Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
from the *according-to-the-recording-industry dept
Well, what do we have here? Another artist operating outside the constraints of the recording industry and yet, against all odds, making money? Probably too good to be true. He's built a huge following on known pirate site YouTube and his first two royalty checks totaled over $200,000, but the question remains: how can Alex Day make money with such a wrong-headed approach?The Tunecore blog gets to the bottom of this Alex Day sensation. In a day and age where no one can sell music, Day is doing exactly that. Not only is he selling music, but he's doing many things completely wrong, if conventional thinking is anything to go by. Just how successful is Alex Day?
Alex Day, a 23 year-old musician from Essex, England is focused on releasing music that puts listeners in a good mood. And it seems to be working. He has over 500,000 YouTube subscribers, over 500,000 songs sold, almost 100 million youtube views, and was the subject of two recent Forbes articles.How does he do it? By breaking every rule in the "How Things Are Done Around Here" book.
First rule broken?
Staggered/Windowed Releases Are Good
Day has released three (3)(!!!) singles simultaneously, ruthlessly "cannibalizing" his own market. How's that working out for him?
[I]t seems to have worked so far. The songs are well on their way to selling 150,000 copies. Just ONE of the videos has already done more than 300,000 views, and the three have been streamed more than 100,000 times on Bandcamp.You'll Never Be Famous Without A Major Label's Help
It’s basically perseverance. [I]’ve been doing it six years, and only in the last year have people really started paying attention to my music. I make sure I upload at least one video a week, keep my stuff consistent and entertaining, and don’t talk about music all the time because people would get bored.No One Takes YouTube "Artists" Seriously
Well I have Twitter and Facebook pages like everyone else in the world, but really it is just YouTube. I don’t have a label, a manager, a press team, a radio plugger, an agent, a publicist, not even a music producer. I make my own music, my own music videos, and YouTube is how I get the word out on those things.Control Every Use Of Your IP
I noticed on your site that you’re very vocal about encouraging your fans to use your music in their videos, projects, talents shows, and whatever else they’d like. What’s your philosophy behind this?Full Albums Are The Only True Way To Create/Enjoy Music
Is that not the norm? I thought everyone would want to do that. I guess it’s just as I’ve said, I want as many people as possible to hear and enjoy my music, and if people are using it in their own projects, that’s a good way of sharing my songs with people. As long as you’re not taking the credit for the song and you’re doing something new with it (not just re-uploading the song with the artwork to YouTube when I already have a video there of my own to showcase it), you can help yourself.
Stop recording albums. I understand that an album can be a great form of art in its own right when all the songs are designed for it and they all weave into each other and they have a concept. Great—but most don’t, most artists don’t write like that, and with the cherry-picking available on iTunes, there’s no point bundling them together. Just focus on making one great song. Keep writing and recording until you have one great song. Then go from there. You only need one great song to make it.Real Artists Don't Need To Connect With Fans Or Make Music People Enjoy
I make music people enjoy and they buy it... That’s my big trick. If I was only doing it for fame, I could sign with a label. If I was only doing it for money, I could churn out rubbish every two weeks. But I take my time and put out quality stuff I’m proud of, for the love of making great music and sharing it with an audience—the more people that hear it, the better. I want to make things that people can love.With this many rules broken, it appears that Alex Day is yet another solitary example of business models that won't work for anyone else.
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: alex day, independent artists, music, rules, sharing, success, videos
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, half a million is hardly successful, my grandma shits out that much during her /ANAL SEEPAGE/ attacks. So you're not only liars, you're /FAILING/ badly at it.
But thinking and creativity where never really your strong suits, after all this is all coming from a group of people who have to /STEAL/ ideas from others to make a living. You make me /SICK/.
Keep it up on whining, keep repeating the same thing over and over and some idiot might /BUY/ it. Isn't that right, MIKE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and his bad haircut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here goes another idiot thinking he can dictate the norm. Only a person with their head in the clouds would think making a half a million isn't successful just because someone else has made more. You greedy empirical fucks won't give up until every other man is just a slave under your boot.
Get this through your head, the world owes you nothing. It is just as willing to put a bullet through your head walking home one evening as it is willing to give you a break. You should feel privileged to have done so well. Go ahead and call others liars and thieves. Is your family wealthy? If so, which of the three ways did they do it that are common to so many other wealthy American's. Was it prostitution? Smuggling? Or slavery?
The world is changing, and you're playing for the wrong side. You are the 1%, and you deserve so much. But people are massing, protesting, fighting. Who do you think is going to save you when you're outnumbered 99 to 1? The police? Don't make me laugh (it hurts my belly). No one else on here is willing to say this, because they're mostly reasonable people, but you're a piece of shit. And I expect you'll get what's coming to you a lot sooner than you think.
Down with corporations. Long live the people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
should be...
"You are the 1%, and think you deserve so much"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You didn't just bite the hand that feeds you, you bit of the entire arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That statement alone puts him miles and miles ahead of the legacy content industry. Regional blocking is just idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is part of the problem today. Most things should be LEGAL unless made ILLEGAL and made illegal for a damned good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Staggered/Windowed Releases Are Good: for continuously billing the artist over and over again for each release.
You'll Never Be Famous Without A Major Label's Help: because they try to cut off or gate every other avenue.
No One Takes YouTube "Artists" Seriously: because it's an avenue the labels haven't cut off yet--not that they haven't tried.
Control Every Use Of Your IP: so the labels can continuously bill you for providing said control.
Full Albums Are The Only True Way To Create/Enjoy Music: because they require more billable services to produce and have greater gaps between releases, giving the labels more time for windows and other profit milking strategies.
Real Artists Don't Need To Connect With Fans Or Make Music People Enjoy: because those "real" artist need the label's expensive publicity machine to continuously cram their crap into people's ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. How does refusing to sell things in Australia until they're not cool anymore maximize label profits? I see your explanation of "billing the artist for each release", but that seems weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny
Good to see more and more of these efforts working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny
I assume you're talking about someone continuing to get paid for songs they wrote years ago, right?
Why is that a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny
If a Dr. is worth $XXX XXX for replacing your kidney, what is the delivery driver worth for getting it to you on time safely for you to use? Minimum wage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
One of his songs is an old Peter and Gordon song from the 60s. So Peter and Gordon deserve nothing for that?
How should it work? If someone works on an album for a year, then they should get a yearly salary? Who's going to pay it? You?
If someone designs/invents/creates a product, like a toaster, and then has thousands built by other people and for sale by other people, they don't deserve any money beyond the hours they spent creating their toaster?
So if this Alex Day guy sells a CD of his earlier stuff, he now shouldn't get paid, he now deserves nothing, because that's an old CD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Publishers really are just the delivery men.
One of his songs is an old Peter and Gordon song from the 60s. So Peter and Gordon deserve nothing for that?
You call getting paid for about 50 years for the song nothing!? Talk about entitlement... No, they already got what they deserve.
How should it work? If someone works on an album for a year, then they should get a yearly salary? Who's going to pay it? You?
Um, have you ever held a normal job? Because that's exactly how it works for everyone else! Well, everyone in the 99% anyway.
If someone designs/invents/creates a product, like a toaster, and then has thousands built by other people and for sale by other people, they don't deserve any money beyond the hours they spent creating their toaster?
Again, yes. Getting paid ONLY for the actual work you do is the standard for the rest of us in real world.
So if this Alex Day guy sells a CD of his earlier stuff, he now shouldn't get paid, he now deserves nothing, because that's an old CD?
Selling CDs? Sorry, but CDs and albums are quickly becoming yesterdays 8-tracks. And Alex is already selling his music online. You know, on a computer, like where you typed your messages. Yeah, those things can deliver music directly from the artist too. Crazy, I know, but it's true. So, there really is NOTHING stopping Alex from selling his music. Even older stuff if he wants too. People can keep paying him as long as he accepts the money.
Now, if he had a label, it would be a different story. They would not only take the majority of the profits for his songs, but could block sales for his old stuff if they wanted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
But it the world artists inhabit, they should be able to work at McDonald's for a year and be paid for the rest of their lives.
"Oh, but they created something that is still being used today."
People built that McDonald's building that is still being used today. Are they still being paid? No, they're building something else now and being paid for it.
See how it works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
That's unfair and needs to be stopped. I want them to have it the same as poor miserable me.
The funniest thing here to me is why you all feel the need to tell other people "how it works" in such a condescending manner.
And, ironically, it does *not* work that way for the guy in this article. He built a building a while ago, and he continues to get paid for it.
I know that's unfair to you at your Walmart job, but that's how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
People tell you how it works because you walk in here and criticize and say "that isn't how it works" so you get the same in response. You're telling us how you want to be treated.
People like you walk in here and think you need to "educate" us on how the recording industry works and we simply don't "get" it (ie: that artists need to be paid for their work). The problem is you hate it when people explain to you the cat is out of the bag, adapt or you won't survive. We give your type examples of people that have succeeded and you counter that with more of the "that's not how it works" argument.
You're not listening very well either. This is a common theme with some artists. Indianna Gregg and Billy Bragg did a great job exercising this routine on the now dead a2f2a.com site. If we don't agree, it's because we don't "get" it. But when we explain how they don't understand the technological genie that's free, it's because we don't understand that artists need to be paid. Round and round we go, accomplishing nothing.
Look, "the good 'ol days weren't always good and tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems". Try "keeping the faith" (Billy Joel - Innocent Man album).
He's right. Let's also not forget the infamous words of Billy Joel again with The Entertainer "I am the Entertainer, and I know just where I stand, another serenader, in another long haired band. Today I am your champion, I may have won your hearts, but I know the game, you'll forget my name, if I don't stay on the charts." -- Obscurity is far worse than piracy and that's always been the case.
In addition, and to repeat, you won't get that genie back in the bottle where your corporate masters can charge for false-scarcity of goods. So roll with it and adapt and work with us, by not "you don't get it" arguments and try to understand that yeah, we do, we just don't agree with you.
Being paid for 70yrs after your death is NOT helpful and NOT a way to keep your music being heard!
And investors invest by CREATING NEW THINGS, you can't compare McDonald's to filesharing because if people could replicate McDonald's food with a click, while NOT REMOVING A SINGLE ITEM FROM THEIR SHELVES, then you'd have a similar argument.
So you want new funds, invest in yourself and create new things.
Families with money have said money because their family leaders worked for it, generated MORE than enough for themselves to have and their entire families, and when the well has run dry, the kids fend for themselves.
The only people bitching about being poor and miserable are the lazy heirs of musicians or people like yourself. Dweezil Zappa does a lot on his own, working for a living as a musician. Yes he has his father's name, but he doesn't sit around and do drugs sucking off his father's fortune, he's out there working his ass off and that's why he gets paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
In fact, with Spotify, the consumer/customer/fan will continue to pay for the same song year after year that they could have bought one time for a buck.
So I really don't get this need/want/desire to insist that all people should work on a salary or an hourly wage.
What about pensions? What about retirement plans? What about CEOs and their massive exit deals? There are all sorts of examples where people get paid in ways other than a salary or an hourly wage, so that's just a weird thing to want or demand for other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
CEO's and pension plans are investments, from either employee investments, corporate investments as per collective bargaining agreements, or both. And there won't be any money for pensions for my generation (late generation X) anyhow.
But these are benefits which are paid into by different parties. They are not the sole means of income from a form of employment. So you're not really performing a proper comparison.
On top of that, when you die, your pension you invested in, or your company invested in, IS TERMINATED! Your pension does not block someone else from earning a living from your work either!
And Spotify/YouTube are a form of salary. People view, ads generate money, YouTube pays. Artist does not create, does not connect, simply disappears, no one views, no salary. Simple as that.
The point being, and people don't care that about royalties as a means of income, which I know you already know but you are likely just being argumentative for the sake of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... The point is, royalties are not the problem, perpetual lockup of the work is the problem. Changing laws and criminalizing normal cultural interaction IS the problem, just to ensure an old means of salary?
I don't think so! That's the problem you're not understanding. If people buy your work, great, you get paid a royalty. But what you can't do is lock down people's behaviour and criminalize to guarantee that royalty when the means of securing that salary changes. That's what people have a problem with.
You have to adapt!
The only reason employees at Microsoft keep getting paid is because Microsoft keeps creating new OS's and software development platforms and Office products PEOPLE USE and WANT!
They license, true, but they don't go around demanding licensing for Windows 3.0, they'd rather you buy the latest because it's better (unless your old machine only runs 3.0 because you have a 286).
On top of that, their license includes support. You want extra support, yeah you pay for it, but basic support is included, along with updates! How many songwriters supply updated songs saying "oh shit, I have an accidental here that just doesn't work, overly dissonent, sorry, here's an updated song, thanks for choosing Corey's Composing."
They don't.
So what are they doing for the previous works? Why should those works be locked down to old means and people be expected to pay "import" prices when the Internet just made it easy, no Importing required? Get it?
No one cares about royalties as long as people want to buy them, but to force people into them because that's how you've always done thing is a piss-poor business model. Bribing governments to support your model further illustrates this point.
Don't you realize how easy it is to get your material out to fans? Oh sorry you can't, some grabass lawyer won't let it happen because some other grabass lawyer in another region of the world wants to extort their already impoverished people. Or maybe for some dumbfucked reason South Park's rights holders want to extort more money out of Canadians so we can't watch in on www.thecomedynetwork.ca and if we don't have cable, we'll get it online for free elsewhere. Now the advertising is also gone.
Yeah, that makes great business sense /sarcasm.
You're not going to convince people here that you think we're saying we don't want artists to earn a living, no matter how hard to you try. Using horrible comparisons won't work either. Let's face it, we DO understand and we're telling you what we, the fans, want.
If you don't listen, don't complain when we don't support you. Stop being like Eaton's, listen to your damn fans, listen to the consumer market and give them what they want: access, on their terms, and at a reasonable price -- bonus of if you make it easy.
If the artists on major labels still get SFA from Spotify, then ditch the grabass labels, because they are making it difficult for the indie artists to earn a decent living too! Didn't know that? Check out how much indie artists earn from iTunes, the infamous David Lowery rants about it, but fails to mention the backdoor deals with the labels that brought those shitty indie rates about!
Do you honestly think the majors would want indie artists being able to say "Oh, you only got that much, I get this much because I have no label" and then their sheep saying "maybe we should ditch our label." Labels wouldn't want that, they want control and everyone under their thumb so they can maximize profits, at the sake of culture, artists, and consumers/fans.
Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
As simply as possible:
An artist creates, puts it on Spotify, people play the creation on Spotify, Spotify pays artist.
Cut to ten years from now: People on spotify play that *same original creation*, spotify pays artist.
The basic principal of paying for something that has already been created is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Who said people could not utilize such means?
Who said records are no longer sold?
All we said was stop bitching and complaining because that's no longer the profitable means, adapt.
No one said you can't earn a living except you! So are you now arguing with yourself?
We said you can't rely on selling copies as a SOLE means of income. You argued we don't understand how it works and your reply here is another example of your denying what has been written and acknowledged.
You know, artists like Karl, OKGO, and Alex Day will find ways to earn a living making music. Some, like Alex, can use sales of albums/singles/ad revenue, etc.. as a means of income. Others will mix it up with real scarcity.
If people like you don't want to adapt to what works for yourself, then go and join David Lowery, sit around the campfire, have some beers and complain about how the good old days were wonderful.
The rest of us will be moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Whatever, I give.
Btw, I'm not all angry, nor am I part of the MAFIAA, or any of that.
I've argued this whole thing from both sides and see why people on both sides often get frustrated and annoyed. Both sides have a lot of holes in their arguments and are often, how can I put this nicely...full of shit....and I recommend arguing this issue from the other side. Could be enlightening for you all. Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Just FYI: Though I do record music, and have releases on (tiny) labels, it's not how I earn a living. (Nor did I ever expect to.)
So, stick with OK Go and Alex Day. They're much better examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
If the most you can come up with is a strawman argument then I'm afraid you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone of your position.
Also, IP laws should never be about ensuring artists get what you subjectively think they allegedly 'deserve'. IP laws should only be designed to serve the general public, providing for artists is merely a means. To make IP laws about something else is reason to abolish them. Abolish IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Exactly right.
Right now, if someone designs/invents/creates a toaster, they are paid nothing whatsoever for the hours spent creating their toaster. Instead, they are paid a small percentage - let's say 15% - of the net income from toasters with their design after they are actually produced. But they only get paid that percentage after every single cost involved in designing/inventing/creating that toaster has been recouped out of their 15%.
Now consider that hundreds of thousands of different toaster designs are manufactured every year. Obviously what will happen is that the vast majority of toaster creators will not get paid any money whatsoever. They will work for free.
That is exactly the situation we have right now: most artists on traditional labels/studios/publishers work for free. Getting paid for the hours they spent creating their toaster would be a step up.
And it's also how most professional artists actually get paid. (Think of sound designers, studio musicians, video game artists, graphic designers, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
On top of that, in *your* scenario, even if that were true, that doesn't mean people should not feel obligated to pay for the toaster if they want one. How will the designer of the toaster recoup?
Makes zero sense.
As far as artists working for free for labels and so on, they get an advance, plus royalties.
And *again*, this is just side tracking from the issue of whether an artist or songwriter deserves to get paid and that their product has value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
You're doing a horrible job of advancing your point, just fyi.
But let's talk about that. They get an advance. Which they have to pay back. They get royalties. From which that advance must first be recouped before they see even a cent of money from said royalties.
So no, they do essentially work for free for the labels. Until all advances and money spent on them are recouped. Then they get a pittance from the royalties. And even then, that has been shown on more than one occasion to be nothing, because of shady accounting.
And no one has detracted anything. Every person who has responded to you has done so and pointed out that the song writer (who isn't the performer as you originally stated somewhere above) DESERVES TO GET PAID. Just one catch, if they want to keep getting paid, they need to keep writing songs. Like the rest of us. They don't deserve to write one song, and then never have to write again, but keep making money off it. Their product has no actual value though until it is proven that they A. can write hits and B. that they can do so consistently. Otherwise, they could just be one-hit wonders. Think of songwriters as you would novelists. The product, their words, has value. But that value differs based on the writer and on the people they are marketing their product to. Different values will be placed on the same thing by different people.
As for the toaster bit, who cares. People are not obligated to compensate others for any work they do (in regards to designing something or writing a song). That's just how things work. Oh, you wrote a hit song? Well, that's great for you, but it's not my cup of tea and I don't owe you a dime. Oh, you designed this "amazing" toaster? That's great and all, but I don't even own a toaster nor feel a need to, so I'm not obligated to do anything for you.
How will the designer of the toaster recoup? By selling his design to an interested party. The same way designers of the past have recouped. But there is no guarantee there will be an interested party. And there is most definitely no guarantee that just because you design something you will get paid for it. The opportunity to do so is there, but not the guarantee you'll make a dime.
This seems to be the point you're missing. You think something like this, "I created something. I AM OWED MONEY!" That's not how it works. It's more like, "I created something. I might make money off said creation, or I might not. But I am owed nothing." Cannot be put any simpler and more true than that. And it very much makes sense. Unless you suffer from a sense of entitlement that the rest of us find ridiculous. The rest of us have to work our asses off day in and day out to make a living. Again, you seem perfectly content to think that someone should work once and be paid indefinitely. News flash, that makes zero sense to the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
I don't even know what point some of you are trying to make or, more importantly, why. That's really the only reason I'm posting here. I think it's interesting that people here, for no apparent personal reason, are interested in how musicians should be compensated. Why such interest in songwriters copyrights? Why such interest in the cost of distribution?
What about insurance for musicians? Health benefits? Diet tips? Stock tips? Astrological forecasts?
I'm just wondering how any of this affects you all directly. To what advantage or disadvantage to *you* does a songwriter or musician's financial worries matter to *you*.
Regarding the toaster, nobody owes anything for the toaster if they don't want a fucking toaster. If they want the toaster, they owe. This is a lesson people usually learn by the first grade. If they take the toaster without paying, and they don't get caught, they usually *feel* a little guilty at least.
I've heard all of the arguments you all make before. I just don't understand why you all work so hard to make them (up).
A lot of people think it's because you just want to be able to continue to download everything for free. That can't be it. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
1. Many of us are musicians... or authors, filmmakers, graphic designers, etc. These debates do affect us personally.
2. The "artists must be compensated" argument has been used by the RIAA, MPAA, etc. to launch attacks on the general public. Specifically, on things like due process, free speech rights, privacy rights, and so forth. Think: SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, the DOJ seizing websites without warning, etc. This isn't just an argument about how musicians should be compensated; it affects everyone on a personal level.
3. We all like musicians, and we want them to get paid - in such a way that doesn't take away the rights of everyone else, or shut down things that everyone finds just as valuable as music (like an open Internet).
Of course, I'm sure some people here just want to download everything for free. But they're not the ones debating you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
I'd love a new toaster - mine sucks. Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy your toaster.
What I can afford to do is build a copy of that toaster, using parts that everyone already has in their own homes.
Why do you feel that I'm obliged to pay you when I do this?
How will the designer of the toaster recoup?
You're asking how a business can recoup fixed costs for designing a product, when the marginal cost of that product drops to zero. Were this a free market, that product's price would also drop to zero - no matter how valuable that product is.
Of course, with copyright (and patents), we no longer have a free market. But the market wants to be free.
So, how does a business deal with this? There are lots of ways to do this; a good method is to not try to sell just the zero-margin good, but to charge for related goods or services that do not have a marginal cost of zero, and use those to recoup the sunk costs.
But however that business deals with it, they must be the one to deal with it. They have to figure out how to survive in an open market, and not close off the market for their own benefit. It's an especially bad idea to call everyone who builds their own toaster a "thief."
And *again*, this is just side tracking from the issue of whether an artist or songwriter deserves to get paid and that their product has value.
Everyone here believes that an artist or songwriter deserves to get paid. The person you're replying to believes that artists should get paid like everyone else does: through a wage or salary.
And of course their product has value. Their "product" is culture; its value is its cultural value. The problem is this: it has value only because it's shared. Otherwise, it wouldn't be part of culture.
So, if you're preventing that "product" from getting into the hands of people - whether because they can't afford it, or for any other reason - then you make that product less valuable. Even if you are driving the price of that product up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Write your own songs and record them, write your own screenplays and film them, design your own cars and build them, make your own burgers, be your own doctor, build and fly your own planes, build your own house.
Good luck with all that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
And that's where your analogy breaks down. Because nobody is "stealing" anyone else's toaster. Not morally, and not legally.
"Building" my own copy of your toaster is exactly the same as "building" my own copy of your MP3. The only difference - for now - is that copying a toaster has marginal costs, and copying an MP3 doesn't.
Write your own songs and record them
I do. (In fact, I should be mastering my latest vinyl right now.)
Unfortunately, if my song sounds like yours, then I can be sued, and/or the song can be censored by the courts. In fact, if I just use parts of your song to write my own, then I am just as much of a pirate as someone who puts your song on a file sharing site.
I have had friends who couldn't press entire records for just this reason. They wrote their own music, but sampled little parts of movies or reality TV shows, and the pressing plants refused to press the records.
That's what copyright does.
Good luck with all that!
Thanks! I'm sure I'll need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
That's just sooooo ridiculous. I'd love to hear this put forth to the founding fathers and everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
No, it has material costs (the costs to get the tin and wires and whatnot), and labor costs (the costs to put it together yourself, or to pay someone else to do it).
Both of which are marginal costs. Hence the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
No, it has material costs (the costs to get the tin and wires and whatnot), and labor costs (the costs to put it together yourself, or to pay someone else to do it).
Both of which are marginal costs. Hence the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Let's say you put out your album and I download it somewhere for free, and I hear one of your songs that I think could be a hit so I "build it" myself and have a big hit with it and make tons of money and you get none.
You're okay with that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
That does not mean the content is worth $0, so don't misinterpret.
People will always pay and some people will always avoid paying (sneaking in to theatres etc..).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Covers need to refer to original creator. You don't take credit for what you didn't create. But you can cover it, your own musicians playing the music. If you do it better, so be it, that's why performance artists and songwriters are sometimes separate people.
I've actually paid someone to play a song I wrote (because I was standing in my wedding so obviously a guitar on me doesn't work for that situation). It was amazing to hear two artists interpret my original work and perform it, not to mention pay them to do so!
What is your point to all of this?
Digital copies and covers are not the same thing. Commercial piracy is wrong. Fans getting it for free because a) it's not available, b) it's locked down to the point of stupidity or c) it's overprices (recall price fixing against the labels around the same time as Napster - took a while in the courts though), those are the real reasons! More so than try before you buy or shitty corporate music (who the hell would download something they don't like?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
The impression overwhelmingly being given here is that copyright is bad, musicians and songwriters shouldn't whine and bitch (like everyone else does), they should work (like everyone else has to (sounds like whining and bitching to me), and not get money for work they've already done. And that file sharing is okay.
I'm not talking about a cover, I'm talking about doing a song just "like" one of yours.
And I get famous for it. I get the cred. I get whatever I get, and you get nothing.
That's okay, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
The good things was their original intent, a temporary monopoly on the implementation of an idea (patent) or the right to produce copies.
But that's not how things are now, extending copyrights way beyond the death of the author, denying their work from entering the public domain where it can be built upon without fear or extorsion, those are bad. Patent trolling, bad.
Musicians can complain that things are not as they used to be, but they should not expect anyone to care, much like the horse-whip or buggy manufacturers who didn't adapt when the automobile took over. That's our point.
People here are saying "you're not the only ones struggling" and so you have to adapt! That's quite different from just complaining how things are not fair. If my job no longer is profitable, no longer needed, I change it, maybe even my career I change. But that doesn't mean I still can't do what I like to do, I just can't expect to earn a full living as I used to, unless I adapt and change how I do things.
Case and point, Alex Day is doing what the Beatles used to do musically, just record, but he's doing something they didn't - interacting with his fans. He isn't performing live because he'd rather write and do videos. That's from an interview on TuneCore.
Other artists can't make it doing what he does so they tour or whatever. Point is, you have to adapt and change your ways, not complain.
And if you took what I did, as Karl already said, that would be plagerism and wrong. Covers are fine and if yours is better, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Where as with this, they still want the "horse and buggy". They are still taking the "horse and buggy" in massive amounts. They just aren't paying.
That will probably change somehow someway. Obviously some form of adaption will occur as it did with radio and recording when those first affected music.
Musicians should always be paid, as everyone here supposedly agrees. If someone wants a horse and buggy now, they still have to pay for it. It's not like horse and buggies were ever deemed free for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
If you could perfectly replicate a horse and buggy at nearly zero cost, without depriving anyone of their own horse and buggy, then you'd be comparing things on an even level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
The cost thing is so not relevant other than to those doing the taking. If it cost them even a little, like paying for xerox copies and paper to make illegal copies, or cassette tapes to make illegal copies, I imagine that would be a bummer, because they'd have to actually still pay for stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
People DID copy when it was tapes they paid for
people DO copy now that they pay for hardrive space, USB/SD storage and internet connections.
As usual, those in the anti-piracy camp have no understanding of what piracy in the real world is like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
In the olden days, there was a tax on blank cassettes/CDs. I suppose you're saying there should be a tax on hard drives and internet connections.
Anyway, the *point* was that the cost of the packaging of the song is completely irrelevant.
I'm not in any camp, I just think there's a boat load of BS in "your" camp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
True property is such by virtue of being naturally exclusive.
This is true of a house but not it's design
True of meat but not the method of cooking it nor the idea of combining it with other ingrediennts
A DVD but not the movie contained on it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
One is infringement, the other is theft. So the fuck what? They are both illegal.
And AGAIN, that's not even the point. The point is that the song has value regardless of the packaging. Get it?
You guys love to talk all around whatever is being said, dancing around the bottom line.
I suppose you'll reply to this with some hogwash that again ignores the point about *the song having value*. Nobody buys or "downloads" an mp3 or any other format unless they want the *song*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Theoretically, let's say a theater holds 200 people, and there are, on a daily basis only 20 people in there who payed, and 180 who snuck in. That's cool, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
"Is it because it sucks? It's overpriced? Because they can get away for free? Or is it because we're not competing with free by giving a real reason to buy?"
Home theatres hurt (and high prices) hurt the movie theatres. Not people sneaking it. It's all about the experience. People have always snuck in to concerts and while that's wrong, it doesn't kill the concert like you're suggesting, where 10% of the ppl in attendance paid.
This is the biggest problems with these debates, people just can't fathom the perfect digital copy and how no one is deprived of anything. You THINK it is a lost sale, but there's no guarantee they would have purchased anyway. No direct causal relationship, while there IS a causal relationship that those who do pirate because of unavailability (region encoding or licensing issues). There IS causal analysis that shows free stuff online is free publicity and people who take for free purchase more than those who don't.
So maybe your analogy would be correct if those who didn't pay for the movie ticket but did spend some $30 on snacks and another $20 on games - both of which have a high profit margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
So 180 people are sneaking in every day. Why is that wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Let's say you put out your album
So far, OK by me. (And not prevented by piracy.)
and I download it somewhere for free,
Personally, still OK by me.
Of course, this is where the piracy argument usually ends. But you continued:
and I hear one of your songs that I think could be a hit so I "build it" myself
If you don't give me credit, then that's not OK. Not because it's copyright infringement, but because it's plagiarism. Of course, plagiarism itself is not in any way illegal. And when plagiarism is not OK - such as in academia or journalism - then it's not OK whether you get my permission or not. Even if you paid me, even if I said it's OK, then you would still get kicked out of school or fired.
and have a big hit with it and make tons of money
I'm not opposed to anyone making money, even off of my work, but...
and you get none.
This is not OK. Not because you copied my song, or even because you made money from it, but because you made money from it without compensating me.
In other words, the issue isn't infringement, it's profit. There is a world of difference between selling counterfeit CD's and fans sharing files non-commercially.
Of course, this viewpoint is not without controversy. Mike, for instance, has repeatedly said that he considers everything on Techdirt to be in the public domain. That means that anyone can reproduce the site in its entirety, even for profit. And other blogs have done exactly that.
What happens is that those blogs get little to no traffic; everyone goes to Techdirt instead - because they're the source, the "horse's mouth," as it were.
Part of that viewpoint involves why someone who "built it themselves" can make money off of it. The original creator has a tremendous advantage in the marketplace from being first to market (among other reasons).
If someone else is making money off of that person's work, then they're offering additional value that the original creator isn't. That additional value is obviously the reason the song is a "big hit," or else everyone would buy the original creator's version instead.
Like I said, I'm not entirely convinced of this particular argument. But I do recognize that it's a valid argument, at least. To see why, let's expand on your example just a tiny bit.
I write a song. My version is not a commercial success, and languishes in obscurity. It turns no profit at all. But you come along, "build it" yourself, and it becomes a big hit. Your hit creates interest in my (original) version, as it most certainly would. Because of this interest, my song finally turns a profit.
According to your own argument, I would owe you money, since all of my song's profits are due to your version. Do you think this is fair?
I personally don't. But I can understand the argument, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
I just said that copying, in and of itself, is OK. What is not OK is a) copying without credit, or b) doing it for profit.
So, what I would do about it really depends on which not-OK thing you did. Either way, I would first contact you directly to see if it couldn't be fixed (either through credit, or through some sort of license). If it wasn't an "honest mistake" (like lifting something subconsciously), then I would also go public with the whole thing. Both of those things (unlike non-commercial sharing) are incredibly frowned-upon by the general public, so the hit to your reputation would probably be enough incentive to work things out.
It would have to be pretty egregious (like, using my song verbatim in a car commercial) for me to get lawyers involved. For one thing, lawyers should always be considered the "nuclear option." For another thing, I haven't paid money to register my copyrights, so I could only get an injunction and/or actual damages - not statutory damages, and not legal fees.
If it wasn't malicious, or didn't involve a fair amount of profit, then I'd probably do nothing. This has in fact happened before. I performed once in Philly, and one of the local noise acts found a lyric sheet that I'd accidentally dropped on their floor (I performed in their loft space). They needed some lyrics, so they just used some of mine. I didn't even know about it until they told me, after they'd already released it.
They just gave me a copy of that LP, and I had no problem with the whole situation. (It's not like a noise act is going to be making scads of money, with or without my lyrics.) I was more flattered than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
You said it would have to be something like in an ad to get lawyers involved. So I'm saying, okay, it's in an ad, it's a big hit, I'm saying I wrote it, I built it, so I'm getting paid, and you get nothing.
So I'm asking on what legal grounds would you get a lawyer? I did nothing illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Okay. I'm assuming the following is still the situation, right?
Let's say you put out your album and I download it somewhere for free, and I hear one of your songs that I think could be a hit so I "build it" myself and have a big hit with it and make tons of money and you get none.
If that is the situation, then you have done something illegal (or at least unlawful). You are committing commercial copyright infringement. (There is a huge difference between commercial copyright infringement and non-commercial file sharing, as I made very clear.)
So, if I contacted you directly, and/or went public with the situation, and we still couldn't work something out, I would hire a lawyer and sue you for copyright infringement. If doing so was financially worth it, that is.
If that is not the situation, then I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Are you asking what would happen if copyright didn't exist at all (which is something I've never advocated)? In that case, you're right, I couldn't call a lawyer. On the other hand, I could take your song, put it in a car commercial, make it a big hit, etc.
If it's a plagiarism issue, I'd settle it exactly like plagiarism issues are settled now - I'd present my version as proof that you copied me, and shame you publicly (and believe me, the public does not approve of plagiarism - just Google "Cook's Source Magazine"). That's more effective than a lawsuit anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
As far as non-commercial infringement goes, what is the agreement between copyright holders and people who make copies (pirates)?
You said this earlier:
"Unfortunately, if my song sounds like yours, then I can be sued, and/or the song can be censored by the courts. In fact, if I just use parts of your song to write my own, then I am just as much of a pirate as someone who puts your song on a file sharing site."
So if your song sounds like mine, why isn't it okay for me to sue you like you would sue me? Or "shame you" publicly???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Not exactly. We've established that I believe copyright is officially necessary, and that I might sue to protect my work, in extreme circumstances. Obviously Mike (like others here) is of a different opinion. He has reasons for his opinion, and they are good reasons; they are just not good enough for me, personally.
As far as non-commercial infringement goes, what is the agreement between copyright holders and people who make copies (pirates)?
Obviously there isn't an agreement between copyright holders and people who make copies, because if there was an agreement, it wouldn't be piracy. But that does not matter to me at all.
In my opinion, non-commercial copying should be entirely, 100% legal. CC-BY-NC should be the extent of the rights that could be reserved by law. So I don't believe that any agreement should be necessary.
So if your song sounds like mine, why isn't it okay for me to sue you like you would sue me? Or "shame you" publicly???
If I did indeed copy your song verbatim, and made money off of it and/or didn't credit you, then it is OK for you to do that. And the vast majority of people would support you.
But that's not what most piracy is. The vast majority of piracy is non-commercial sharing between friends; and I've never heard of a single case of plagiarism among file sharers.
It's also not why most artists get sued for infringement. Rarely does one artist copy another verbatim; most lawsuits are for things like sampling in music, or re-using characters from another person's book. Things that should be fair use, but usually aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
That's fine, but my main point here is the attitude towards songwriters and musicians who perhaps have a different opinion.
Because they, too, are entitled to their opinion. Laws on copyright aren't a wish for them, they are a reality. And people infringing on that is a reality. For them, it is horribly unfair that people are putting their personal *wishes* over what the laws actually are.
I just find it, ummm, sad I guess, that people here don't have more sympathy for the other side of the *coin*.
Not sure if I'm explaining this very well, but I think you all would have a better time making your case for your *wishes* if you lightened up and showed a little more understanding of the people who you *wish* would adapt to laws that don't even exist the way you want. That you *wish* would stop bitching and moaning. That you *wish* would work for minimum wage like you do. That you "wish* weren't represented by the music industry and the "MAFIIA", and so on.
I'm not pointing all this at you, but the vibe of this site and a lot of people in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
And this is different from "the other side of the coin..." how, exactly?
Here are some facts that you may find inconvenient:
1. Most file sharing does not happen on the internet.
2. People who share files legally purchase much more music than people who do not.
3. Twenty years of increasingly draconian legal "solutions" has neither decreased piracy.
4. Legal purchases have increased in the last twenty years - not because companies "fought" piracy, but because they competed with it.
You can wish things were different, but they're not. That is the market as it stands right now; and you can either wish it were different - and blame everyone else when it's not - or you can adapt to the market. Guess which one is in your own best interest?
That's fine, but my main point here is the attitude towards songwriters and musicians who perhaps have a different opinion. Because they, too, are entitled to their opinion.
Indeed they are. But musicians' opinions do not deserve any more respect merely because they're musicians. If they want their opinions to be respected, they have to have opinions that deserve respect.
Of course, most actual musicians and songwriters fall slightly more on my side of the "coin" than yours, so no worries there.
Laws on copyright aren't a wish for them, they are a reality. And people infringing on that is a reality. For them, it is horribly unfair that people are putting their personal *wishes* over what the laws actually are.
Claiming copyright owners are more "law-abiding" than pirates is ridiculous. For one thing, you're assuming that musicians themselves don't pirate music, which is laughable. For another thing, the corporate "representatives" of musicians don't pay attention to the law, either - whether it's committing large-scale commercial infringement, or by ripping off artists directly, or getting the government to censor websites without notice, or break the law in order to shut down their competition.
When they can't break the law outright, they'll simply bribe Congress to get the laws passed in their favor. Whether that's through back-room deals and secret agreements, or simply by sneaking language into a bill in the middle of the night. There's a revolving door between the government and pro-copyright organizations, so those that do their bidding in Washington can become, say, Senior Executive Vice President of the RIAA, or CEO of the MPAA.
File sharers, in the meantime, are breaking laws that were clearly written for commercial infringement. Laws that, when applied to individuals, have been found to be unconstitutionally excessive - more than once (though this last ruling is being appealed).
Moreover, the industry-funded studies that show harm to copyright holders from file sharing have been found unreliable by the government itself. So most people, including many musicians and fans, don't see any reason why they should follow the law.
When the law is so obviously one-sided and unfair, and disregarded even by those who it favors, then shouting "it's illegal" is not going to convince anyone. If you want people to follow the law, then we need to have laws that the people believe are worth following. After all, laws in general (and copyright explicitly) exist to serve the public good, not the interests of copyright holders.
Not sure if I'm explaining this very well, but I think you all would have a better time making your case for your *wishes* if you lightened up and showed a little more understanding of the people who you *wish* would adapt to laws that don't even exist the way you want.
Not "adapt to laws that don't even exist," but adapt to the market that exists right now.
And I'm not the one asking for people to change their behavior, or to create new laws. I'm simply advocating that artists themselves wake up and start acting in their own best interests. Luckily, most of them have.
This article is about one such musician, and I wholeheartedly applaud what he's doing. Why do you need to paint those who support him as "anti-artist?" Are you so threatened by artists succeeding on their own terms, that you feel you need to bring up "piracy" every time it happens?
Seriously, it's like a broken record at this point. Techdirt does tons of articles on successful artists and musicians. And every time that happens, some Anonymous Coward comes along, and starts shouting about The Pirate Bay, how everyone at Techdirt hates artists, and (most tellingly) how those successes were a fluke, and people had better get their heads out of the clouds and start supporting the traditional media industry's business model. It's pretty sad, frankly.
I'm not pointing all this at you, but the vibe of this site and a lot of Anonymous Cowards in general.
That you *wish* would stop bitching and moaning.
If they're bitching and moaning at the exact people who are their best customers, then they're not merely being annoying, they're hurting themselves. And by claiming to represent artists in general, they're hurting all the other artists, too. No wonder those of us who actually care about the well-being of artists want them to stop. (And especially to stop "bitching and moaning" in back-room sessions with high-level government officials.)
That you *wish* would work for minimum wage like you do.
Nobody here has ever "wished" that artists would work for minimum wage (and for the record, I don't). Simply suggesting a wage model is not the same as "minimum wage." Most of the people who do produce IP on a wage model - sound designers, orchestral performers, graphic artists, etc - earn much more than minimum wage. Nobody here has ever suggested that they shouldn't.
And this is coming from someone who does not advocate a wage model as the sole means of income. Even I can see you're lying.
That you "wish* weren't represented by the music industry and the "MAFIIA", and so on.
If the "MAFIAA" didn't target the general public, most people wouldn't have a problem with them.
Of course, I still would, because they don't represent the best interests of artists. They represent record labels, in the case of the RIAA; and record labels have a long history of exploiting artists worse than pirate sites do. In the past, artists were forced to work with the major labels, because the major labels held a (collective) monopoly on the entire music industry: radio, live venues, music stores, etc. Getting rid of that monopoly is not only good for the public, it's good for musicians too.
If getting rid of that monopoly means accepting piracy, then that's a small price to pay. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of many artists - even among those that don't approve of piracy, or are on major labels themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny
Yet if you sell me a dvd, particularly one with any kind of region block or DRM, then that's it. I can't do anything with it other than play what has been prescribed. Hell, in some cases I can only play it in certain ways or on certain devices.
The copyright owner's restrictions trump what I can do with an object I bought. That feels like a bad thing, it feels like I've bought a bicycle but I can only use one brand of tyres, or I can't change the saddle to one I know is more comfortable for me.
Wind back a few hundred years and that restriction might have been for a few years and then I'd be able to do what I want with it - that's not so bad. If it takes someone a few years to write a book (and it generally does) then I can see that a few years of copyright would be a fair return.
But it's not like that. I've bought the bike and I can't change the saddle until long after I'm dead?
That feels like a bad thing.
Copyright is a restriction on the purchaser's or public's rights in order to stimulate the generation of new works. So why does it continue long after death? Why should the estate of a creator continue to apply that restriction when the creator is long gone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Well Well quit the comments...
He did say "I’ve been doing it six years, and only in the last year have people really started paying attention to my music."
And he is 23 years old so he started at 17. Ok well at that young age no one took him all that serious. Now that everyone sees he is sticking with it, they are giving support.
Now 150,000 copies avg over 6 yrs is 25,000 avgs out to about 2083 per month sold, at say 99 cents is about 2000 per month before taxes. Well the avg person at Mc D's makes 7.50 hr at 30 hrs week (+/-) that is about 900 per month. Management may make more. Oh lets not forget He will have operational expenses too. So Yes those big numbers look great.
Yet he is not buying Mansions with swimming pools. He is making an avg living. Coo-does to him. Any success is good success. Don't hate on him because he does not fit in your shoe box.
Do you possibly fear others will follow? Don't 99.9% do just enough to get by. He is the MINORITY not the MAJORITY.
I give praise to him for his drive and determination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Well Well quit the comments...
This! It's a fairly frequently quoted thing but I'm going to repeat it, most people who are successful at one thing would have found a way to be successful at anything. If they're lucky they'll hit on to something they love doing, but either way, these people will make it work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Well Well quit the comments...
Yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Day's music is not my cup of tea
But, but... the children!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Day's music is not my cup of tea
I have a contention with this from both sides: why must success always be measured in terms of sales figures, rankings and view counts? The way people interpret success has been skewed. Just because a musician is popular doesn't necessarily mean their material is high-quality, classic stuff. Only time can measure an artist's true worth. Granted it's good if you're capable of making a living out of it but, ultimately, music, being an art form, should have longevity. If something sounds great today, it ought to sound just as great 10, 20, 30+ years from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Day's music is not my cup of tea
>Uses and arbirary measure of success
Agree with the point on longevity. If music is good it will always be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Day's music is not my cup of tea
>Uses and arbirary measure of success
Agree with the point on longevity. If music is good it will always be good."
Nobody uses time as a measuring stick anymore, not in the mainstream market at least. That's why I'm bringing to the forefront, because ultimately music should be worth remembering. How many chart-topping songs in this day and age are going to last beyond several months? I'd wager none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex Day
The goofy rules are for the "as is parasites" at the big studios, not for real people. Except in a couple genre where the CD still lives—some world, folk and classical—the studios killed the album through greed. The last non-folk/classical I bought had 4 original songs; one of which was great, one OK and the other two dogs. That was 11 minutes out of 34minutes that I paid $15 for. The rest were covers and only one was really well done. What killed the CD—the greedy studios. Alex Day has a lot of talent and a real appreciation of his fans, he definitely deserves his success no matter how he gets there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
Not quite my cup of tea, but still enjoyable nonetheless.
Looking at his YouTube channel you can tell he uses his persona, his "Alex Day" Character (could really be how he is) and that's what attracts people.
You can't fake his charisma and enthusiasm. It works well for him and that's why he is successful.
For others, maybe it is the way they rant or whatever, but anyone can be successful at something if they are willing to work at it. Reach inside and find something unique about you and maybe others will like it, if people around you laugh, you can gain popularity with it.
The key thing is you have to enjoy it, look at Alex's videos, he's having a blast and that's what the viewer feels and so they support him. He's hooked you in.
Anywho, best of luck to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's also clear some stuff up:
In 2011, his debut solo single "Forever Yours" charted at #4 on the UK Singles Chart, making Day the first unsigned artist to achieve a place in the top ten of that chart. In April 2012, Day released his second single, "Lady Godiva", a cover of the 1966 Peter and Gordon song. The single was Day's first to get a physical release in UK record stores following a distribution deal with Universal Music. Within its first week of release, the song charted at #15; Day's second UK Top 20 hit.
That from Wikipedia. So Mike, would you say that his success is at least in part because of the distribution deal of a physical product?
Oh damn, there is reality biting you in the ass again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to be something missing here, what could it be .... oh yeah - details.
Am I to believe the "distribution deal" of which you speak is a standard deal that everyone desiring "distribution" must sign? Or could it be that this particular deal is one in which the artist is not being screwed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a side note, it also sort of shows a total contradiction in the way this guy works, he claims albums don't work, and then sells... an album.
It's fun to watch people work so hard trying to say they aren't using the trappings of the horrible old system, and then ta-da, they do it the old way with the old people. Mike hates that part of the story!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
blah blah blah
legacy system proves its worth again ! ! !
blah blah blah
human beans still listen with their ears, JUST LIKE under the gatekeeper system ! ! ! EXACTLY the same ! ! !
blah blah blah
freetards don't want you to know that...
blah blah blah
troll harder, please...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides which there's a world of difference between negotiating a distribution agreement from a position of relative strength and signing away all your rights because that's the only option.
Do you agree with that at least?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From your quote he rated higher on the charts on his own prior to the record deal. Does that not mean he did better on his own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? There should be a reading comprehension requirement to post here.
Only a serious nutjob ignores the entirety of the article to focus on a distribution deal. So let's talk about that. The labels DO have the infrastructure for physical distribution, so it makes sense to go that route. Hell, I can make a hamburger, but its quicker and more convenient to the drive-thru at McDonald's if I CHOOSE to. The whole point of this article is to show that Alex Day went a different route which gave him more options and a lot more leverage. I'm sure his distribution deal wasn't a 360 deal that the labels salivate over and I doubt he was only given 10% of the profit.
How's that bite of reality on your own ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Back in the old days (pre-internet) it wasn't unusual for artists to have their own record labels. It gave them control of the entire process, as they were the boss. They got to hire and fire the people working for them, got to control the entire promotional process, and such - and had a distribution deal with one or more of the majors.
Does it sound familiar? It might to Techdirt fans, because that is how Trent Reznor did it with Nothing Records. For older people, you might remember it as how Frank Zappa did it with Barfing Pumpkin records (after getting out of a deal with Warner that he didn't particularly like).
Right now, the only real difference is "on the internet". Not really news to most of us, unless you are under 25 and don't know history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually this is a good example of where the majors can really help, if they were so keen on screwing people the whole while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as for Peter and Gordon, i have no idea who they are, but i would have to say i would have a problem saying they deserve something because they played a song (that they possibly wrote) 70 years ago. If 70 years from now someone looks at one of the toasters i made from my previous example and makes their own toaster based off it, should i get a cut of all their sales? For something that I for all intents and purposes basically copied off of someone else (since i didn't invent the toaster). Also, should i be paying a cut of my toaster profits to whoever invented the toaster?
TL;DR, Try to compare the way money flows through the music industry to any other industry and things start to get ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A song, a movie, a book, is a product just like any other. People create it, design it, put tons of time and effort and money into it, and then when someone wants it, they (are supposed to) pay for it.
Why don't we all decide what we think things are worth and then just pay that?
So when I go into a store and they want a couple dollars for an orange, I'll just say that's too much, why should you get anything? The orange grew out of the ground, you can't own oranges, it's mother nature, so I'll just take it and any other food here I want, that's how I see it, and I don't care what you or anyone else thinks.
The argument that people who write songs shouldn't get paid reminds me of the song Money For Nothing. I guess that song is now, ironically, worth nothing.
The thing that's funny though, is people keep making these arguments, and using people like Alex Day to show something like how copyright is wrong or it's over, but this guy is selling songs, old ones, news ones, he's got CDs, products...he's getting paid for recordings that he already made, he doesn't even have to lift a finger for those. Plus he has a deal with a major label!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So when I go into a store and they want a couple dollars for an orange, I'll just say that's too much, why should you get anything? The orange grew out of the ground, you can't own oranges, it's mother nature, so I'll just take it and any other food here I want, that's how I see it, and I don't care what you or anyone else thinks.
When you look at the price tag on the orange, you don't just see the cost of producing the orange, which is almost nothing, but also the cost of delivering it to the store. The service of providing items that the buyers can't readily acquire on their own adds value to the item. You could disregard the cost of the sellers service and take the orange anyway, but the rest of the customers have to pay for it. The same goes for CDs, or anything in a store with negligible per item production cost.
In case you haven't noticed, there's now a way to produce and distribute music that doesn't require producing an item to be placed on a shelf. Instead, it can be sent directly to your computer as a file that cost almost nothing to produce or deliver. In fact, the duplication and distribution of these files cost so little and is so easy that others can do it to without any cost to the seller. Even though these files are illegal to produce, they don't cost the seller any money to replace anything because nothing was taken from it.
You could argue that artists should be compensated for the value of their work, even when illegal copies are made. We would actually agree, if that's the point you wanted to make. However, expecting to profit solely from a "product" that can be copied indefinitely without any effort or direct cost to the artists is a losing proposition. Compare the cost of buying an orange vs the cost of acquiring the orange from the tree yourself, the only thing that can make oranges. Usually, buying one is cheaper, so the service of providing the orange to you adds value to the orange. However, compare the cost of buying a music file and the cost of acquiring the file online yourself, ANY computer giving access to it can make a copy. The service of merely providing files adds no value to them whatsoever. However, there are other ways for artist to use the value of their work to make money. This has been pointed out here REPEATEDLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second, yes artists and songwriters *should* always be compensated, no matter the distribution.
So even though copies can easily be made, they are, as you say, illegal. And while you may think it's a losing proposition, perhaps for now, and while there are and have always been other ways for artists to make money, it's important to stress the point that paying for music is the best way to go for the artist and the fan/listener/consumer or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The song writers write a song that will sell 1 million copies. Therefore, their song writing clearly has value (because it's a product people will buy). So they won't do it for minimum wage, will they? A good song could actually be worth millions.
Now, since nobody here is going to pay a million dollars for a song, some other system had to come along to handle it. So we have a form of fractional sale, where you pay a very small price (pennies, really) when you buy the single or album. You don't pay millions, you pay pennies.
So, the problem is this: After selling 1 copy, they haven't made their full pay. They have to keep selling, and selling, selling... all to make it up to what it's really worth.
They may have finished writing the song, but the bill hasn't been paid. In many cases, because the song might not sell enough, they won't get paid as much. So when they get "overpaid" for a truly successful song, it often just balances what doesn't sell as much.
I know, it's tough to understand when you look at things simplistically, but you have to actually THINK to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, but "following" is kind of a long word so i think you've failed your objective already.
"The song writers write a song that will sell 1 million copies."
How do they know that? Gypsy fortune teller? Maybe a better way to phrase it would be "write a song that has the potential to sell a million copies."
"Therefore, their song writing clearly has value (because it's a product people will buy)."
Kind of, sort of, no. I hear The Emperor bought some New Clothes that may or may not have ever existed. Does that mean the new "clothes" had value? Or just the illusion of value? (Like bottled water, or a bunch of 1's and 0's on a hard drive).
"So they won't do it for minimum wage, will they? A good song could actually be worth millions. "
They may. A burger flipper at McDonalds can make like 100 burgers an hour, valued at at least $1 apiece. Does that mean he should be paid more than minimum wage? Also, evidence thrown around here all the time says that a lot of bands make this "valuable" music end up OWING money to their labels, so they do it for even LESS than minimum!
"Now, since nobody here is going to pay a million dollars for a song, some other system had to come along to handle it. So we have a form of fractional sale, where you pay a very small price (pennies, really) when you buy the single or album. You don't pay millions, you pay pennies.
"
Oh, you mean like kickstarter?
"So, the problem is this: After selling 1 copy, they haven't made their full pay. They have to keep selling, and selling, selling... all to make it up to what it's really worth."
Oh, wait. wait. You weren't talking about kickstarter? Because with kickstarter you've made your money before you even record the album. Man, would i hate to do things the way you're suggesting!
"They may have finished writing the song, but the bill hasn't been paid. In many cases, because the song might not sell enough, they won't get paid as much. So when they get "overpaid" for a truly successful song, it often just balances what doesn't sell as much."
Unless they used kickstarter! Or, maybe they could realize that it would be better to give their song away for free to create buzz that would drive people to PAY for their concert, and maybe BUY copies of their CDs and/or Tshirts, buttons, magnets, etc. I mean, if you're business model revolves around selling things that economics dictate should be darn near free due to near 0 marginal price, you fail.
"I know, it's tough to understand when you look at things simplistically, but you have to actually THINK to get it."
Practice what you preach!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like any business, known entities often write good songs. Professional song writers are worth gold. It's like getting Timbaland or someone like that to do your beats. It's costly because they are a proven deal.
Even when not proven, your "potential" is right. It's still MORE than anyone would pay for a single song at retail. the old 99 cents from Itunes don't go far.
"! Or, maybe they could realize that it would be better to give their song away for free to create buzz that would drive people to PAY for their concert, and maybe BUY copies of their CDs and/or Tshirts, buttons, magnets, etc. I mean, if you're business model revolves around selling things that economics dictate should be darn near free due to near 0 marginal price, you fail. "
Blah, blah, blah. You still fail to understand the basics. Song Writers aren't always performers. Many of the most popular songs are not written by the actual performers.
You actually have to think - and understand a bit - to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You actually have to think - and understand a bit - to get it."
Hmm. So what you're saying is that these "Song Writers" aren't actually performing the songs. So, they just write a song, which is then performed and made famous by someone else. In that case, seeing as how it is not them who made the song the "hit" it may or may not become, they should be paid as the rest of us are. For the work they did and only that. Wrote a song? Get paid a set fee for it. Want more money? Write something else.
You don't actually have to think - and understand a bit - to get it.
This is common sense. See, this is why the average person doesn't give a flying fuck about you and the nonsense you say or the nonsense that artists deserve to be paid indefinitely for work they did X amount of years ago.
The rest of us, who actually can think beyond this insane sense of entitlement you appear to have, know something you obviously don't. You want to get paid, you have to work. You want to keep getting paid, you have to keep working. Period. There's nothing more to need to understand about that, it's as simple as can be. So, by default, those song writers, whoever they may be, regardless of their music becoming hits for the performers or not, need to keep writing in order to keep getting paid. It's very simple.
Why you keep going on about this or that is irrelevant.
What you are advocating for is the very thing people like you bitch at others about. Entitlement, and a huge fucking sense of it at that.
"but so and so wrote a song that became a hit for X artist!!! they deserve to keep getting paid for that one song they wrote that one time many years ago that they did not perform or record and which only became a hit X amount of time later when it was performed by X artist!!!"
Oh yeah? Well here's the world's smallest violin playing the world's saddest song (reinterpreted by me to avoid paying someone money they don't deserve because that sad song was written a retardedly long time ago) just for that song writer. If you can't make enough to sustain yourself in whatever you currently do... tough. The rest of us have faced this problem at one point or another. Know what the rest of us do? Find ways to either make ourselves useful to the point that we can keep doing the same thing and earn more for doing it or we find a new job. We aren't granted protections to work once and then never have to do so again and yet keep getting paid for doing it. Very simple.
So fuck you and please stop with that final line. You obviously are the last person on earth who should be telling others that. You can't think past your own nose without making a point that is easily ignored or responded to with "too fucking bad" by the average person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what's your point here? That 99c isn't enough? Or that these people should continue to be paid for the next umpteen years, at a premium rate, because of their previous work?
"Blah, blah, blah. You still fail to understand the basics."
Ignoring the economic argument about unit costs is probably not a good way of trying to get paid. Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Just like any business, known entities often write good songs. Professional song writers are worth gold. It's like getting Timbaland or someone like that to do your beats. It's costly because they are a proven deal."
What's a good song? Remember Backstreet Boys? Britney Spears? Where are they now? They were "proven" talent that turned out to be a flash in the pan. But did britney earn enough off of "hit me baby" to pay what it cost to make it, + a reasonable salary for her? I bet she did. So why is she (and/or her label) still allowed to own it for the rest of her life +70 years? If your point is that we need the system in place now to make it so artists can pay the bills, then once they pay the bills shouldn't the song go back to public domain?
"Even when not proven, your "potential" is right. It's still MORE than anyone would pay for a single song at retail. the old 99 cents from Itunes don't go far."
Remember that kickstarter thing i mentioned a few times? Enough people paying 99 cents goes PLENTY far, and you can get it before you do ANY work at all so you even know how much to budget! It's like the old timey patronage model, but distributed.
"Blah, blah, blah. You still fail to understand the basics."
Right back at 'cha. Economics dictates a product is worth the marginal cost to make it, plus maybe a tiny bit for profit. The market cares not how much money you dumped in to making the original. Thats how it works in every single instance outside of IP. So why should IP be any different?
Song Writers aren't always performers. Many of the most popular songs are not written by the actual performers."
Again, any other industry you "write" something, you sell it, done deal. Why is music different? If i hire an architect to design me a house he doesnt get a cut of what it costs to build it. He doesnt get a cut every time the house enters market. He doesnt get a cut every time someone else looks at the house and designs one a little bit similar to it. I mean, your same argument works here. "Many of the most popular houses aren't designed by the actual construction company" so why can't an arcitect get paid for decades after his death after drawing one blueprint?
"You actually have to think - and understand a bit - to get it."
Again, right back at 'cha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To suggest that IP laws are needed for the formulation of other payment methods is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I spend five billion dollars to make a product and it only gets $5 in the free market then It's my fualt for spending billions for something not even worth hundreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the public for that matter. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again, IP laws should never be about ensuring artists get paid. They should only be about serving the public interest, just like any other law. Artists being paid is just an alleged means. No one is ever entitled to a government granted monopoly privilege. To make IP laws about anything other than serving the public interest is reason to abolish them. Abolish IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johan Pachelbel lived in the 1600s. He died in 1706. At some point during his life he wrote "Canon in D," which was promptly forgot until it was rediscovered and published around 1920. It became immensely popular and is played at just about every wedding ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
Here is a youtube clip of a comedian pointing out how many songs have the exact same chord progression as Pachelbel's Canon in D. Artists cited include Green Day, Aerosmith, U2, Blues Traveler, and more. That means that some of the biggest musical acts of all time have straight up copied and ripped off poor Johan! Shouldn't Pachelbel be paid for his work arranging 8 notes in a specific way? And if not Pachelbel himself, shouldn't we find an heir to give money to for something a guy who died 300 years ago did?
The point is at some point in time a cultural work becomes a part of culture and is no longer owned by whoever originally made it. The law in the US says if i sequence 8 notes in a unique fashion i am the only one allowed to reproduce those notes in that way (unless I give my permission) for the rest of my life and then 70 years after that. If that doesn't sound "voices-in-my-head-telling-me-to-bake-pastries" crazy to you, you are that crazy.
I won't deny that someone who writes a song has every right to make money off their work. But how long they have and exclusive right to be the only one to make money off that work is subject to debate. 50 years seems like more than enough time. So I'd agree with other posters that "Peter and Gordon" don't really deserve anything at this point. There has to be a cutoff point, otherwise anyone who played any music would be paying royalties to the heir of the caveman who first beat a rock with a stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, as these things usually go, it turns into a whole lot of bullshit.
A songwriter creates a product like anyone else. If people want that product, they should have to pay. It's that simple, and I don't know why anyone would be against that. It baffles me.
As far as how it's distributed, or who makes it a hit, or how long the term of copyright is all seems beside the basic basic point.
Why does it bother *anyone* that a songwriter should be paid for their products if people want their products?
How does that effect anyone here exactly? If you buy a song for a dollar (I assume you all pay, right?), and a pittance goes to the songwriter because that's their product, how does that hurt you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok sure. But pay how much? As has been mentioned repeatedly, economics suggests that .mp3's should cost about $0 on the free market due to how insanely cheap the marginal cost is. Now, as is also frequently mentioned on this site, free songs do a LOT to advertise a band which allows them to make up the "loss" of recording the music in ticket and merchandise sales. In the case of someone who writes music for others to preform, I see no reason why they shouldn't be compensated for their work upfront. See my architect example from not too long ago.
"Why does it bother *anyone* that a songwriter should be paid for their products if people want their products?"
People getting paid a fair amount doesn't bother anyone. But getting the price jacked up a huge percent because someone has a stone aged business model does cause some chafing.
"As far as the term goes, it does cut off, so I don't see why that's an issue."
Is there a cutoff? Most of the stuff I like will be under copyright until I die. So for all intents and purposes for me, its like there isnt a cutoff. And lets not forget the moving goalposts, there's a set cutoff date until Mickey Mouse gets close to it, and then that date magically moves back another few decades. It would be like the "cutoff" age for your local peewee football team being 130. Parents would complain that their 12 year olds are getting pounded by 35 year old men, and you would be there to assure them that, "Well, there IS a cutoff, so I don't see why that's an issue." The problem isn't a lack of cutoff, it's that the cutoff is all the way out in la la land.
And what about what I said about Pachelbel? How just about every song written today rips him off? Why shouldn't his heirs be getting paid too?
Also, there's one other point that needs mentioning. Piracy is here. Sure, it's wrong. It's bad. Only the Bad People do it. But it's here and it will not be stopped. All the evil little cretins will "steal" all your music and not pay anything. They don't care if it hurts artists, labels, or anyone else. The want music, they have the pirate bay bookmarked, they will get music. So the whole debate of "But artists deserve to be paid" is moot. All that remains is finding a way to make money in a world where anything that can be converted into 1's and 0's will be obtained by lots of people for free at will. Kickstarter does that. Live concerts do that. Merchandizing does that. Selling plastic discs won't be doing that for much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do catholic priests have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many false assumptions, it’s not even funny…
2. Those were never rules for any sane person.
a. “You'll Never Be Famous Without A Major Label's Help”: Riiight, because nobody knows all those memes and Internet celebrities. And because even a single person still cares for content Mafia garbage.
b. “No One Takes YouTube "Artists" Seriously”: You content Mafia coke heads are the only ones not taking them seriously. Everybody else gives them bonus points for being real. Not the plastic face garbage the content Mafia produces. And that is exactly why you go have fallen out of relevance.
c. “Control Every Use Of Your IP”: That is exactly the kind of physically impossible nonsense I was talking about. Information is not a tangible good/property! You can and will never ever be able to control it for that exact reason. One has to be completely delusional and on drugs to still believe such idiocy.
d. “Full Albums Are The Only True Way To Create/Enjoy Music”: You made that up just now, didn’t you? Or have you missed the concept of singles and EPs completely?
e. “Real Artists Don't Need To Connect With Fans Or Make Music People Enjoy”: Oh come on, you deliberately lied about that, and everyone is laughing at you by now. When has that ever be true? The whole concept of fans only exists because of connecting with your audience.
All in all this is a damn weak “article”, consisting of very far-fetched and forced “assumptions” that nobody falls for.
Or maybe you actually live in the alternate reality of the content Mafia… cause I can imagine them actually being that delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many false assumptions, it’s not even funny…
Or maybe you actually live in the alternate reality of the content Mafia… cause I can imagine them actually being that delusional.
Tip: look up the definition of "sarcasm" then reread the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many false assumptions, it’s not even funny…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe anyone would suggest after all this time of this issue going on that an mp3 should be $0 because the cost of making an mp3 is marginal.
The product is the *song*, not the mp3. And it's only a dollar!
The issue of one songwriter infringing on another is a whole different issue. How does that affect you?
This whole thing really baffles me. I get that piracy supposedly can't be stopped because that's just how people are. I just think it's weird that people seem to want to argue against people like songwriters, and have been doing so for years.
I like songwriters. I admire them a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yes, I did mean anti-privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So what you're talking about seems a change of subject.
I'm only interested in the subject of songwriters/artists and the value of songs.
I'm not interested in discussing record companies, the RIAA, distribution, mp3s, or any of that. All that does is distract from and cloud up the issue I'm talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see how that is relevant nor do I see how that affects anyone other than songwriters. So I was just asking what difference it makes to you, or anyone else here. Sort of rhetorical question, really.
It's the same for distribution or mp3s or the RIAA etc etc. They're all irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the came for the fan games, and I said nothing for I was niether a player or a maker of fan games
Then the came for the fanfiction and- KEEP YOUR DIRTY HANDS OFF MY FANFICS YOU BASTARDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess you can do that as long as you don't publish it. I suppose it's like doing a cover song and putting your own spin on it, which is legal as long as the original writers get credit and get paid.
But, again, that's a different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, one of the points of remixing/fanfic writing is to share them with the fan community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You appear to have misread the comment, Beech did not say that the cost of production is marginal, he said the marginal cost is effectively $0. Think of it as unit cost if you prefer.
If the product is the song not the mp3 (and I don't disagree with you there) then the mp3 is just packaging, how much are you willing to pay for packaging?
Only a dollar is still a day's wage for large portions of the globe.
"The issue of one songwriter infringing on another is a whole different issue. How does that affect you?" - it affects us all because there will come a point where so much content is locked up under copyright that it will be practically impossible to come up with a new tune that hasn't already been used in someway previously (quite possibly in an instance of which you are completely unaware) without creating something so avant-garde that it is - to the bulk of people - completely unlistenable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the day when people run out of new music to make is a long way off. Same for books, movies, photos, and so on. I find it hard to believe that anyone is seriously worried about that.
Still don't see what any of that has to do with songwriters and the songs they create having value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I think the day when people run out of new music to make is a long way off. " - It's not something I've ever worried about before but thinking about it now, content produced now could be locked up for the next 100 years easily (or longer when you consider the frequent extensions to copyright duration), at some point soon some major rights holder is going to realise that there's more money to be made in suing people using a three-chord-trick than there is in recording their own.
At which point there will be something of a field day for the lawyers and everyone else will get boned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There would be more money in suing because massive amounts of people aren't doing the right legal thing.
Nevertheless, that is all just crystal ball gazing and not based on any real problem.
What's real is massive amounts of infringement, which oddly, you and many people here don't see as a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the solution to the problem. What is the offer? It varies with each artist. There's no one magic bullet either, it's a combination of different methods of monetizing their talents, their time, and doing what the artist and fans both enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some stuff I buy on e-book, some stuff I really like the package that it comes in so I buy the paper version. Similarly I buy some stuff on vinyl, some stuff on cd, some stuff on MP3 - all depending on how much I value the packaging, how it's being distributed and how I can make sure the most money goes back to the creator.
"There would be more money in suing because massive amounts of people aren't doing the right legal thing."
I'm still waiting for some confirmed figures on this you know, even the RIAA's figures show that online infringement is a far smaller issue than they've been claiming. Data from an unbiased source is a pipe-dream though I think.
"Nevertheless, that is all just crystal ball gazing and not based on any real problem."
It is indeed, however if you look at the mess that's happening in software patents and how the mechanism is failing to scale, I am now expecting a similar issue with music and copyright.
"What's real is massive amounts of infringement, which oddly, you and many people here don't see as a problem."
Again, there's still some doubt about the 'massive' bit, but even taking RIAA's figures, there's more offline sharing than online, so it's always been happening and no, I really don't see it as that big a problem. It's a small problem to those who can understand it and use it to their advantage. It's a big problem to those who can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MAFIAA and its shills have their heads so deeply burrowed in sand that they simply refuse to acknowledge the success of ppl that don't depend on the old system. And this independent group is growing rapidly and the MAFIAA will be soon out of business. Unless they evolve and adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This guy is a songwriter, and he has a deal with Universal. So he's knee deep in the world of royalties, copyrights, and all that stuff.
He sells songs. He doesn't get paid per song. He sells copies of the same ones over and over.
Plus, one of his more well known "hits" is a cover of an old song from the 60s written by other songwriters.
I just don't get why you all care to show musicians and songwriters *how it is*, especially with an attitude.
"Listen you dumbass musicians, this is how it is mutthafuckers! Take your head out of the sand you dumbshit songwriters and your poor fucking family. This is how it is!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dftba
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriters?
Dianne Warren made a name for herself writing amazing songs (in my opinion) covered by talented performance artists (whether you like their style or not is not important, because many people like it - enough to make it popular). If Dianne wants extra revenue because Heart or Celine Dion or whoever isn't pulling in royalties and radio isn't paying, then Dianne has to market herself.
"Want a custom song for you, that you can perform, written by a pro? Call Dianne."
"Want to learn the secrets of channeling your emotions into music? Call Dianne."
"Attention Amature Musicians, we're starting a kickstarter project, Dianne writes the songs, you perform them, and Eli Roth creates the videos. Love never hurt so much! ;) Sign up for your chance to perform on the new album, Dianne Gives. Amature musicians perform, funding through kickstarter, using TuneCore/iTunes/etc..., fans encouraged to make fan videos, best is chosen and said fan works with Dianne, performance artist, and Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino for a professional video shoot."
Point being, songwriters can't sit and hide anymore. They have to get out there and market their craft, connect with the fans, give a reason to buy beyond "I wrote this, someone perform it and pay me."
Trent Reznor created a video game, do you think that helped his album sales? Isn't that different from just album artwork? Imagine if it were his fans who created the video game and used kickstarter to get a little cash for it, or even dinner with Mr Reznor as a reward for their contributions?
The main thing, as already said, you have to do what you like and you will find like-minded people who will pay for the opportunity to do that with you.
You know what fans value most? Your time!!! It doesn't take lots, even if the fans can be demanding, that's par for the course. But that little time you give, if it is quality time, and you have fun and they have fun, and you're not faking it or making it seem corporate like those after-show meet'n'greets, you'll do very well.
Those lucky fans will spread the word and others will join. Mix it up, don't just do custom QnA or read the news, mix it up, keep it new, re-use is OK as long as you're not trying to make it a cash-cow. Fans can see right through that.
And there's NO reason songwriters can't do the same!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Songwriters?
You think a songwriter just sits and says I wrote this, someone perform it, and pay me! And that happens? And then they just sit around without lifting a finger while you all have to work your miserable jobs every day doing whatever it is you do?
Really really really weird.
I suggest you all quit your jobs and pursue songwriting and music full time. Let me know how it goes and how little work you have to do. I promise, in a short while, unless you enjoy being poor and having no security, most all of you will go running back to your day jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Songwriters?
Sounds like you are putting words into my mouth. Not the correct thing to do!
I never said it was easy, so your rant is really misplaced.
Several songwriters do have a "I wrote this, now pay me" mentality and then claim "people who download have a sense of entitlement."
What I was offering was options, you know the help that you claim in post 104 no one offers.
You can't turn back the clock, you can legislate people into buying and you can't change the tide.
I was actually addressing frequent comments that advice here works only for musicians who perform, not for studio musicians or songwriters. I was giving you ideas!
Don't slap people when they try to give you advice in a nice way. At least we're trying instead of bitching like you are.
Here's something for your last paragraph:
"Nobody knows the trouble you've seen, nobody knows your sorrows."
There, feel better? Helped your situation didn't it?
Or maybe you could try something different instead of bitching how difficult life is.
Try working retail at WalMart or picking from gardens in the hot sun all day for pittance. No job is easy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
I'm not giving you advice on your job, am I? Do you want or need some?
I'm not giving advice to people who work at Walmart, or telling them what their rights should and shouldn't be.
I'm not telling you to work in a field in the hot sun to tell you how hard life is.
I just think it's weird, that's all.
What do you all do? Maybe I'll start a site where musicians gather to figure out how and when and if you all should get paid, and what your rights should and should not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
Another reason is because we have seen many times how people can make these things work and, contrary to what certain commenters would suggest, a lot of us want to support artists and we want them to succeed. Many people here also create their own content.
What a great deal of people here don't like is the actions of the legacy industries and as a result they choose not to support them (and in some cases actively undermine them, but regular reading seems to indicate that's a fairly low number actually).
"Maybe I'll start a site where musicians gather to figure out how and when and if you all should get paid, and what your rights should and should not be."
The point is that the market already defines what we get paid according to what value we add to our businesses - that's the only sensible way to figure out what people should be paid (I doubt anyone here is in the 1% back-patting club). As to the rights comment, again it comes back to what copyright is, it's a set of restrictions on the populace, an entitlement to creators over and above those rights that exist on physical property. Feel free to discuss any way in which you wish to enhance my rights any time you like.
P.S. as a musician, would I be invited to your site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
These kinds of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
What websites are you not allowed to look at? What material do you distribute using torrents?
I've got to say that the things you are worried about don't seem like all that big of a deal to me. These seem like big big problems to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
Nope, I don't pirate anything online. Why is this a default assumption for critics of this site? If you can think of any serious way of preventing online file sharing that doesn't infringe on legitimate uses then I would love to hear it. As would a whole load of other people. And yes, I would have no problems with it at all.
"What websites are you not allowed to look at? What material do you distribute using torrents?"
Under current UK law looking at any website that stores any copyrighted material to cache is actually a crime. That's obvioulsy a ridiculous situation but it's also the kind of bad laws that are being passed under pressure from the entertainment industry.
The material I want to distribute via torrent is my material, the stuff I write. Additionally I have some other musician friends who want people to seed their stuff as well.
"I've got to say that the things you are worried about don't seem like all that big of a deal to me. These seem like big big problems to you?"
Yes, yes they do seem like problems to me. Partly because they impact on me right now, and partly because they represent a step on an ever-increasing expansion of restrictions imposed by an industry that won't adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
How often do you think the subject of piracy and copyright came up for music fans before the Napster era?
As a musician, before the Napster era, I don't recall ANYONE other than musicians and songwriters and people actually involved talking about the subject of copyright. And the discussion was usually about getting a copyright on your songs to protect your work and your rights. It was always considered a good thing.
Even with home taping, everyone knew it was wrong even if they did it anyway, although not in massive amounts.
But I sure don't recall endless discussions about how copyright should be abolished or musicians should adapt and sell T-shirts or not be allowed to be paid for past work and all the sorts of ridiculous things that are suggested now.
You understand that just as you feel some things seem like a problem for you, like *worrying* about *maybe* *possibly* not being able to distribute something through a torrent, that massive amounts of infringement that is not just a possibility but a reality and has been for over a decade seems like kind of a problem for people in music, movies, books, and all the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
I've had to read this comment a few times to try to understand what points you're making, so here goes...
Perhaps I wasn't clear on my first comment, I meant: why is it a default assumption by critics of this site that users of this site are file-sharers?*
"How often do you think the subject of piracy and copyright came up for music fans before the Napster era?"
Um, do you recall the ludicrous "home taping is killing music campaigns"? It was junk then and it's junk now, there is a finite amount of cash, and a near infinite amount of content. Loads of studies have shown that those who pirate music buy more music. Exactly the same as I used to when I had a tape-to-tape.
"And the discussion was usually about getting a copyright on your songs to protect your work and your rights. It was always considered a good thing."
I think part of the issue here is that the internet has changed things. People understand that physical goods have a cost to manufacture and distribute, they understand that there's a basic unit cost that needs to be met. The basic unit cost for a digital file is near-zero, that has changed the game but the copyright maximalists (as opposed to those who are simply pro-copyright**) refuse to acknowledge this; that puts them at odds with the wider public.
"But I sure don't recall endless discussions about how copyright should be abolished or musicians should adapt"
Again, same point, the world has changed, you have to adapt. You can't pretend that the internet is going to go away or legislate your way back to 1970.
"You understand that just as you feel some things seem like a problem for you, like *worrying* about *maybe* *possibly* not being able to distribute something through a torrent, that massive amounts of infringement that is not just a possibility but a reality and has been for over a decade seems like kind of a problem for people in music, movies, books, and all the rest."
Now you're just being dismissive. Pirate bay is blocked in the UK by court order. I'm not *worrying* about *maybe* something happening. Restrictions are being applied right now. Infringement is happening yes, but even the RIAA accepts that it's not in the numbers they've been claiming for the last few years. The tools to tackle that infringement exist by means of adapting their business models, but the legacy industries aren't taking that action.
Instead they're trying to shit on a load of legitimate tools and innovation wherever they find it. They are setting themselves up as the bad guys and then complaining when people treat them as such.
* I'm not going to say "pirates" because it's just a ridiculous word for anything other than illegal maritime activity.
** Like Mike for example - pro-copyright, but not a maximalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
Again, we want to pay artists, but we quickly lose interest when we're alienated. If McDonald's shit on their customers by treating them poorly, people would exercise their right to not eat there.
Of course, if McDonald's was anything like the recording industry, they'd claim it was due to piracy (aka M&M Tastey Burgers, Wendy's, Burger King, Harvey's, etc... -- you know competition).
Very few can piss on their fans and get away with it, which doesn't say much for the types of fans they have either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
Several I bought and don't like, so I'll donate them to the library or Value Village or something.
I also want to help artists by generating a web service to make things easier for fans to get what they want. No one wants a bunch of hoops to loop through to support the artist - and that includes bullshit regional coding or worse, bullshit licensing.
Make the content available at a reasonable price globally and watch what happens!
Bog it down with "important" licensing bullshit meetings where lawyers simply try to justify their existence, and you'll see people get it for free.
Maybe, just maybe, if you listened to what fans wanted you'd see more would buy!
I want to make that easier than ever. Live in India? Create this account and just like iTunes you can buy directly from the artist, and you the fan get the option of sharing it too via the private bitTorrent Network (PBN). You get to share and promote the artist when you buy. We'll make it easier than regular bitTorrent.
Point being, it's trying something! It's something I can do to try to help artists bridge that terrified gap between the old days and the current days!
And that web service is only the start. People need to let go of a little control and just damn well try!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least games can hold critical code server side to avoid piracy such as d3.
I do appreciate his success and perseverance but is that what the music business is coming to? Asking for handouts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does that even mean lol... so if I go work some construction should I not demand my payment?
The rest of your comment makes no sense to me. Actually all of it makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2) You don't demand payment as an artist because if people don't like it, they can't return it
Makes sense to you now?
Your construction example is a great way to illustrate you don't understand the difference between art and non-art items. You approve the design ahead of time, you don't buy some design without seeing it and have it slapped together. If you do, you have every right to not purchase it because it is not what you wanted!!!
You can't do that with art. Once you've seen it or heard it, you can't undo that. Building something, once you've seen it you don't have to buy and live there.
Huge difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what do you think of d3 requiring a constant online connection?
Is Blizzard trying to push cryptic drm onto the masses in order to sell 0 value digital copies for $59.99 each?
There was a real customer backlash, people were mad! But that didn't stop them from buying over 8 million copies.
If there was a way for the music industry to restrict access like this, they would.
All pirates are not necessarily customers, but some customers are pirates given the choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. They haven't actually been successful in keeping people from pirating the game, but they're trying.
"If there was a way for the music industry to restrict access like this, they would."
It's been tried.
"All pirates are not necessarily customers, but some customers are pirates given the choice."
Anyone who wants anything electronic has the choice to pirate it. No DRM scheme yet used has prevented that. Those eight million Diablo 3 purchases are because eight million people chose to buy it, not because they didn't have another option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That server code is exclusive to Blizzard and they don't make it available, unlike the client.
Which makes your third point irrelevant, as they don't have the choice to pirate it.
And I guarantee some of those Diablo 3 purchases would have been free downloads if a crack was readily available. I even saw on the forums people saying they'd rather get a free cracked copy than buy the game but they ended up buying it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why musicians have to sell themselves on youtube and sell t-shirts because their media can't be controlled by drm.
I mean can this guy start performing concerts? Not really...
Maybe I'll just go download his music and not pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And NO ONE SAID you can't pay for digital copies. All people said was you can't count on that.
And for all your DRM love, guess what it gets you, hated by fans. So you found Diablo 3 requires a server to operate. Check out how many rants exist for people who PAID for their games and still needed the CRACKED copy because the DRM would not allow the PAID FOR game to work!
Point being, if you give a reason to buy besides you created it, you can compete with free without DRM.
People will break DRM just for the sake of doing so, it is NOT the answer.
Betcha love those FBI warnings that are under proposal to be extended to 10 seconds plus another separate 10 second warning on the LEGAL DVD you purchased, don't you? Ain't those lovely, way to spit in the face of paying customers.
Just like your Diablo 3 DRM bullshit. I won't play such games out of principle. Software the "phone's home" only gets used if absolutely necessary, and to me, games are not absolutely necessary. Nor is DRM music or major label music that's been locked down.
Your fucking stupid sarcasm of "Imagine people paying for digital copies" can be countered with "iTunes" and "GIVE THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT" you dumb shit!
Be an asshole and lock it down, people will take it for free or not even bother buying it, either way you get SFA.
Be an awesome person who doesn't have to agree to free downloads, but doesn't alienate their fans, instead they make attractive counter offers and be polite. Some will download anyway, but would those have purchased it anyhow? Likely not.
The choice is yours: douche like Gene Simmons, or be cool like Alex Day or Louis CK or Amanda Palmer or OK GO, or Wilco or etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't really care about those I pirate all my movies.
"Just like your Diablo 3 DRM bullshit. I won't play such games out of principle."
Blizzard doesn't care about you. You are a small insignificant group of people that won't play out of principle because of online drm.
"Your fucking stupid sarcasm of "Imagine people paying for digital copies" can be countered with "iTunes" and "GIVE THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT" you dumb shit!"
Those are donations.
How about douche like Gene Simmons and cool like Alex Day? I pirate as much movies and games as possible but as a software developer I am always interested in how people protect their work.
And simply by downloading something you are placing a value on it, a value which in most cases is not passed onto the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm still not keen on having to put up with server lag in a single-player game.
"Imagine, people paying for digital copies! Some kind of magical wonderland."
If this kind of thing was actually necessary, Diablo 3 wouldn't be losing to Half-Life and Minecraft wouldn't have earned a dime. Imagine, people buying things without being forced to. Some kind of magical wonderland.
"Maybe I'll just go download his music and not pay."
You could at least watch it on his YouTube channel and contribute to his ad revenue. It's not a big deal, though, because half a million of his fans are better people than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well the online requirement may not be necessary but I'm betting it deters piracy. I mean look at witcher 2, they released it without drm to be nice and it was pirated 4.5mil times for 1mil in sales.
I'm sure we can keep coming up with examples/counter examples. But so far d3 has had 0 piracy and sold 8 mil units.
Are you betting companies would risk giving their game away for free when they see the piracy rate of the witcher 2 the success of drm laden d3? People will still buy drm laden games.
Also pc developers switched to consoles because it has 1/5th the piracy.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
"You could at least watch it on his YouTube channel and contribute to his ad revenue. It's not a big deal, though, because half a million of his fans are better people than you."
LOL true dat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And The Sims 2 has piracy up the wazoo and has sold 20 million. Asking whether or not something has been pirated is entirely the wrong question. Given the sales of Diablo 2 and 3 being the most anticipated game in the history of humanity, I would've expected its sales to be in that range. The 0 piracy is a red herring; those sales are because it's Diablo.
"I mean look at witcher 2, they released it without drm to be nice and it was pirated 4.5mil times for 1mil in sales."
In short: they sold one million units. Good for them.
"Are you betting companies would risk giving their game away for free when they see the piracy rate of the witcher 2 the success of drm laden d3? People will still buy drm laden games."
People still buy games that can be pirated too. The "risk" is almost entirely imaginary. If you go through this list, you'll note that almost every one of them is easily pirated. You can find the top one here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But companies have shown they would rather restrict the game with drm and even change their entire development strategy by moving to consoles than put up with piracy.
Based on their actions and evidence from the link I provided I believe piracy has a negative impact on sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't directly correlate a negative impact on sales because you can't separate out the variables, keeping all but one constant, and testing the system response.
You'd need to run completely identical tests, same subjects, same test equipment, one loaded with DRM, one without DRM and without harassment of filesharing. They'd have to be identical games, same people, same developers, same companies, same Internet connections, same laws etc..
Which is impossible.
If you could actually block something from going on to the filesharing sites, you'd have to do that for identical variables as mentioned and compare.
Since you can't do that, you can't comment on the degree of negative or positive impact on sales. Too many variables to be conclusive and since you can't separate the variables, you can't form a true conclusion.
I've read many studies that try to establish a conclusion and they all have bias and assumptions that influence the conclusion to whatever their core belief is.
You can't model it either. Art is not a widget. Art has a separate formula for needs than things like food or vacation or toys.
Consoles have been hacked as well. Did you know people bought loads of PS3 consoles because it was a better, cheaper blu-ray player that could go online and run GNU/Linux? Not everyone was interested in all three, but the fact that such a system existed, damn right game developers went to consoles, seeing the profits that could be made because vendors took a hit financially with the console in the hopes of selling more games.
Game developers are not stupid, computer diversity creates a problem, consoles are not diverse, less work for the developer.
So do you really think they jumped to consoles just because of piracy?
It's amazing how people assume that's the only variable. Perhaps it's the only they care about because of their core belief, or their salary depends upon it. Adaption is the problem, companies that refuse to adapt get left behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why did Activision move call of duty development primarly to consoles and pc is now a port? Why did ID(Carmack) move development to consoles(Rage)?
Both of those companies mentioned piracy as one of the major reasons.
Do you think companies have the luxury of attempting scientific experiments with piracy, keeping everything constant but one thing?
Maybe you can go explain yourself to activision and Carmack, because they don't believe you and neither do I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you site where they gave the reasons for going to console? Did they cancel the PC market or just add console to their list? The latter indicates an economic factor outside of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you design a game to run on wii it runs on all non defective/broken wiis at the same performance level.
On a pc you have to worry about driver/hardware differences impacting the experiance and you have more work to do getting it working. See also: Valve's trouble with nVidia on linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/my lawn. off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2012/07/15/what-microsoft-buying-activision-would-mean-f or-playstation/
To be setup for XBox! Microsoft would not buy a PC game when they have their near perfect console.
Here are some interesting stats, but don't forget the games being developed that require more advanced graphics move to PC first, then join the consoles when the hardware catches up.
http://www.techi.com/2011/09/consoles-vs-pc-gaming/
Look at the future - online games are expected to overtake physical products - could this be why Diablo 3 is setup the way it is?
Not every decision is based on piracy. Piracy will always be cited as a factor as long as it makes the BSA happy.
Don't forget the duality of most companies, leaking their own games or movies online, and the ones that explode in popularity are matched with massive marketing and the result is huge ticket and DVD sales.
Case and point - Battlestar Galactica (SP?). Release in UK, found online, cable panicked for the US, but instead the US had the largest Sci-Fi viewership ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not actually presenting counter-examples, which would mean saying no-DRM makes things sell better. I'm saying DRM is tangential to sales. Better games with broader appeal sell more. The Witcher fell short of Diablo because not as many people want that kind of game. The Sims is ahead of it because it's the best entry-level video game ever made. Diablo is selling a lot because it's Diablo. Your "counter-example" to my point is not.
"But companies have shown they would rather restrict the game with drm and even change their entire development strategy by moving to consoles than put up with piracy."
That only demonstrates that the heads of the companies in question view piracy the same way you do. I can come up with counterexamples there, too, if you'd like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So who am I to trust to make the more profitable decision Torg?
The heads of major game companies or you?
Well it doesn't really matter because they already made the decision, and it was switching to consoles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/05/17/has-the-diablo-3-launch-damage-pc-gaming/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same thing happened for WoW and it still has millions of subscribers years later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_6.html
Nothing is black and white where you can just blame piracy for everything, however convenient it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a lot of assumptions being made and the author readily admits to not having all the data, only a fraction of it, because it's almost never made public.
The author already states "this is all I could find" but has a great deal of "first they said this, but that's not true" with empirical proof.
It's like David Lowery's rants and claims of "data" but he only gives anecdotal data, no real stats and numbers. Yes, I want to see real data, pie charts and graphs and tables, quantized data. Anything else is subject to the same scrutiny as what you (and the LONG article) claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That didn't happen, it was just dismissed as "rumour" which is not a debunk.
That's like the shill debunking on here "My blog says you're wrong, but I have no data to back it up, or quotes, or anything, just the "I Said So" proof".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The replies are one word a line and I have to scroll right to enter my replies.
Mike, your site sucks. I'm guessing you wanted quick, unintelligible comments instead of real discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT
in addition you should
FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ironic that a tech site would have such a shitty set-up.
A normal forum would be much better.
Good thing this is free because if it cost anything I would be pissed and look for a way to "steal" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two solutions:
1. Click the link under the comment that says "view in chronology."
2. If you would actually bother to get an account, you could set the "Page width" to "variable" in your account preferences.
Of course, I'm sure #2 isn't an option for you, because you don't want to be held accountable for your previous posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who am I to trust to make the more profitable decision?
The heads of major game companies or the heads of other major game companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He chose to encourage people to buy legitimately instead of discourage people to pirate.
But there are two sides to the pie and he's only eating half.
Maybe that's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See the difference? How many more albums has Kiss sold after Gene Simmons' rant about taking away the kid's home?
Don't shit on your fanbase and you'll do a lot better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because *you* don't see a reason to buy if you can get the copies for free does not mean no one else does.
For example:
- pirating a game, playing it and wanting to reward the devs for a job well done.
- Not being able to afford all the media you want so you pirate now and buy later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Post 193 and 194
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just quickly googled sharing/distributing (large) files, and torrents weren't even mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand everything you guys say over and over about adapting and all the rest of the your "answers". To be honest, I skimmed over them because I'm so bored with it.
So really, as usual, there is zero point to these discussions.
The one thing that is interesting to me is the one thing that wasn't answered.
Why is it wrong to sneak into a movie theater? Maybe you all don't think it is. Robert said it was wrong but he never came back to explain how that is wrong but file sharing isn't.
The "product" is still there, nothing is "lost" or "stolen" from the people who make the movie or the people who own theater.
The only thing that happens is people who perhaps would not have gone to the movies now get to see and enjoy the "information".
So why not argue tooth and nail every day for years on how sneaking into movie theaters is a great thing, it is awesome and good for movies and everyone should do it and there's nothing wrong with it ethically or morally or any other way.
One word answer....yes or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it's perfectly okay to sneak into the movies and sit in an unoccupied seat.
No, it's not okay, it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]