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

[Brett Siler]

o
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.

1. yes
2. Also through, their performance, products, and if their music is played on movies, commercials, or radio
3. no

[vvv]

Hmmm.

As a artist, I copyright mark everything I do - and even the stuff I do with Snarl!

But I think what we are dealing with here, as much as ethics and morals, is practicality.

The old model of copyright enforcement is made (more) problematic by the digital medium that music, and even print, is often now presented in.

Interestingly enough, I think that physical books were photocopied less than mebbe digital downloads; I think that records and tapes and CD's were copied less than digital downloads, also.

And it's not so much that there was a greater difficulty on the copying, but rather in making multiple copies, and distributing same.

So, anyone want to reco a copy-protection scheme?

This post ? vvv, all riots reserved.

[ricey]

There's a blog by larry here: "It Helps to Get Paid."

I guess I didn't realized how strongly I felt about the whole willy-nilly downloading thing until some dude named "Gorilla" chimed in. Attitudes like his make me wish that it were somehow possible, in another universe, for all musicians to gang together, and make NO music for like six months. Allow no streaming or anything. No rights to any catalog for six months. No new TV or movie soundtracks, no live bands in clubs, no performances in coffeehouses, or college frat house basements, or union buildings, no new singles for radio, no karaoke machines, no rock band video games, no new gaming music period. no more. Just shut it all down.

granted, not only is this not possible, it's not exactly a "mature" response to the trend. It does make me pissed off in a take-my-ball-and-go-home kind of way, though.

tomorrow i'll feel better. ha. anyhoo....

Jon

EDIT: ok, this thought is lame. but i will leave it up. no one should "take their ball and go home." just a grumpy reaction.

actually i think if it were possible, your idea would lead to the greatest artistic development since who-knows-when. if all musicians had six months of silence to work with, i think music would make large evolutionary leaps.

[Galen Ulrich Elfert]

When the cost of copying reaches zero selling copies becomes an untenable business model, and no amount of legal shenanigans or preaching is going to fix that.
Fortunately the internet offers a much better model, which is the subscription. Ever since I got Netflix, I've all but stopped downloading from other sources. It's relatively inexpensive, and as their customer base grows so will there collection. Unfortunately music subscription services are not available in Canada yet, something which no doubt has more to do with lawyers and corporate rights holders than with songwriters or musicians or producers.

That said, the internet is not really to blame. The glory days of the music industry, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were the product, ultimately, of a booming post-war economy. People had a lot of money and were willing to spend it to vicariously live these bizarre decadent bohemian rockstar lives.

That money is gone. Middle class wages in America, and most of the developed world, have been effectively falling, relative to the cost of living, for 30 years now. The reality has been disguised by a series of inflationary bubbles, but in the end the truth always comes out. There are a lot of complicated explanations for this, but there is no answer. Time is a wheel and so on and so forth.

The idea that you can make a complete living just by singing songs is kind of weird when you think about it, right? It's a historical anomoly, a side effect of a massive but ultimately short lived industrial surplus. For most of human history music was something that people created together, in the evening or on days of rest or holidays. It strengthened the bonds of community. There was nothing like the virtuosity that a professional musician can achieve, but there was a sense of attachment and meaning that is totally absent when I'm surfing for the latest flash in the pan from the blogosphere.

Obviously this is a gross simplification of the history of music, but I'm beginning to feel like that might be what the future of music looks like. It's different, but is it really worse?

[Bro Shark]

The idea that you can make a complete living just by singing songs is kind of weird when you think about it, right?

Not really, no. People make a "complete living" painting pictures, doing sculpture, blowing glass and all kinds of creative shit. Why should that be "weird"? That's called living in a civilized society.

It's a historical anomoly

Is it?

a side effect of a massive but ultimately short lived industrial surplus.

Really?

For most of human history music was something that people created together, in the evening or on days of rest or holidays. It strengthened the bonds of community. There was nothing like the virtuosity that a professional musician can achieve, but there was a sense of attachment and meaning that is totally absent when I'm surfing for the latest flash in the pan from the blogosphere.

I think you've thrown a lot of not-connected, almost random points together here, and your argument falls apart completely at this point.

Obviously this is a gross simplification of the history of music, but I'm beginning to feel like that might be what the future of music looks like. It's different, but is it really worse?

The future's whatever we make it to be. That's why people are so passionate about this stuff!

[Stablenet]

People steal music because they can do it easily and the likelihood of being caught is very slim. PERIOD. There's really nothing more to the argument. Anyone who even attempts to make it about more than that, is just trying to justify something that they know in their heart is wrong. In the early days of these types of discussions, the ONLY valid argument that was ever floated out there and actually accepted as valid, was the argument that the labels didn't make downloads available, so someone else did. It's funny (sad?) how far down the quality of arguments has sunk since legal downloads are easily and readily available and insanely inexpensive. You can get several albums of free, legal downloads for what one might spend at the bar every weekend. But, since they still CAN get them (illegally) for free, they still DO get them for free. This says more about human nature than the music business in 2011.

I feel the need to address this one. Maybe people "steal" music because they assume they won't get caught, however it's much more complicated than that. The Record Industry did not take care of the Goose That Laid The Golden Egg, they took fans for granted, exploited them, exploited the bands, and the fans revolted.

CDs used to cost quite a lot to make, therefore meriting the $16 price tag. Then the manufacturing cost plummeted from by about 1000%, yet we still were charged the same amount per unit. Bands weren't making any more money, the wasteful spending, recoupable based structure based on screwing the bands remained in place and the labels got fatter - and they were already really fat. Then the internet and cheap blank CDs came along and people did the most punk rock thing I can think of: they said "fuck The Industry, you don't care about the fans or the music - I don't owe you anything," and they started taking the music for free.

Hubris can be a real bitch.

The RIAA did the most reactive thing possible by pushing DMCA measures even harder and suing fans. Metallica, whose original fan base grew because parking lot metal heads turned their friends on with cassette copies of their (then) hard to find albums, and word of mouth, started suing their own fans. All of this proved the point that The Industry and the Big Bands didn't care about the fans, just maintaining market share and keeping profits high.

Businesses who lose their bond with their customers do so at their peril. Rock and Roll didn't resemble anything like REVOLUTION(!) anymore and things went from "us against the suits" to "the suits are against us."

The funny thing is while all of this was happening, marketable recording no longer required money obtained from an advance, things like MySpace and Facebook came along, and the same technology that "takes" money from Madonna allows people to be in control of their careers. Post your music on Bandcamp or Soundcloud, book your shows via email, and stay in touch with your fans directly. This is amazing and almost free.
It also allows bands to connect with their fans/customers which creates a new kind of loyalty that The Industry let die.

So the main requirements these days are "don't suck and work hard."
It used to be even sucky bands could get promoted to success because potential fans had little choice as to how they would learn about music - radio. If someone could be duped into a bad enough contract and was "marketable" then it didn't matter if the music was good, you would hear it, like it or not.
What else were you going to do, sucker?

That still happens, but it's an entirely different industry than the one I participate in. Clear Channel can play the shitty bands as shiny objects that keep The Masses occupied until the next commercial break. In my world I get to seek out the music I want to hear, decide if I like it or not, buy it, or not, go to the show, buy the shirt, etc. Sometimes I get music given to me and buy a different album by the same band. That band only got one sale for the two albums of theirs I possess, but it would have been zero before, because I wouldn't have even known about them. Even when good people in record stores suggested things I couldn't buy them all. Now I can test drive things, hear songs on Pandora, and decide who I want to support in this new modern patronage system. Sometimes it's a purchase, often times it's pied piper/town crier promotion, and sometimes it's Kickstarter money that goes straight to the band.
My favorite releases of 2010 were by Tame Impala, Dungen, Love Language, and Crocodiles. None of them would have made it to my ears 20 years ago.

The pie is only so big and with more people participating, and the field leveling, it will be sliced into more pieces. That means fewer people will get filthy rich, but more will get to play, record, tour, and make people happy with music that is actually good. At 42 I'm busier than I've ever been playing music. Two decades ago I would have only had Weekend Warrior/Blues Lawyer type options but because of this allegedly destructive technology I'm busy, happy, and working with great people, many of whom are almost half my age.

And let's not forget that this basically amounts to the world's biggest "market correction" anyway.
Remember the sculpture based youth explosion of the 1950's?
How about the interpretive dance craze and the idol millionaires of the 1970s?
Neither do I, because they never existed.
Rock and Roll(TM) was never about art, it was about selling something sexy to people who had disposable income and dreams.
It got less sexy when the curtain got pulled back and The Industry was exposed as being as decent as Wal Mart or Hallibuton. Then the dream got within the reach of mere mortals, and the fans realized they were being abused by the labels.
Then you know what happened? Rock and Roll became just like any other art form: available to those who aren't scared of living like paupers, can do it because they are rich or have benefactors, or are so talented that they can actually pay rent with their songs early in their career, just like painters.
There will be the occasional Rauchenberg or Picasso, but most probably won't "live the life" while being celebrity artists. Hopefully they will derive great joy, connect directly with their fans, and if that doesn't appeal anymore, will give up and make room for the people who are OK with that.
...just like artists have done for hundreds of years, with the exception of people who knew Medicis and a large number of pop bands that made music between 1950 and 2000.

The only regrettable part is we won't get many epic albums and the studio experience has been devalued. However, with more people recording I'm hoping for a new appreciation of the art to develop, and perhaps a rise in people needing mixing and mastering.

The lines are drawn and I can finally ignore what is now Clear Channel's World. I have no idea what Justin Beiber sounds like. I can go through this world nearly oblivious of his existence. Meanwhile, next month LCD Soundsystem will play an arena, Dave Fridman's mind blowing, face melting psych mixes are being appreciated by fans, and I'm all excited because I get to see my friends in Megafaun play with The Mountain Goats next month at the same place I'll see Sondre Lerche and Junip, all of whom I found through "stolen" music sources and all of whom I will gladly give my spending money.

Optimistically Yours, Tape Op Board,
-Alex Maiolo
Chapel Hill, NC

[plurgid]

/|\
|
|
that * 1000.

[Jon Nolan]

I feel the need to address this one. Maybe people "steal" music because they assume they won't get caught, however it's much more complicated than that. The Record Industry did not take care of the Goose That Laid The Golden Egg, they took fans for granted, exploited them, exploited the bands, and the fans revolted.

.......(a lot of well said stuff here)..............

and I'm all excited because I get to see my friends in Megafaun play with The Mountain Goats next month at the same place I'll see Sondre Lerche and Junip, all of whom I found through "stolen" music sources and all of whom I will gladly give my spending money.

Optimistically Yours, Tape Op Board,
-Alex Maiolo
Chapel Hill, NC

alex,
well said! I agree with your thoughts on the music business 100%! yes, the playing field is a shit ton easier than it used to be, and this is awesome. except for where it isn't awesome. You had me just about riiight up until you were all "and then i 'stole' the music".

people who STEAL music that isn't supposed to be free don't value the art form or the artists. It's out there for free (via legal avenues) to check out almost everywhere. Why is this so hard to do?! My wife knows I love her when I take the trash out - not when I walk past the full trash can every day, but stop and whisper "I loooove you..."

both of these happened *yesterday*:

- a musician friend asked me if he could borrow my copy of digital performer so he could install it on his computer - right after I (happily and willingly) sat with him and discussed how to best record himself at home. He's a musician trying to make ends meet and he's looking to do a single mic bluegrass thing (maybe with a spot mic for bass). no worries by me. he's already recorded two rock records with me. if he wants what I can do for him, there is only one way to get it. buy some time.

the advice - free. He's a pal. It's my experience and my time. ain't no thang.
The DP discs, I had to decline.

I apologized, even though "no one would get hurt".
He has Garageband, but he wants something more full featured. I suggested Reaper. It's cheaper. I bought the DP software. I didn't swipe it - even though I could have scooped a copy without anyone having to write extra code or whatnot. Somewhere out there, there are folks who loooove computers and writing code. people who spend hours learning all they can, trying to create the next, newest amazing advance in technology. So, I happily paid for it. Then I switched to Pro Tools because I dig it better. Paid for it. I know this friend likes DP. He's recorded himself at my place with it. If he desires whatever extra features it offers more than Garageband, then I think he should pay for it. Or, I could create Napster for Pro Tools I guess, and I could share it with all of my "friends." I paid for it because I can connect the dots and see where the value is. If he hadn't used DP before, and wanted to see if he dug it, he could have come to my joint for a day and tried it out. It's certainly way easier to "try before you buy" with music. If you love the music you ripped so dearly, why wouldn't you pay for the recordings?

#2:
So, I'm cruising Facebook yesterday. I "pop by" a musician/playwrite pal of mine from NH who has moved to NYC. He posted an article about how hard it is to get paid as an actor, how little the cultural contributions to the world the theater brings are valued, blah blah blah. then, an actor/musician chimed in first. his response:
"Have to log-in to read the article = NY Times can suck it."

sure, the NYT can suck it. Meanwhile, what about the "cultural contributions" of writers? Lars Ulrich, the CEOs of the music industry and the NYT will be fine. meanwhile, the dudes at the bottom get shafted - to say nothing of the obvious irony of the dudes post. ie - music and theater has cultural value, but fuck writers. sorry passionate entry-level aspiring writer, the bottom is falling out of your industry.

For every passionate recording engineer or musician who rips some tunes because they know they'll "get around to supporting the artists when they come through on tour" or something, I'd guess there are nine people who don't even think twice about it, who are learning or have already learned that they're entitled to cultural contributions that "costs nothing". and, eggs prolly come from a factory too.

When my old band was touring, selling a few CDs actually sometimes meant the difference between getting gas to get to the next town or "hey, does anybody have a credit card?"

[Stablenet]

Thanks for the kind words.

Jon, of course I used "stole" (note quotes) because I think it's a slippery term and I don't consider myself a thief.

I don't think that people think of it as an act of defiance, per se, but they have no love for The Industry either. Based on some pretty unflattering facts that emerged about how artists get paid, or rather don't, people no longer equate this with shoplifting.

Another consideration is would the person have bought this had they not obtained it for free? That's an extremely important question in the case of music, even though it doesn't apply to all things that are sold.

It's complicated because we're inclined to compare this with traditional inventory, supply, and demand, but every computer is basically a (re)manufacturer of a particular song - both in the digital and physical sense. If I shoplift a candy bar, a candy bar does not both end up in my pocket and remain on the shelf for others to buy, nor do I run off and promote the candy bar, in a world of 100,000+ candy bars, more than likely. Therefore, I don't think traditionally about the morality of the acquiring of music for free.

Aside from the fact that we're beyond "putting the toothpaste back in the tube" - it's more like reversing the flow of a raging river - I only need to answer one question:
Considering nothing is perfect, is this essentially better for the working musician than the old model - greater good stuff.
I don't hesitate with my vote of "yes."
No need for me to get into it again since I've listed my opinions in an almost embarrassingly long essay above. These days my friends who want to play music for the World Audience can participate unimpeded, whereas before they couldn't. When they get big enough to need help, good labels, with good intentions, like Merge or whatever, are there. However, even then it's an artistic choice to go with them - "People want my music and I'd rather write songs than make phone calls."

The people who created your copy of DP, or ProTools, or Logic, are more like the artists and are not tied to a label type entity. They worked hard, made a good product, and it does (mostly) what it's advertised to do. They deserve to be compensated. For less than the cost of a crappy tape machine one can record a limitless number of bands on a limitless number of tracks.
Imagine if, traditionally, software firms weren't their own gatekeepers and they were subject to the absolutely BS and cocaine fueled antics of something like the Record Industry.
"You guys go out and hump this software, while we put steak dinners and limo rides on your tab. If there's anything left over (har har), we'll see about getting you a check... maybe."

Programs like DP, if given to people for free, don't encourage them to go to DP concerts, buy the limited edition DP box set, the t-shirt, and the ticket to see Digital Performer! live in concert!. It's a completed transaction, for the most part.

While I respect the wishes of bands who don't want their music passed around I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. In the modern world of music you get your music out, create a buzz, and monetize by other means. Like it or hate it, this is mostly how it works now, and cursing it is like yelling at the crow for being black. The reason we get told over and over again by the RIAA that this is a tragedy is because the Industry is mostly irrelevant, and irrelevant people don't get paid. It's self preservation. I'm sure the whaling industry was pretty pissed off about electricity.

Again, do my friends who want to go out and play music need to "play ball," sign their life away and be at the whim of an industry that cares almost nothing about their craft? No, they need to record songs, get people to hear them, play some shows, not suck, and be engaging in some way. All of this is obtainable; nobody else exclusively holds the keys anymore.

When I obtain music for free I'm testing the waters. If I like it people will hear about it. I will drag people to shows and I will write about them. I will buy their merch and try to get them booked in my town if I can. Every single band I listed in my last post would not have benefitted from my little, but not insignificant PR job, if you look at the aggregate work of fans like me.

Respectfully,
- Alex Maiolo

[Jon Nolan]

hi alex,

gotta go, but quickly...

i think you missed my point, kind sir! the toothpaste in the tube thing isn't a reason to abandon the idea of intellectual property, imo. basically, you are not a subscriber to the idea of intellectual property then, from what I can see. i do. feel free to clarify, if i am reading you wrong.

also, people always bring up the faceless, money grubbing Music Industry as a catch-all justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. im not complaining about having to only use three tour buses and a single caterer on a world tour as a result of the devaluation of musical efforts and productivity. i'm talking about the "collateral damage" from sticking it to "the man."

maybe your opinion is that someone is shooting them self in the foot if they dont give everything they've ever created away for free. maybe you use free downloads as a way to try before you buy. that's great. but you've robbed the artists of the opportunity to make a buck. annnnnd, not necessarily riches either. see: me.

also, how is a code writer, not "tied to a label type entity"? doesn't someone who works for avid....work for...avid? isn't that like the label? and if they cant sell their product and make money to pay their people because suddenly everybody decides to pirate software - what happens to the code peeps? shall they take one for the team and wait tables?

more later...
jon

ps - i am always weirded out by finding musicians and people in music who don't believe artists should be paid for their songs. and, it bums me out. greatly.

[Stablenet]

Jon-

Put simply, people didn't used to get paid for their art.
Well, Fleetwood Mac did, but not many others.
So nothing has been lost, unless you were destined to become the next Led Zeppelin.

I don't get to decide whether this "free music" thing is good or bad, all I can do is see if it ultimately benefits bands I want to succeed, and decide if I like it.
From what I've seen, it does. Plus it gives the power back to the artist, where it belongs. There are no more major barriers in place.

With a few of these bad things have come many great things. The new model seems to benefit bands I like quite a lot. That's how "people get paid." I would never say that anyone should "give away everything they've ever made," but I would say it would benefit them to get as many people as possible to hear what they've done, and things will take care of themselves after that. Making an average of 50 cents off of a lot of people is better than making a dollar off of almost none.
This doesn't "rob someone of making a buck," it gives them an opportunity to make one where there was none before.

And no, I don't see a company that sells software to be anything like a record label and how they've traditionally functioned.

That's pretty much all I've got.

Best
-Alex

[chris harris]

I'll be honest and admit that I don't have time to read the entire long-winded post or any of the long-winded follow up posts.

But, I get the point. You believe that because the people who steal (no quotes necessary) music don't have a problem with stealing music, that it's somehow not wrong. You're doing the semantic gymnastics, and short-sighted logical massaging to try and justify something that is plainly and obviously wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly agree with your opinions about how shitty most of the major label music business is. I just can't make the jump from feeling that way to justifying taking something that an artist created and has chosen to sell, without paying.

You honestly haven't (at least in the first half of your posts) made any new argument. You're rehashing the same emotionally agreeable, but logically deficient arguments that have been made for over a decade now.

Yes. Major labels are bad. And, Lars is a dick. And, the labels were late to adopt the technology. And, the RIAA is a horrible lobbying organization that doesn't give a shit about music fans. None of these things are acceptable justifications for stealing music.

If an artist wants you to have the music that they created for free, then they have every right to give it to you for free. But, if they want to charge for it, then you have exactly two HONEST AND ETHICAL options: 1. Buy it. or, 2. Don't buy it. It's pretty simple. It's the artist's place to decide if having their music available for free on the internet is best for their career and their exposure. And, it's kind of offensive that you'd assume the right to make that decision for them. Just rehashing all of the horrible things about big music corporations doesn't make this a "complicated" issue. It just doesn't. It's still very simple. When you don't agree with a company's business ethics, or you don't agree with their pricing structure, the honest and ethical recourse that's available to you is to NOT make purchases from that company. As adults, on a regular basis, we're required to weigh our desire to have something, against the cost of honestly and ethically obtaining that thing. And, I still believe that the main reason that people choose to ignore the ethical path here is that they know that they're not likely to get caught.

You, for example.... Do you steal (or "steal") anything else? Or, is the music industry the only industry that you believe to be operating unethically and overcharging for their products? I personally think that there are TONS of corporations that are absolutely HORRIBLE to their employees, customers, the environment, the middle class, etc. But, I don't steal from them. I make my statement against what they do by NOT DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM. There are also many, many products that I feel are grossly overpriced, compared to the obvious low cost of manufacturing them. But, I don't protest this by stealing these products.

Do you?

[Jon Nolan]

I'll be honest and admit that I don't have time to read the entire long-winded post or any of the long-winded follow up posts.

But, I get the point. You believe that because the people who steal (no quotes necessary) music don't have a problem with stealing music, that it's somehow not wrong. You're doing the semantic gymnastics, and short-sighted logical massaging to try and justify something that is plainly and obviously wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly agree with your opinions about how shitty most of the major label music business is. I just can't make the jump from feeling that way to justifying taking something that an artist created and has chosen to sell, without paying.

You honestly haven't (at least in the first half of your posts) made any new argument. You're rehashing the same emotionally agreeable, but logically deficient arguments that have been made for over a decade now.

Yes. Major labels are bad. And, Lars is a dick. And, the labels were late to adopt the technology. And, the RIAA is a horrible lobbying organization that doesn't give a shit about music fans. None of these things are acceptable justifications for stealing music.

If an artist wants you to have the music that they created for free, then they have every right to give it to you for free. But, if they want to charge for it, then you have exactly two HONEST AND ETHICAL options: 1. Buy it. or, 2. Don't buy it. It's pretty simple. It's the artist's place to decide if having their music available for free on the internet is best for their career and their exposure. And, it's kind of offensive that you'd assume the right to make that decision for them. Just rehashing all of the horrible things about big music corporations doesn't make this a "complicated" issue. It just doesn't. It's still very simple. When you don't agree with a company's business ethics, or you don't agree with their pricing structure, the honest and ethical recourse that's available to you is to NOT make purchases from that company. As adults, on a regular basis, we're required to weigh our desire to have something, against the cost of honestly and ethically obtaining that thing. And, I still believe that the main reason that people choose to ignore the ethical path here is that they know that they're not likely to get caught.

You, for example.... Do you steal (or "steal") anything else? Or, is the music industry the only industry that you believe to be operating unethically and overcharging for their products? I personally think that there are TONS of corporations that are absolutely HORRIBLE to their employees, customers, the environment, the middle class, etc. But, I don't steal from them. I make my statement against what they do by NOT DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM. There are also many, many products that I feel are grossly overpriced, compared to the obvious low cost of manufacturing them. But, I don't protest this by stealing these products.

Do you?

*high fives subatomic pieces*

[Stablenet]

I think you've missed a lot of my points. Nobody will convince you of anything other than what you believe to be true which, of course, is fine.

However, to be clear, in a nutshell what I propose is that people seek out music by whatever means they choose and do business with bands directly, not major labels, which is now possible. The major labels are the ones worth protesting, not the bands.

I'll let the record stand: music is interesting as hell right now, and bands seem to be taking advantage of opportunities I haven't seen before in my lifetime. The good and/or interesting ones are enjoying careers, making their own decisions, and getting a paycheck, finally, even if it isn't a big one. The fact that this is happening while the Industry crumbles and people are trading music isn't coincidental.

Best,
Alex Maiolo

[chris harris]

I think you've missed a lot of my points.

I really haven't. They're the same points that have been rattled off ad nauseum for
over a decade now.

Nobody will convince you of anything other than what you believe to be true which, of course, is fine.

That's an easy out. But, it's nonsense. It's not simply an "agree to disagree" situation. Legally and ETHICALLY, you're position is in the wrong.

However, to be clear, in a nutshell what I propose is that people seek out music by whatever means they choose and do business with bands directly, not major labels, which is now possible.

Sure, another thing that nobody is going to disagree with. Technology has made it waaaay easier for artists to take their art directly to the public. And, for many artists, it's simple to go through them and purchase their music directly. I'm pretty sure that this has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH a logical justification for stealing music.

The major labels are the ones worth protesting, not the bands.

Stealing has never been a valid, or ethical form of protest. It always affects more people than you can possibly imagine when you're all hopped up on the excitement of getting something for nothing, with little risk. Besides, artists aren't forced to sign major label contracts. Stealing the music, and then pretending that you're "supporting the band" by going to a few shows and buying a t-shirt or two is laughably misguided.... especially in 2011 and the era of the 360 deal.

I'll let the record stand: music is interesting as hell right now,

true.

and bands seem to be taking advantage of opportunities I haven't seen before in my lifetime.

true.

The good and/or interesting ones are enjoying careers,

true. though, plenty of bad and/or non-interesting ones are also doing that.

making their own decisions, and getting a paycheck, finally, even if it isn't a big one.

your understanding of the history of the industry is a little off. i'm using your fleetwood mac comment, and the fact that you seem to think that artists only recently started making money, as a result of people stealing their music, as evidence.

The fact that this is happening while the Industry crumbles and people are trading music isn't coincidental.

this may be true, too. But, again, it doesn't even resemble a logical explanation or a reasonable excuse for stealing music. there is a long, long list of people other than the major label, who's livelihood is impacted when dumb kids steal music.

So, I suggested that the main reason people steal music is because they know that they can get away with it. You disagreed and purported to offer other justifications for stealing music. Unfortunately, they were all old, tired, many-times-defeated arguments with little or no merit. And, I believe that it would be easier for you to see that the things you don't like about major labels aren't logical justifications for stealing something that someone has created and CHOSEN TO SELL, if it weren't so cool to be able to get any music you ever want, in fact, thousands and thousands of dollars worth if purchased legally, without paying a dime, and with very little chance of getting caught.