U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
from the it's-all-part-of-a-business-model dept
As you may have heard, earlier this week Apple announced a bunch of things -- and that included that U2 was releasing a surprise new album that everyone who uses iTunes would magically get automatically for free in their library. That struck some people as interesting, given that the band has long crusaded angrily against "free." Four years ago, we wrote about how Paul McGuinness, the band's long-time manager, was railing against "free." Here's what he said at the time:If you had to encapsulate the crisis of the music industry in the past decade, it would be in one momentous word: "free." The digital revolution essentially made music free. It is now doing the same with films and books. For years we (and by "we" I mean the music business, musicians, creative industries, governments and regulators) have grappled with this new concept of "free." One minute we have fought it like a monster, the next we have embraced it like a friend. As consumers, we have come to love "free" - but as creators, seeking reward for our work, it has become our worst nightmare. In recent years the music business has tried to "fight free with free," seeking revenues from advertising, merchandising, sponsorship - anything, in fact, other than the consumer's wallet. These efforts have achieved little success. Today, "free" is still the creative industries' biggest problem.Bono has repeatedly attacked the idea of free music, complaining that it's "madness."
Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it's a sacred thing, so I'm a little offended."Funny, it seems even more ubiquitous under this deal.
Of course, the other side will argue, this is different. This is "okay" because they got paid upfront. Bono himself still seems offended by the concept of free, but insists this doesn't count because it's not really free:
“We were paid,” Bono tells TIME. “I don’t believe in free music. Music is a sacrament.”Yup. Of course. Bono repeated a similar story to the NY Times, and current manager, Guy Oseary, says more or less the same thing:
Bono, U2’s lead singer, alluded to the deal himself at Apple’s event. After the band performed, he and Mr. Cook playfully negotiated over how the album could be released through iTunes “in five seconds.” Mr. Cook said it could if the album was given away free.But, as per usual, this (once again) misunderstands the nature of "free." For years we've tried to hit back on this notion. As we've said free is not the business model, but free should be a key part of the business model, with the idea being that "free" helps the artists make more money. And that's exactly what's happened here. Now, of course, because of U2's stature and Apple's billions in cash, this could be done as a big upfront deal (rumors are saying that Apple will pay somewhere around $100 million total). But for others it may involve giving away stuff free to build a larger audience for shows. Or maybe it involves getting money upfront via a crowdfunding campaign and then sharing the music widely. Or maybe it involves using a tool like Patreon to get people to pay for each new track released, but still making them more widely available for free.
“But first you would have to pay for it,” Bono said, “because we’re not going in for the free music around here.”
Mr. Oseary, who took over management of the band less than a year ago, stressed in a phone interview after the event that the music still had value even though it was being given away.
“This is a gift from Apple to their customers,” Mr. Oseary said. “They bought it and they are giving it away.”
The point is that "free" is not some evil. It's something that the public really appreciates, and when done right fits very nicely in with a smart business model. For U2 that's collecting millions in cash from Apple. For others, it's other things. Free is not evil. It's a tool, and one that can be used to make people lots of money -- as U2 and Bono are realizing, even if they don't "realize" it. Amusingly, since these tracks are automatically showing up in everyone's iTunes, some are actually arguing that it becomes the equivalent of junk mail. In other words, there's an argument to be made that this promotion which effectively pushes "free" tracks even to people who don't want them does a lot more to decrease the value of the music than any sort of unauthorized files sharing. At least with file sharing, people get the free music because they want and value it.
In the end, though, I tend to agree with Amanda Palmer's take that everyone should be doing all kinds of business model experiments, so I certainly have no problem with this particular one. In fact, I think it's great.
It would just be nice if U2 and its managers could admit that maybe "free" isn't automatically evil.
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: bono, business models, free, free music, give away, guy oseary, itunes, music, paul mcguinness, u2
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because the best things in life are free does not make everything that is free one of the best things in life. There are plenty of really crappy things in life that are free as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I still laughed....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hate to see what they will claim about forcing this album on people. I guess if you want the biggest album release in history all you’d have to do is buy a spam list and send it in an e-mail to everyone. Yay, I delivered 1 billion albums on release day! Wooo! Best musician in history I say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So this album is actually being forced on everybody? Damn, that makes me even happier that I don't use iTunes than I was before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pissed too...
A gift is not a gift if it's forced on the recipient.
The real reason I'm pissed is because it's as if my clothes dryer started adding polka dotted undershirts to my loads of laundry without warning.
I like polka dots. I don't like U2.
I'd rather choose whether or not I get either from my consumer items that I've purchased, instead of having the manufacturer of that consumer item deciding to "give" me something I do not want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
E.G. the free version of Google Music allows you to have 20,000 songs. I'd be quite pissed if Google forced some music on me, taking up my space, and not allowing me to delete it. Google has put free music into my library before, but I've always been able to delete it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Give them a little credit, maybe they're experimenting with a new business model.
Here, take this new album for free! We've even been so kind as to automatically add it to your library, sync it to your device, and add it to all your playlists.
And for only $9.99, we'll undo all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily, they may get the music to see if they like the band/musician, and find out that they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free is in the eye of beholder
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
What Techdirt says is that the music will be available for free whether the artist likes it or not, either through file sharing, public libraries, or trading with friends, and the artist must consider how they deal with that. The response initially was to just make it more and more illegal and futilely trying to make it go away, jeopardizing the open nature of the internet in the process. That's what Techdirt is against.
U2 has decided to find someone besides the fans to foot the bill, which is exactly the kind of business model exploration that Techdirt encourages. They've turned to a corporate benefactor the way classical composers once turned to royalty.
Now it's a question of whether Apple spent their money wisely and can this work for other artists in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I think you are even a bit off there. It's not that artists should simply have to accept that their art is going to be given away, it is more important for them to understand that they are often better off building a business model around their infinite goods being free and other things that are not infinite (like their time, access, t-shirts, etc.) being more valuable based on the popularity the gain with their infinite goods.
Music, in particular, has for a long time really been "free" in that people can listen to it on the radio, sing it to themselves in the shower, etc. People have been buying tapes and CD's because they were convenient, because they really did want to give back to the artists, because they liked the booklets and artwork that came with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
And people can listen to music free if it's on the radio, but most of what I listen to is never played on the radio. And singing in the shower? Maybe if you've heard my music elsewhere you might sing it in the shower. There is still music out there I can only get if I purchase it - usually used so it's not profiting the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Of course. I don't think Techdirt has ever said differently. In fact, I think they've made this exact point numerous times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
It gets to the nub of the issue with Mike's personal stand on piracy. He doesn't think it's right, but has made a good living giving presentations, talks, and operating a website that shows people how to "profit" from it.
Also, let's be clear here: the music isn't free in any meaningful sense. Apple very likely paid a butt load of cash for the album (a number probably around the sales of the previous album would be my guess), and then permitted a push installation method that is both annoying and for the moment does not appear to allow it to be deleted. For those people paying bandwidth charges on their phone, this album certainly wasn't free. For those people who have spent time trying to delete it without success, this album certainly hasn't been free.
The lack of the consumer paying for the material didn't make it free. In fact, it may turn out to be one of the most expensive "gifts" ever given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
It may not be free in any sense that is meaningful to you, but to those of us that may have wanted this album and have found it in our iTunes catalog without having to pay for anything - it was 100% positively free. That is really the ONLY meaningful sense of free there is to me.
What you are talking about is "the artist got paid". Yup. Guess what? Artists can get paid without consumers of their art having to pay for it. Some things are "commissioned" sort-of like this. Some things are free to build a reputation that can be profited on (like TechDirt). Some things can be given away to drive people to buy concert tickets.
You are not going to make much ground here with this "not really free" nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Hey guys, here is a tip. You got paid for this. Fantastic. Start telling your fans that you are grateful they didn't have to pay for it and would love for them to show their appreciation by BUYING SOME OF YOUR OTHER CRAP. You could make a lot of money from this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Sounds more like mineral and land use rights, but whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Oh? I missed that bit. When did they make this point?
"He doesn't think it's right, but has made a good living giving presentations, talks, and operating a website that shows people how to "profit" from it."
Indeed. That's called a rational response to operating in the real world. "Bad Thing X exists, and here's a good way to deal with it." I'm not sure how this related to the incorrect assertion that Techdirt doesn't think artists get to decide the terms under which they release their music.
"The lack of the consumer paying for the material didn't make it free."
Of course, but you're using a meaningless definition of "free" in this context. By your definition there is nothing in the world that is "free". If everything falls into a given category, then the category is without meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
More along the lines of "Bad Thing X exists, here's a good way to deal with it, that doesn't involve sacrificing speech and/or property rights of everyone else just to prop up a business model so that everyone wins".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Go back and read the last 10 years of techdirt. The world according to Techdirt says that piracy and the infinite distribution create an infinite supply, zero marginal costs and when you have infinite supply the price is zero. So the artist is free to set any initial price they want, but the market will make it zero. The basic end result is the old "cwf/rtb" stuff, where you connect with fans giving away what already has no real market price (the music) and hope like hell that they buy a t-shirt or a concert ticket or something to support you.
it's really the basics of the business model, which is rather than fighting piracy, you should profit from it. Make piracy your compelling business model to sell more concert tickets or swag.
Of course, but you're using a meaningless definition of "free" in this context. By your definition there is nothing in the world that is "free". If everything falls into a given category, then the category is without meaning.
No, if U2 decided themselves to give something away for free, it would be free. That Apple paid for it and decided to give it away for free by force (and with no simple way to decline or remove) makes it truly not free at any level.
The consumer not giving over hard cash doesn't mean that the product was free (sort of like OTA tv, it's not free either... just without monetary transaction).
Free is a very easy word to use, but it's also rarely true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Nice, though blatant, dodge/strawman.
Tell you what, if it's really that clear, find me a good quote from Mike or one of the others writing for TD backing that up. I mean, 10 years worth of articles, surely you can find some backing evidence for your claims that Mike and co. are suggesting that creators need to give away their music and hope someone buys a t-shirt in exchange, right? Surely you can find something that validates your claim that that is what Mike means when he mentions 'CWF+RTB', some bit of evidence among all those articles?
Or you could just admit your claim is a strawman of what's actually said on TD, and move on from there. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I serious recommend you go back and re-read a whole bunch of techdirt. search for cwf+rtb and go back to the very start of it all. You will find all the answers you seek. Like I said, it's not a single definitive quote (Mike would never do that), it's a build up of so many things over time.
You could start here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061025/014811.shtml
". Suddenly, you've lowered the cost of making something to nothing -- and you should then try to use as much of it as you can. One simple example of this is to use that item that "costs" zero as a promotional good for something that does not have a zero marginal cost. When you realize how zero factors in, you realize that there's nothing new or radical here at all. It's just coming to terms with the idea that free market economics still works in the face of zero (in fact, it thrives) and there's no reason to put in place government-sanctioned barriers to shape the market."
Since music has zero marginal cost (due to piracy)... do you need more help with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Piracy is not why copies of music have zero marginal cost. It's the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Without piracy, music would have low marginal cost, but since it would still be limited (by the number of copies the label, company, or artist) chose to reproduce, it would never be absolutely infinite, thus never truly zero.
The cost of making a copy, even if it's a digital copy, is still not zero - unless people are throwing the electricity used, the bandwidth, or the media you record on in for free. Only piracy (where people do not consider those marginal costs) can even bring something to having true zero marginal costs.
Zero marginal cost only happens in that manner, reproduction of a digital work, even in the most basic form, will always have some sort of marginal cost.
Only piracy creates zero marginal costs, because the users don't consider their actual costs as being relevant to the distribution / replication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
There you have the heart of the problem, trying to create an artificial scarcity for for a product, where there is no actual limit on the number that can be produced. Those people trying to fight piracy via extreme laws and punishments, are trying to hold back the tide. It is likely that King Canute knew he would fail and was trying to teach his nobles a lesson about the limits of power, stand in the way of a tide and you go under, the publishers lack that insight on limitations of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Yes, unfortunately for you some of us know what we're talking about.
Without piracy, music would have low marginal cost, but since it would still be limited (by the number of copies the label, company, or artist) chose to reproduce, it would never be absolutely infinite, thus never truly zero.
And some artists/labels choose to release music for anyone to copy as they please.
The cost of making a copy, even if it's a digital copy, is still not zero - unless people are throwing the electricity used, the bandwidth, or the media you record on in for free.
Electricity - I would be surprised if you could even measure a difference in electricity consumption between downloading a song and not. Even if you can it's so tiny it's absolutely meaningless. I wouldn't hang your hat on this one if I were you.
Bandwidth - Most people still have available to them an internet connection that doesn't charge by the megabyte. So no marginal cost.
Media - That is a fixed cost, not marginal.
Only piracy creates zero marginal costs, because the users don't consider their actual costs as being relevant to the distribution / replication.
Wait, so do you think downloading a song has a marginal cost or not? I thought you just got done attempting to explain that it does, and now you're saying if you pirate then it doesn't. That doesn't make any sense (surprise) because the copyright status of a song doesn't affect the cost of downloading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I've been getting plenty of free music since 1985 from the library, and before that I only listened to the radio - more free music.
You talk like music was never free until mp3s were invented, but the music industry has always thrived despite easy access to free music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
*sigh*. Let me start banging my head against the wall, because we have been over this crap about a million times.
Radio isn't free. It's just without "cash out of your pocket". You pay for radio with your attention to the ads, and that attention is sold to advertisers. For that matter, you have to pay for the receiver, so even that isn't free. Radio is just without a per minute or per song cost, but it still costs you. Moreover, you don't get the same rights you would get when you buy a copy.
Libraries are exceptional, but again, unless you pirated a copy from the library's recording, then you didn't get the same as purchasing a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
What are artists doing for me? U2 doesn't want to release their album for free. No problem. I have YouTube, Twitch, UStream, Pandora, Bandcamp, Spotify, ITunes, Steam, Netflix, Amazon Prime and a whole world's worth of entertainment venues to choose from. I don't need to listen to U2 because I can fill my time with everything else.
Add to this the simple economic physics (that you apparently can't grasp) regarding near-zero cost duplication and you have the world we live in today. You can fight it all you want but you won't win because you are trying to defeat nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
But yeah, let's keep redefining what you mean by free until it only fits the narrow logic you need to make your pointless point that Mike endorses piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
And I'll see you your one quotation/article, and raise you another:
'Give It Away And Pray' Isn't A Business Model... But It Doesn't Mean That 'Free' Doesn't Work
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
As we've pointed out before, no one says that "free" by itself pays the bills. You need to have a more complete strategy than that -- and it involves a lot more than "give it away and pray."
Huh, funny but that seems to me to be the exact opposite of Mike claiming that 'Give it away and pray' is a viable business model', but rather that 'free' has a place in business, but only as a part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Let's be fair though. Any business model based on giving away a key part of your product as a lead to getting consumers to do something else is "give it away and..." hope? plan? Aspire? Your goal is hoping that the people like what you are giving away enough to reward you with their money at some point in the future, or to build up your personal brand / stature enough that you can get others to pay for your time.
Remember, it's "connect with fans plus reason to buy", which basically said the music is how you connect with fans, then you give them a reason to buy something valuable, preferably finite and limited so that you can better control and justify the price. Limited edition things, concert tickets, etc... all thing that are in limited supply when done correctly.
and I quote from the same article:
But, that's not a business model. That's not tying the free and infinite good to other scarce goods that will help you make money.
The difficulties of course are that for many endeavors, there is no true scarce good to attach. You have to create that artifcially (limited edition snake skin covers!), and in the end, you are in fact praying that people will do something.
It's also very important to realize that this a business model against the reality of piracy. Mike's entire push for many years (as these articles date back 6 years or more) is "bend over, because it's going to happen anyway". You may not have a zero marginal cost product, but the pirates are going to make it into that for you. So you may as well figure out a way to enjoy that feeling, rather than fighting it. Perhaps you can profit by selling autographed, limited edition "I bent the artist over" t-shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I would be interested in some examples where there is no scarcity to be found.
The difficulties of course are that for many endeavors, there is no true scarce good to attach. You have to create that artifcially (limited edition snake skin covers!), and in the end, you are in fact praying that people will do something.
Snakeskin covers are a naturally scarce good. You may choose to make them even more scarce by producing them in limited numbers, but they are naturally scarce to begin with, and an example of a scarce good tied to the infinite good.
Mike's entire push for many years (as these articles date back 6 years or more) is "bend over, because it's going to happen anyway".
You read "here's how you can make money in this environment" as "bend over"?
You may not have a zero marginal cost product, but the pirates are going to make it into that for you.
Piracy cannot remove costs, only prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Technology changes business models, and can also change the people who can prosper in any given business area. The change from silent films to talkies destroyed the career of many of the silent movie stars. Radio, and recording changed which performers could make a living from the variety theater day. Steam traction, and then motor vehicles changed the people making a living in the transport industry.
Near zero cost copying and distribution is changing those who can make a living in the content industries. One of its impacts is that more people can make their work available for others, which means that it is more competitive and making a living means reducing overheads. Further, the jobs in the content industry that are being eliminated is the middleman organizer/publisher, especially when they want control of works, and take most of the income.
Those creative people who are doing well in the free to copy and distribute environment are those who have a reasonable degree of marketing skill, which is what connect with fans is all about. Also just because their work is available for free does not mean that they cannot also sell copies to fans, especially as fans realize that their favorite creators need to make a living, or if amateur, that is creating for the love of it, need to meet their hosting bills.
For any creator trying to make money from their work, what matter is the number of paying fans that they can acquire. They can try and prevent copying, and probably have very few sales, or they can use a CC license, or otherwise ignore copies being circulated for free, and accept however many fans that that creates. 50 sales, and no free copies is hardly likely to be enough to make a living, several hundred thousand copies circulating, and several thousand sales can be a living.
While a painter or a sculptor can produce limited edition, that is unique works, and anybody producing physical goods can produce limited edition, it is pointless trying to control the number of copies of any electronic goods.
Alternative business models include live performance, sponsorship and crowd funding. People will finance and support the production of goods that are give away, which is how the whole free/open source software industry works.
A final point, the production of cultural goods is not dependent on them being a means of making money, while the production of physical goods in bulk does require them to make money. It is tough being a distributor when your services are no longer needed, especially when as so many of them have done, they have pushed the value added work, production and marketing, onto the creators, and left themselves with the redundant part of the business, organizing the production of physical copies and the distribution logistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Right back at ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Based on the fact that you frequently mischaracterize Techdirt positions, I think I have a fuller grasp of their history than you.
As to your example, it's saying the exact opposite of what you claim. Far from "Why bother", it's pointing out various ways artists can profit from their works in the face of the obvious economics and piracy.
What I don't understand is why you think this is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Not quite.
You simply can't force people to buy your work. It doesn't matter if piracy exists or not.
On the other hand, forms of "free" have always existed. The idea that the Internet is anything new in this regard is just the crying dinosaurs complaining that the world changed and that they are unable to adapt.
Radio and mix tapes and home recording and even MTV all predated the Internet as Music relevant forms of "free".
There are some notable artists that I have only ever consumed in some form of "free". It was all perfectly legal too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Nobody is trying to force anyone to buy something. There is nobody in the street with a gun going "buy my music or I'll shoot you!".
Radio isn't free - it's without cash cost, but it's not free. MTV is not free either (you both pay for the channel on cable and then pay with your attention to commercials and hype). Mix Tapes are perhaps the only example of free that you have, yet even those started with someone buying the music, so not entirely free.
There are some notable artists that I have only ever consumed in some form of "free".
yes, and what you missed was that is really wasn't free, just without cash cost to you. The difference is significant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Except that whenever a movie or album or game does badly these days, it's never because of the quality. Someone will scream "piracy" and begin suing people for thousands of dollars, or demanding laws to be put in place because of "lost sales".
By the way, walk along Los Angeles. There are many instances of a scam where some guy tries to pass you a CD, claiming it's free, then when you do pick up on his offer, he and his buddies surround you to demand payment. Guess you're wrong on that count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Also it happened to me when I was in the States two years ago, but I refused the CD.
But hey, everyone knows you're not too big on evidence even when it happens to countless others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Hey, thanks for the personal attack. I needed that.
Seriously, an infographic is your source?
That you didn't notice that it says "new york" and not "los angeles" doesn't add to my feeling that you really know or care about it, only that you are trying to troll. The story may or may not be true, but as a scam, it would be incredibly, overwhelmingly small potatoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I'm not surprised that you'd rather stick up for scammers, though. "I don't think it happens enough, therefore it's not a problem." Fantastic logic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Interesting.
A/C: this thing happens sometimes
Whatever: prove it
A/C: proves it
Whatever: I don't believe you, plus it doesn't happen very much so somehow I'm right and you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
You seem to think the only proper response to piracy is to condemn and rail against it until it goes away, and any other thought is endorsing it, but all Techdirt is saying is accept the fact that it's not going away and figuring out how to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Without the piracy, neither bit of word play would matter. The concept of giving stuff away or profiting (word here) piracy would be meaningless.
You seem to think the only proper response to piracy is to condemn and rail against it until it goes away
Not at all the case. However, I think of piracy in the same way that I look at other petty crimes. If you celebrate it, if you promote it, if you attempt to get rich from it's existence, then you are contributing to the problem.
Techdirt is saying is accept the fact that it's not going away and figuring out how to deal with it.
It's not going away because they support the people fighting hard to protect it. Sticking up every argument in the book (including the amusing "copyright is against the first amendment" arguments show not just a desire to "deal with it" but to continue to create the atmosphere and legal situation where it's a fact of life.
Remember what I said at the top. It's never one thing that is said, it's the collective words, actions, and intentions that mean so much. If you stand too close, you don't see it. Step back a bit, and it's rather much more obvious:
anti-copyright, anti-patent, anti-middleman, anti-government, anti-authority, pro-first amendment, pro-free speech... all tacked in with "we know better" attitude. it's the whole f'n deal :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Techdirt neither does nor encourages any of those things.
It's not going away because they support the people fighting hard to protect it.
You're actually claiming that piracy will not go away because of people like Mike Masnick? I may have entered the wrong "argument"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
I think you mean "should make" not "can make." Otherwise you're tilting at windmills. Every time I download a torrent, I prove that I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist."
I think what you yourself are failing to consider is that this involves restricting speech and property rights of everyone else on the planet. If an artist wants to release a music track for 99 cents and have it enforced by the law, the only way the law can do it is via a system that monitors speech and restricts property rights. iTunes doesn't have DRM anymore but at one point in history it did. DRM involves taking away control of a computing device away from its owner and preventing that owner from using that device to make speech.
I can't find the quote I'm thinking of, but it goes something along the lines of "If your business model depends on sacrificing other people's rights, then you don't deserve to be allowed to do it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
How exactly are your speech and property rights infringed if I create something and choose not to sell it at all?
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please enlighten me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Curious if you could point to any argument we've ever made that says artists must give away their work for free?
Thanks.
Otherwise, an apology would be nice.
Also, if no one else can make that decision, other than the artist, can you explain how many record labels make that decision for the artists anyway? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Nobody claims MUST. You have spoken often about the inevitability of it, the effects of infinite distribution and all. There is no must in play here, only that the piracy fueled (or decimated) marketplace dictates the price is zero. So rather than sell music, sell tickets, swag, shirts...
There is no "must", only what you see as inevitability.
if no one else can make that decision, other than the artist, can you explain how many record labels make that decision for the artists anyway?
It's only because the artist has chosen, by contract, to allow that to happen. It was the artist's choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
That's one of your many fundamental misunderstandings. It's the stark reality of infinite supply that dictates the price is zero. Trying to artificially change that results in piracy--piracy is effect, not cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
The physical objects are finite. The data is infinite, which is shorthand for non-rivalous and non-excludable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
You have not controlled the number of copies of your work in any way.
The only thing you have done is changed the distribution arrangement since I am not legally able to distribute my backup copies. Of course, I can lend a few to friends.
So no, piracy doesn't change the marginal costs of reproduction. Piracy is simply the leaking of licensed works through unconstrained channels. The physics are already there. What you see are the photons of bad business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
"Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist."
That definitely sounds like you're accusing Techdirt of trying to make the decision for artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Thanks.
Otherwise, an apology would be nice.
Also, if no one else can make that decision, other than the artist, can you explain how many record labels make that decision for the artists anyway? Thanks.
Hey, Mike! Why don't you tell us explicitly what you believe about copyright so there's no doubt where you stand? Oh, yeah, you won't do that. I guess you like the perceived plausible deniability too much to give us straight answers. I guess *that's* why you're such a weasel when it comes to being explicit about your beliefs. No one can pigeonhole you, right? Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Unless his wife's name is Whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Have you ever thrown a rock into a pond? Of course you have. And did the water ripple? Sure it did. Have you ever expected the water not to ripple? Of course not, why would you - you know exactly that the water will ripple, if you throw the rock into the pond, no matter how much you wish it wouldn't.
But there is one way to avoid the ripple:
Don't throw the rock into the pond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
If the rock is the artists work, the publishing act is equivalent to the throwing of the rock. Once published, the artist looses control over it and can't in any way avoid that his work gets copied. He might think that only him can "decide" wether his work gets copied or not - but that is wishful thinking or better - reality denial.
The only way to not get copied is not to publish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Yes. But it was mid January in northern Minnesota at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. This is a gift from Apple. It is not a gift from U2. U2 thinks you are all a bunch of freeloading a**holes and you should go f*** yourselves for ever thinking about listening to their music without paying them for it.
Thanks guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, they also completely ignore the fact that as long as radio has existed people have been getting music for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you think your time/attention is free? The time you spend listening and then removing this from your itunes? Wish I had that kind of "free" time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People generally mean "zero price" when they say free. If you count every possible cost, nothing can ever be free (there is always opportunity cost), and the word would be useless. So instead we generally use a definition of the word that gives it some function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God's grace is infinite, and freely offered to us. Granted, text books and things being concrete, physical objects in limited supply sometimes have a fee attached. There is a "stipend" attached to a mass that is supposed to cover the cost of the physical things like the priest's gas money. But that is waved if someone can't afford it. Cost should never stand in the way of an experience of the sacred.
So if U2 wants to charge for physical things like CDs, then sure, the sacramental analogy helps him. But in so far as copying music costs him nothing? Spread that grace as far as it goes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition, my grandfather was a Baptist minister. He never took money except maybe to cover gas. He once got paid a couple thousand for a sermon; he turned around and put the check in the offering plate the next week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no, music is NOT sacrament, i realize it has a LOT of meaning to a LOT of lives, but not necessarily everyone, and not necessarily as deeply as he thinks...
when i'm sitting at my desk idly drumming a pattern, that is a form of music, it is not a sacrament, and it is not really a huge deal, but it IS a form of music that i enjoy...
you, your wife, your kids, they sing a line or two, they hum a song, they dance around crazily and sing nonsense tunes, it is all still 'music', maybe not polished, maybe formless, maybe not professional caliber by any stretch, but it IS 'music'...
AND, i would maintain that such personal music 'performances' are 100 times more valuable than music made by professionals for us to merely consume, NOT perform...
i'm sorry, *most* musicians are NOT so special: ANY OF US with the time and inclination could do what 90%+ of them do; they are NOT all virtuosos and geniuses one step removed from mozart...
they aren't sacred, they're technicians/artists with a specialized skill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree with this completely, although there is also great value in hearing artists performing their own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or someone else's work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It can't be, it's free. /Bono logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Which is why I have not purchased a single album or attended a single concert by a major studio act since the recording industry started suing its fans 11 years ago (I do support indy and unsigned acts by direct purchases and attending performances at local venues and music festivals).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In part, because I agree with Bono that music is a sacred thing, and that those companies use it as a weapon (even against people who don't listen to music at all) is deeply and powerfully offensive to me.
That Bono supports that system is a heresy against the very beliefs he claims to hold dear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I am assuming that U2 is totally ok with me selling or giving away any digital U2 music files I currently have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, me, I just received a gift. Pray tell me where it says I cannot do as I please with the gifts that I receive... (such as "give away" or "sell")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sharing is caring , wait i thought that was illegal So we can now use that as a legal defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music as Sacrament....
Er, way to mix metaphors, Bono. I don't believe in chairs; I just sit on them. However, I've NEVER heard of someone having to pay to take the sacrament.
Not only that, I guess that means Bono doesn't believe in Folk music, or for that matter, in any of the stuff I produce, all of which is free, and is used as a social stimulus that drives other community-related activity which increases my audience and makes people more willing to pay for other things.
I'm surprised nobody has pushed out an article with the headline "Bono thinks the church should charge for its services".
With the iPhone and U2 at that event, all we were missing was the Wii. And yes, it's the "we" that makes "free" music a lucrative offering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collecting cash from Apple
As an Apple shareholder with an iTunes account and a strong dislike of U2 I think this deal stinks. I've got an album I don't want from a band I don't like and disagree with Apple's use of the cash. Couldn't they find a younger band who needed the exposure instead of forking out for a superannuated bunch of pompous rich guys? Rhetorical I suppose, but Tim Cook is showing his vintage.
(Yes, I did listen to some of the album in an attempt to be open-minded and it's just not my thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collecting cash from Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disclaimer: I've never been a fan of U2, I haven't heard (and probably will never hear) this album, so I have no actual opinion on the music. But there seem to be a lot more negative reviews than positive ones.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One note played over and over struck in time with a delay that builds up the same note. Next, drone the root on the bass, then add a vocal that goes 1 - 3 - 5 (these are intervals, adjust for minor etc...). in other words, just like anyother u2 'song.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sacrement?
But, when my church gives me communion (an _actual_ sacrament), they don't charge me a dime for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe anyone is arguing otherwise, where the contention enters the picture is what happens when the artist(or more often their label) doesn't feel like they are being 'monetarily rewarded' enough, and decide to break out the lawyers/laws to 'fix' it, collateral damage be damned.
Artists should be rewarded for their works, and so they can create more works in the future = General agreement from most.
A song goes from being worth $1 to thousands or tens of thousands if downloaded, rather than 'purchased' = Not so much agreement.
Stuff like that, is where people start disagreeing, and when you've got artists who see nothing wrong with the above, then people start disagreeing with them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am not sure what being monetarily rewarded enough means. Lawyers get involved when someone breaks the law. I have not heard often "that business is getting paid 'enough' so I will break the law and acquire their product." A label is nothing more than a business that sells music. The monetary liability for breaking said law can be quite excessive and I believe should be adjusted. However,generally businesses exist to provide a service or sell a product in order to turn a profit, so it is only logical they would take action when something interferes with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes! Nobody ever involves lawyers unless someone has actually broken the law! Good one!
However,generally businesses exist to provide a service or sell a product in order to turn a profit, so it is only logical they would take action when something interferes with that.
The question is, what action? Buy laws, or compete in the marketplace?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or someone is accused of breaking the law, or a company outsources their 'targeting' to a company that's not so interested in the whole 'evidence' stuff, or someone wants to use the system to make a quick buck...
To clarify, when I said 'fix' I was primarily talking about buying laws to prop up their old business models, at the cost of pretty much everyone else. Retroactive extensions to copyright, completely and utterly absurd fines and threats, demanding that everyone but them be responsible for their content(and at their own expense), those sorts of things.
If the system was sane and reasonable(drastically lowered copyright duration and infringement penalties being the two changes that come to mind first), then odds are when copyright was violated, most people would be on the side of the creator/owner, and see little wrong with a little punishment handed out.
But when you've got (effectively) infinite copyright duration, truly insane fines handed out/used to shake people down(innocent or guilty), collateral damage left and right by those 'enforcing' copyright, who couldn't care less about any side-effects from their actions, purchased laws that are entirely one-sided... yeah, that's where I and others start to have problems with the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My time is valuable. I receive over $100 per hour for my services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if you do it wrong
I regularly listen to songs, and often entire albums, completely free on Bandcamp, quite often multiple times.
Not so coincidentally, at about the same time I began to do so, my music purchasing went from essentially non-existent(I believe I had maybe half a dozen CD's before that point, more than half of them gifts) to rather frequent, with my collection clocking in at just under 90 albums, and a dozenish singles at the moment.
All that 'free' music at my fingertips, where I can listen to it as much as I want and browse it as I wish, has caused a massive boost in my music purchasing habits, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been affected as such, so if 'free' music is a nightmare for him, it's only because he doesn't know how to use it properly to increase sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflating the "free" argument
When we get to the producer of content (in this case musicians), producing music is only one aspect of the "business of providing consumers with music". Other aspects of this business include getting attention for their music, which they can do by buying ads, getting friends or fans to review their music on music review sites, or getting distributors of music to feature their music in exchange for a percentage of each sale they generate. If they don't have the funds or the friends/fans to get attention, then giving their music away is their marketing cost. In other words, they paid with their content instead of with paying money to publications (for advertising) or distributors (sales commissions).
If they're not in the "business" of making music but do so as hobbyists, then there should be no expectation of making money, unless in giving it away they develop a following and can then choose to market their music in other ways to better monetize it. Of course, many musicians may view themselves as being in the business of making music, but to the extent that their best monetization option is by performing concerts then they should realize that their value proposition is as an entertainer not a content producer. If it's in selling paraphernalia or other items relating to their brand, then they are retailers or distributors of that content. The music itself becomes just their currency of exchange for marketing which they believe presents a favorable ROI against the business that they are really in.
It's silly to have arguments about "free" without some context around what's being exchanged and what free really is. Heck, some times I wonder if there's anything that's really free any more...certainly not anything on the Internet ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, are you saying that people in Ireland still can't find what they're looking for because the streets have no names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so Free
Artists (and musicians) produce their art because they're artists, not because they make money. Artists have no "right" to make money; they DO have a right to try. Once the focus is money, however, they're not longer artists, but, rather, they become businessmen.
Some people assert that you can be both artist and businessmen. As a rule, I tend to disagree. An artist produces a representation of what they feel. A businessman produces things that sell. It's very rare that these attitudes co-exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting view. Care to elaborate why you think this true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you actually read through the article, AJ?
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
I did read it, and I thought it was pretty funny. U2 granted Apple a license for millions of dollars. That's not giving it away for free. If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are being purposely obtuse now. Apple is obviously embracing free as some part of their business plan by paying for and then giving away the music for free. By accepting Apple's cash for doing this, U2 is also embracing "free" as a part of their business model.
If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
U2 has done nothing of the sort. U2 was paid handsomely for their product, that is, the music. They didn't give it away for free. They sold it for a nice profit.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
Do you not understand how an analogy works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you don't deserve the benefit of doubt when it comes to describing how analogies work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you? Good analogies compare things that are actually analogous with each other.
Comparing a $10 expenditure that requires about 14 seconds of thought with something like U2 marketing their next album for millions of dollars is not a good analogy. It's lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the record company forget to close the retirement home again ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]