Response to one of Larry's Bogs / I got kinda PO'd!

[agauchede]

What happens when relatively obscure bands become more popular, and begin making money from their work. Would those who had once said, "I don't care if people share (or steal) my music," feel differently if it was their sole source of income? I.e., how many people who say, "the man is keeping me down," would gladly accept the opportunity to BE the man?

I would be thrilled if people got so turned on by my music that they wanted to share it. However, if music supported my family, and I had spent lots of time and money making it (which I do) I might prefer people pay me for my time and money spent.

FWIW,
Chris

[Bro Shark]

The best, proactive way I can think of right now to combat sagging demand for your "product" is to make a superior product. Include amazing artwork and packaging with your release. Print on 180 gram vinyl. Sell something that people want to collect, own and cherish in their homes and lives forever. Spare no detail in what you offer. Sell a comic book with a CD inside the back sleeve. Do a double album with 34-page 12" booklet filled with amazing art done by a local artist who believes in you. Conceive of your release such that the images, words and music all combine to render Ultimate Power as opposed to just a collection of "songs" to be thrown into Shuffle (fuck you, Steve Jobs)

Yeah, yeah, you won't sell that shit to Joe Schmoe and his 14 year old reality-tv-watching son. But you know what, fuck them too. If your band is great, your fans will always purchase, support and appreciate a superior, comprehensive product. They'll probably buy your shirts, coffee mugs, baby onesies, and concert tickets too.

All is not lost, people.

Do your fucking best. Fuck the haters.

Sorry about that, I tend to go off on Fridays.

[chris harris]

The best, proactive way I can think of right now to combat sagging demand for your "product" is to make a superior product. Include amazing artwork and packaging with your release. Print on 180 gram vinyl. Sell something that people want to collect, own and cherish in their homes and lives forever. Spare no detail in what you offer. Sell a comic book with a CD inside the back sleeve. Do a double album with 34-page 12" booklet filled with amazing art done by a local artist who believes in you. Conceive of your release such that the images, words and music all combine to render Ultimate Power as opposed to just a collection of "songs" to be thrown into Shuffle (fuck you, Steve Jobs)

Yeah, yeah, you won't sell that shit to Joe Schmoe and his 14 year old reality-tv-watching son. But you know what, fuck them too. If your band is great, your fans will always purchase, support and appreciate a superior, comprehensive product. They'll probably buy your shirts, coffee mugs, baby onesies, and concert tickets too.

All is not lost, people.

Do your fucking best. Fuck the haters.

Sorry about that, I tend to go off on Fridays.

Amen!

[chris harris]

What happens when relatively obscure bands become more popular, and begin making money from their work. Would those who had once said, "I don't care if people share (or steal) my music," feel differently if it was their sole source of income? I.e., how many people who say, "the man is keeping me down," would gladly accept the opportunity to BE the man?

I would be thrilled if people got so turned on by my music that they wanted to share it. However, if music supported my family, and I had spent lots of time and money making it (which I do) I might prefer people pay me for my time and money spent.

FWIW,
Chris

Yeah, the people who argue that stealing is ok because it's good exposure for the band ignore the simple fact that anyone who creates a song has EVERY RIGHT to give that song away for free if they want to. If they really didn't care if you download their shit, then they'd put their music where their mouth is and give that shit away for free. My band does that. http://www.depthandcurrent.com

And, somehow we still manage to sell enough records/cds/downloads to cover the cost of producing them. It's because we have a good relationship with our fans and they want to support us.

[Jon Nolan]

ok, let's put aside the whole file sharing/stealing idea for a moment. i have a question, and this is especially for those who believe recorded music doesn't belong to anyone:

1. does (your favorite artist here) deserve any compensation for their recordings?

2. if not, should they be able to make, or supplement their income with music somehow? if so, how?

3. or, has the era passed? ie - modern culture is what it is, artists should exclusively make and perform music as a labor of love and pay the bills another way.

[TapeOpLarry]

Nice to see a lively discussion here. Obviously we can't answer every question about where things may head (of have headed?) and maybe we don't all agree about everything. Just remember that that is okay!

I think there are many different scenarios at work for music at different levels. I mean, even with free downloads Lady Gaga's new single busted ass in iTunes sales. That means those people want that through an easy to use, legit source. I just bought the new Radiohead as a Wav file download, and I bet that sounds a lot nicer than an MP3. I paid $14 for this so I could enjoy the sound. If I'd searched around online I doubt I'd fine the Wav version for free anywhere...

But shit, just make the best possible music. Yeah.

[plurgid]

Actually, he is. What he's saying is that recordings themselves were a consumer fad. Records are now art for collectors, patrons and the rich. They're not something everyone HAS TO HAVE anymore.

Wow. I have to give you credit for coming up with an argument that I hadn't actually heard yet. But, it's still nonsense. Especially this part:

For whatever reason demand for recordings of music has gone down. Nothing's going to bring it back.

Yeah, that is almost what I'm saying.

What I meant by that is that the demand for recordings as a commodity has decreased, because there is no longer any necessary physical medium. There's no physical "token" that you have purchased.

In other words, the view of recordings as a consumer good was a fad.

What I'm saying, is that The human brain is wired to perceive a song as just another means of communication. The fact that, for a period of time, you could capture that communication on a physical token, and sell it to someone as a commodity was temporary.

The whole business model was a hack, based on a curiosity of the way the mind works. Most people never thought "oh, I bought the ability to listen to these songs whenever I like", they thought "i just bought Sgt. Peppers ...", right? They rationalized buying the physical thing, the content just helped sell the physical thing.

And so I do vehemently disagree that people are trying to rationalize an activity "they know is wrong" when they download music for free. People are just not pre-disposed to think of it in that way.

99% of the people "stealing music" off the pirate bay or whatever would never in a thousand years shoplift the same CD.

And what I'm saying, is that regardless of the realities of who is deprived of income in those cases, by and large, people will never come to perceive it that way.

So we need a better system to get people paid than copyright, because it really isn't working too well now that we have the internet.

that is all I was saying, really.

[Jon Nolan]

And what I'm saying, is that regardless of the realities of who is deprived of income in those cases, by and large, people will never come to perceive ...file sharing... that way.

So we need a better system to get people paid than copyright, because it really isn't working too well now that we have the internet.

i agree with this.

[JGriffin]

It's funny that the only stuff you can illegally download is major label and really popular indie music. Obviously, to get to the point where people can steal your music online, you have to had built a massive nationwide fan base. I do realize there are a few exceptions to this, but just my own observation.

This isn't really accurate. When we released our most recent 7", we sent out some mp3s for blogs to post and literally the next day, the songs were available via several file sharing websites and services. And, our music is not exactly in high demand. It's obvious that there are some people out there working to make sure that ANY music they can get their hands on is available via file sharing.

Yeah, my stuff shows up all over the place. Even sound-design sample snippets and scoring demos. There are likely 'bots that trawl for anything with a .wav, .aif or .mp3 tag.

[JGriffin]

And what I'm saying, is that regardless of the realities of who is deprived of income in those cases, by and large, people will never come to perceive ...file sharing... that way.

So we need a better system to get people paid than copyright, because it really isn't working too well now that we have the internet.

i agree with this.

??Copyright isn't just about people getting paid, it's also about protecting what someone creates from someone else claiming credit and ownership. I think what we're failing to acknowledge here is that there's a difference between "copyright" and "please pay for this mp3."

??I don't think you can blame 'copyright' for the fact that people don't think stealing files is actually stealing. Just because people have a fucked-up perception of something, doesn't mean that the system that's in place to protect it is in error.

??Through history, people also weren't "pre-disposed" to think anything was wrong with any number of things that were actually wrong, like racism, slavery, sexism, etc. Larger issues, to be sure, but human perception of right and wrong does change over time. At some point folks may come to understand that stealing files is actually stealing. It will probably only happen long after the complete collapse of the print, DVD/Blu-Ray and CD industries, though that is only a couple of years in the future.

[roscoenyc]

IMHO this is a generational problem.

[nobody, really]

my mostly pointless rambling follows:

I've been listening to music for free all my life, legally. I check a whole stack of cd's out of the library nearly every week. Sometimes I'll rip one or two. (i'm such a bad boy) I listen to the radio/internet radio. My take is this: I'm not in a million years going to buy a stack of cd's every week. so whether or not I rip those cd's without paying for them is not an issue to the artist. they're not going to get my money either way. especially if they're dead.

I've bought exactly one new cd, ever. but on the rare occasion that I have discretionary spending money, I'll buy a record, or go to a show. I have a handful of records and I've gone to a lot of shows. 10 times out of 10 I would rather spend my 10 bucks to see a live band than buy their cd.

If a carpenter builds a doorway, he works his hours, gets paid and goes to work the next day on something else. He doesn't build a doorway and then kick back for the next 25 years, getting .05 every time someone walks through it.

I just read an editorial about how photojournalism is dead, because of the internet and the lack of support from major newspapers and magazines. Plus the proliferation of really good cheap digital cameras means that everybody can be a photographer and take good photos.

The Art is dead. Long live The Art.

[Jon Nolan]

The best, proactive way I can think of right now to combat sagging demand for your "product" is to make a superior product. Include amazing artwork and packaging with your release. Print on 180 gram vinyl. Sell something that people want to collect, own and cherish in their homes and lives forever. Spare no detail in what you offer. Sell a comic book with a CD inside the back sleeve. Do a double album with 34-page 12" booklet filled with amazing art done by a local artist who believes in you. Conceive of your release such that the images, words and music all combine to render Ultimate Power as opposed to just a collection of "songs" to be thrown into Shuffle (fuck you, Steve Jobs)

Yeah, yeah, you won't sell that shit to Joe Schmoe and his 14 year old reality-tv-watching son. But you know what, fuck them too. If your band is great, your fans will always purchase, support and appreciate a superior, comprehensive product. They'll probably buy your shirts, coffee mugs, baby onesies, and concert tickets too.

All is not lost, people.

Do your fucking best. Fuck the haters.

Sorry about that, I tend to go off on Fridays.

Amen!

[Jon Nolan]

ok, let's put aside the whole file sharing/stealing idea for a moment. i have a question, and this is especially for those who believe recorded music doesn't belong to anyone:

1. does (your favorite artist here) deserve any compensation for their recordings?

2. if not, should they be able to make, or supplement their income with music somehow? if so, how?

3. or, has the era passed? ie - modern culture is what it is, artists should exclusively make and perform music as a labor of love and pay the bills another way.

[jhharvest]

For the purpose of these kinds of threads I propose that:
Piracy is not stealing. Making a copy of a product is not stealing. As to whether it should be illegal or not, that is the discussion. But it is not stealing.

Before copyright law existed, composers and artists were often dirt poor. Performing artists could make a living as they had a more direct relationship with the paying customer. Those composers and artists who weren't poor often subsisted solely on patronage of wealthy individuals.

With the advent of digital age and globalisation I feel the patronage model could very well work in a distributed manner, i.e. artists would get their money in advance of producing the piece from a number of customers. Of course this favours established artists at the expense of new-comers.

Another possible solution would be the (now disbanded) Cuban / socialist model where the government pays artists a salary, thus enabling them to produce works that benefit the whole society. The pitfall of this is that it can lead to a 'design by committee' culture; bland, samey works that reflect the current trends in vogue.

Third option is the one that's already discussed: releasing works for free and hoping the culture consuming public is charitable. Essentially this is the same as busking, but just on the internet.

A fourth option is "paying for convenience". As we've established making a copy isn't stealing. Let's assume you gave the right to make copies of your work for free. But what if you sold a copy on a physical media for not a whole lot of money? Then the customer might do so for the convenience of having it, instead of just a copy off the internet. This type of thing is getting commonplace in software circles. I've paid money for Crossover, which is just a nicely wrapped up copy of Wine (Windows Emulator)

Or maybe a combination of all of these models in conjunction. At any rate I feel that copyright law could very well be abolished.