that, but you can try.
      
      And despite your technological expertise, you obviously don't know the simple difference between "Flattened" and "Threaded" views.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    I will let the record show that you still have not produced a shred of data. A single shred of verified, sourced, legitimate data.
    
    I remember when journalist had to do "research". Instead of get drunk and find their keyboard.
    
    Actually my mistake is calling you a journalist. You are a man with a digital sandwich board screaming into the night.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I remember when journalist had to do "research""
      
      Indeed. I don't remember when Mike claimed to be a journalist, however.
      
      Do you also spam the comment pages of tabloids, who claim to employer journalists, yet simply rewrite AP feeds and print vapid celebrity rumours as news? Somehow, I think not. Your obsession is rather sad and strange.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually my mistake is calling you a journalist.
      
      Well yeah. This is an opinion blog, not a news outlet.
      
      You are a man with a digital sandwich board screaming into the night.
      
      That's one pretty damn large sandwich board considering the daily page views this site gets. Just sayin'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A flat dismissal. Not even an attempt to excuse yourself.
    
    How very sad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 6:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm raping your mom right now.
      
      Defend against that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  According to this, you fucking nobody, this WAS the outline of his talk.
  
  http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120214cracker
  
  Ooooooooooooooooooooooops.
  
  Sorry.
  
  I don't need to rebut the rest because it was more of the same angry, ranting drivel from a fucking nobody.
  
  Oh I'm sorry, did I call you a fucking nobody? I meant a worthless fucking nobody, you fucking nobody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    You just reposted a link to his facebook post.
    
    Nowhere does the author say that he attended the talk, and the talk and the facebook post is the same.
    
    He assumed, as Mike did.
    
    Also, to 'rebut the rest' you would have needed to successfully rebut the first part.
    
    That would require you read the article you posted past 4th sentence. I know that reading comprehension is HARD. But try, it will help your job prospects.
    
    * Note to self: New interview question. "So, what do you think of techdirt?" And if they say they love it, and have an account, circular file them. Good litmus test for seeing if they have critical reasoning and comprehension skills.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I didn't repost a link to his facebook post, talk about reading comprehension fail!
      
      Did you even read my post? I said that what I linked was an OUTLINE. Duh. Reading comprehension fail #2. I never said they were one and the same. Strawman much?
      
      For someone who is all about reading comprehension, you aren't doing so well with it yourself.
      
      I'm pretty sure my rebuttal was more successful than yours, but opinions are like assholes, aren't they?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "* Note to self: New interview question. "So, what do you think of techdirt?" And if they say they love it, and have an account, circular file them. Good litmus test for seeing if they have critical reasoning and comprehension skills."
      
      Thank GOD you're going to do this. Being that you at least claim to have some say over hiring people but don't say who you are, I wouldn't be able to avoid your company. This way, if I accidentally ever apply somewhere you work, this kind of idiotic question can pretty quickly both filter me out from ever accidentally working with you and vice versa.
      
      (and btw, forget about spelling/grammar issues, your original post was just completely unreadable. There were parts quoted which were in quotes, others which were not, strange spacing, etc. I don't care if you have hooves instead of hands and are typing on a Sanskrit keyboard, you good sir, did such a job of shitting on the English language, that you should be happy you kept your identity hidden, lest it get back to your employer.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't care if you have hooves instead of hands..."
        hey that's racist!
        
        http://cheezburger.com/Bendyrulz/lolz/View/5644772864
        
        (and im not being serious of course!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kamereon (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Nice rag you have hear
  you've definitely done too many drugs back in your day.
  please get professional help, before you hurt yourself or others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  wait... how could you force someone to work under another person? or for that matter buy a business they don't want to sell... I think I'd rather just quit than work underneath Lowery anyway!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 8:55pm
  
  10/10 would laugh again
  God, I am ROFL'ing now.
  
  Actually you seem rather enraged.
  
  I was going to cherrypick some more, but I'll just point out that 1) I find it amusing how "using an iPad" somehow seems to be a legitimate excuse for bad English to you, and 2) you are completely full of shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: 10/10 would laugh again
    I was going to cherrypick some more, but I'll just point out that 1) I find it amusing how "using an iPad" somehow seems to be a legitimate excuse for bad English to you,
    
    I do know people with iPhones whose email signature is something like "Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any spelling errors." Talk about an anti-advertisement. I don't know how widespread this phenomenon is. My wife wrote back and included "Sent from my Android phone. Note the complete absence of spelling errors."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous is a Coward and a fool, 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:06pm

Right?
This guys a whack job. He's probably Lowery's roadies and live in a trailer park. I dont' beleive a word of it. HELL and Christ the retard can't even spell. He's a nobody spouting his mouth off to support a friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Right?
  I 'believe' I can spell.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:10pm

"This guys a whack job. He's probably Lowery's roadies and live in a trailer park. I dont' beleive a word of it. HELL and Christ the retard can't even spell. He's a nobody spouting his mouth off to support a friend."

Actually, wrong all on every last one, even the gender.

As well "beleive" is spelled "believe".

Enjoy going to work in the morning for the next 30 years, navel gazing idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:39pm

Oh hell, lets roll:

Bonafides:

Let us talk shitty websites.

First of all, fire all your website developers. Now. Every last fucking idiot.

Why? Slow website. Lower in the google rankings.

- Total page load time: 45.62seconds. Something is broken. Time to render 5 seconds. LAME. My pages render in 1.5seconds or everyone goes back to sprint. Have your morons even seen firebug? Yslow? etc? No?

Why is it slow?

Well you have beacon cancer for one. You have... well.... I stopped counting @ 40 .js files.

Write a script to pull them down, compile them into one, and minify. That will save you seconds by itself.

Then, learn how to consolidate your images.

The optimize and strip them properly. I mean fuck, who has a 130k image on their page? http://cdn.techdirt.com/images/topics.jpg, I am talking to you.

And then consolidate your damn css. And use sass.

There. I just improved your google rank by speeding up your website in five minutes. Those are my bonafides. Webpages, datacenters, business plans, bs cut through in seconds.

Call me a nobody again. Do it. I'll shit down your throat again and all over your blog with delusions of grandeur.

Two days I could get this page to render in under a second on most connections. Which is something you haven't been able to do in 12 years. What a trainwreck of a fucking site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re:
  Wow. Aren't you an angry anonymous coward. Voted funny!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  May I ask you something, it might be a bit personal? Are you still on dialup? That is the only reason why I can figure that you are having such a hard time rendering this site.
  
  A 0.12 Megabyte image is causing you problems? It takes you nearly a minute to fender the page? What the crap are your pages like? Are they all plain text with gif images?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't my problem. Google simple factors in page speed when ranking. Most people take a bit of time to fix that.
    
    Personally, I have about 5 people that take alot of time fixing that. When you are dealing with millions of pieces of content, you need them to be rendered very fast. For two reasons:
    
    - The user makes a judgement about a page in less than a 1/3rd of a second. I want them not to make the judgement... "Oh,is this page still loading.". User studies in our lab indicate people have gotten very, very picky about this. And their subjective view of your page changes based on how snappy it is.
    - Google cares about page rendering time, so I care about page rendering time. I wish it was not so, but it doesn't.
    - I think our largest image is 40k. And I fought hard to get that down. Graphic designers get so attached to things however, and I got enough of what I wanted speed wise not to bother
    
    I run 12Mbit DSL @ home. We do not have FIOS yet in this neighborhood. I run 100Mbit symmetrical at my office, and the our wholly owned and operated datacenters on five continents run well... that is a huge list. I don't really have space for it here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      * It is not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think our largest image is 40k. And I fought hard to get that down.
      
      You realize the 140k image you are talking about is a sprite containing about 40 separate images, right? And that that's actually the correct, optimized way to do it since you only need to make 1 request instead of 40 for the same file size?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RonKaminsky (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 10:54am
        
        And who does it exactly the same way? Google
        I laugh since he is all the time crediting Google for caring about page loading times, and Google also packages small images in the same way: see http://www.google.com/images/nav_logo103.png ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  Call me a nobody again. Do it. I'll shit down your throat again and all over your blog with delusions of grandeur.
  
  It's 2012. Knowing some website optimization tricks doesn't make you a somebody. I bet you have a Twitter account with "Social Media Guru" in the description too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wrong. Don't do twitter. Not a "social media guru" either.
    
    Just flaming here anonymously for sport. Mainly because I do not need a bunch of internet trolls running to allthingsd and saying how XXX of YYY corp was flaming them on an internet messages board.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just flaming here anonymously for sport.
      
      Ah, well that would explain why you stick out like a sore, idiotic thumb. The rest of us are actually trying to have intelligent conversations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Watchit (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, he's not even a very good troll either... I think he was actually serious before and is now trying to act like a troll to play off the fact he had no idea what he was talking about earlier.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  You're a fucking nobody, you fucking nobody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    ^
    |
    |
    
    To borrow the venacular, "What's matter, you jello?"
    
    Enjoy going to work today. Enjoy paying your car payment. Enjoy the rest of your miserable little life.
    
    Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaah.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That you come here to "troll" says more about you than it does about us.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is the official sport of the internet. Do you begrudge me for indulging?
        
        I do not be grudge you for indulging.
        
        Also, use "we". Us is so hive mind reddit/4chan.
        
        I mean really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, use "we". Us is so hive mind reddit/4chan.
        
        Er, actually "us" is the object form and grammatically correct, whereas "we" is the subject form which would have made him sound like an idiot (e.g. you)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nastybutler77 (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Enjoy your angry, bitter, miserable life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 6:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Enjoy going to work today.
      
      Yeah, I really feel sorry for all those miserable saps who have, you know... jobs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  "- Total page load time: 45.62seconds. Something is broken. Time to render 5 seconds. LAME. My pages render in 1.5seconds or everyone goes back to sprint. Have your morons even seen firebug? Yslow? etc? No? "
  
  lmao upgrade to 56k and get back to me. I don't care if your own pages on your computer load quickly, if you're an idiot with a crappy connection, that's what happens.
  
  "Call me a nobody again. Do it. I'll shit down your throat again and all over your blog with delusions of grandeur."
  
  You. Are. A. Nobody. You suck at life. You are a waste of space. Stop breathing my air and taking up resources that could be used by someone with a half a brain. Just stop. Now. Nobody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:16pm
    
    PEBKAC
    Something is broken.
    
    His web development 386, most likely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Al Bert (profile), 26 Feb 2012 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: PEBKAC
      The troll(s) are idiots, but I cringe to admit that it's a real point. The rest of the nation/world isn't as connected to the internet (technologically and socially) as you think it is. Where i'm located, i have the choice between dialup or paying $50+ per month for a 384k/128k 900MHz LOS radio link or a ripoff satellite package with an awful FAP. I've adblock'd the hell out of this site just to be able to hang around.
      
      The google rankings and whatever else it was babbling about can safely be ignored, stopped clock and all that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  > Call me a nobody again. Do it. I'll shit down your throat again
  > and all over your blog with delusions of grandeur.
  
  So you admit that all your bluster is a delusion.
  
  Well done!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody, 23 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am

He's a nobody
nobody nobodynobodynobodynobody

AC is a nobody!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: He's a nobody
  Actually you are nobody. I am anonymous.
  
  Now, who is on first?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
noneya, 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:24am

" nice rag you have hear Mike"
And you use your iPad as an excuse for your improper use of words? Fyi..using hear in place of here is not an iPad typo, it's just incorrect.

Posted from my Android device ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
noneya, 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:26am

/sigh
" nice rag you have hear Mike"
And you use your iPad as an excuse for your improper use of words? Fyi..using hear in place of here is not an iPad typo, it's just incorrect. You may want to seek out a mental health professional for your cazy problem.

Posted from my Android device ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:31am

Have this page bookmarked...
Man, I have this page bookmarked just so i can comeback for the comments! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JayTee (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: Have this page bookmarked...
  This has certainly been one of the most entertaining comment threads I've read in a long time!
  
  There's only really one thing for it..
  
  http://images.wikia.com/randomstuffstuff/images/c/c9/Doublefacepalm.jpg
  
  =]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 11:45am
    
    Re: Re: Have this page bookmarked...
    I couldn't agree more :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 12:40pm

Wait wait wait.....this is from the former lead singer of Cracker?
I saw those guys live a few years back. The biggest thing I remember remarking on was how HORRIBLE the lead singer sounded. I even said, "well, now we know why this band's career fell apart..."

You wonder how someone gets so angry and jaded? Have a small amount of talent, then apparently lose any skill you have.

Good times, man. Good times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael McNally, 25 May 2012 @ 8:47am

not arguing in good faith
Though it raised many good points, I had a lot of problems with Mr. Lowery's article. So I was hoping to read something equally interesting from the other side. But when I got to "sells the music playing devices that many people use to listen to the songs" as a reason that Apple deserves a percentage on each song sold, I stopped reading. This is such insane troll logic that I can only surmise that the author is grasping for anything that sounds like an argument to support their position, whether it is valid or not, and is not interested in arguing in good faith.

Apple makes money, presumably, on each music playing device they sell. Or if they don't, then that is their own damn problem. Does the fact that Amazon does not make and sell their own player mean they deserve less of a cut on each digital download? Or should I pay Apple a couple of cents less for each song I download through iTunes to play on my Sandisk SansaClip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: not arguing in good faith
  But when I got to "sells the music playing devices that many people use to listen to the songs" as a reason that Apple deserves a percentage on each song sold, I stopped reading.
  
  You shouldn't have. The point was that Apple isn't merely a "hosting service" for MP3's. They add value, and that added value is the reason that they have the ability to ask for a percentage of sales.
  
  And, if you'd read further, you'd learn that they take less of a percentage than brick-and-mortar retailers ever did. Despite the fact that, following Lowery's thinking, they are nothing more than a warehouse for CD's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 10:50am

Read it here
FYI, Lowery took the Facebook post down. However, the text version of his talk is up at The Trichordist:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-bo ss-full-post/

It is even worse than Mike said it was. Here's a sampling:

Musicians are constantly derided by the Digerati. It�s usually after someone like myself suggest that if other people are profiting from distributing an artist�s work (Kim Dotcom, Mediafire, Megavideo, Mp3tunes,) they should share some of their proceeds with the artists. At this point the Digerati then proceed to call us �dinosaurs�, �know nothings� or worse. Suddenly your Facebook page is filled with angry comments from their followers that seem to all be unsuccessful Canadian hip hop artists who proclaim:

�We are gonna turn you into Lars Ulrich and bitch your band sucks anyway�.

(At the risk of getting the Canadian non-lethal equivalent of a "cap in my ass" I have to say: I am so scared!)

The most virulent of these folks are almost always unsuccessful musicians. It fascinates me. I can only surmise that part of their anger seems tied to the hatred of the record companies that rejected them. Successful even marginally successful musicians are often viewed as some kind of traitors. A special kind of hatred is reserved for these apostates. The file sharing/cyber locker industry has figured this out and purposely stokes stokes them with a faux populism. I would say it�s juvenile but it�s really more medieval. That�s why I call them Freehadists.

The entire article is filled with this type of smug prejudice. It is especially ironic, considering that Lowery (or one of his "apostates") has consistently and unremittingly spammed every single story on this site that champions musicians who are actually successful, deriding their success and often the artists themselves.

And FYI, the Trichordist site is even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]