This is a manageable read:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with

But before you come to any conclusion you have to read all of this:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

It's not Emily's fault.

The business model has had a good run , say 1890 - 2003.

Now that it's dead there's always the "Happy Birthday to You" model where you extend and extend copyright and sue people who sing the song without paying. (Ever wonder why they sing another song at Chilli's when someone is getting their free cake on?)

I love when multinational corporations (who produce shit like NKOTB and BB and N'Sync) talk about morality. It's money - not morality.

As for the bands - the new business model is the OLDER one where you perform, people pay you for the show, and you don't get to be a multi-millionaire.

>I love when multinational corporations (who produce shit like
>NKOTB and BB and N'Sync) talk about morality. It's money - not
>morality.


You don't like it, cool. It's not high art, I agree.

But... immoral?

jeez louise... self-righteous music snobs stay killing me.

And The Funky Bunch without Markie Mark is El Diablo!

>As for the bands - the new business model is the OLDER one
>where you perform, people pay you for the show, and you don't
>get to be a multi-millionaire.
>
>

nobody is talking about shows..

under the old business model did people get to take the music home with them????

lol...

go read some more

That's the point I made. RECORDED MUSIC making MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is gone as a business model - thus you go back to the model where PERFORMING is where an artist sees their income.

-or-

Vic Chestnut was forced to kill himself because this lady copied a CD from the library.


Which is thicker?

>That's the point I made. RECORDED MUSIC making MILLIONS OF
>DOLLARS is gone as a business model - thus you go back to the
>model where PERFORMING is where an artist sees their income.
>
>-or-
>
>Vic Chestnut was forced to kill himself because this lady
>copied a CD from the library.
>
>
>Which is thicker?
>
>
>

i aint say nothing about the vic chestnut part... that dont have anything to do with your point

MY POINT is... the old business model did not include people stealing a recorded part of the peoples work

we are talking about RECORDED music

>MY POINT is... the old business model did not include people
>stealing a recorded part of the peoples work
>
>we are talking about RECORDED music
>
That's the business model I SAY IS DEAD. See , selling recorded music with 10 layers of middlemen and making millions and millions of dollars is dead. Dead.

The middlemen have to adapt - instead they're trying to blame it all on "bad morals" by consumers. (Like the bankers blame "bad morals" by home owners who got loans they weren't qualified for.)

(Although apparently I think N'sync is immoral.)

>The middlemen have to adapt - instead they're trying to blame
>it all on "bad morals" by consumers. (Like the bankers blame
>"bad morals" by home owners who got loans they weren't
>qualified for.)

u think that analogy is the same?

and in that example....who is stealing??? the "homeowner" pays or must leave.

not to mention...

many artists sell their own product...there are few middlemen

ppl still download it

>many artists sell their own product...there are few middlemen
>
>ppl still download it
>

So, there are two ways to look at this:
1)The business model is dead - INVENT A NEW ONE

2)These unethical criminals should be pursued , fined and imprisoned because they are responsible (as Uncle Cracker says) for musicians killing themselves or (as Ari Emmanuel says) child pornography.

What do you suggest?

(Suggestions that haven't worked on other issues "Don't spread your legs" and "Just say no.")

What do you suggest? What do you suggest? What do you suggest? (Wanted to say it three times so an workable answer would appear like CandyMan or Bettlejuice.)

i suggest that an artist gets to dictate what happens to his work of art.

either that...

or i suggest a total rejection of the concept of property across the board

and yeah...i'll even go so far to say people should be prosecuted for illegal downloading

you cant name ANY other product that is ALLOWED to be stolen. and as homeboy in the article pointed out...google, apple etc profit off of the stolen music.

smfh

cats is sheep. like homeboy said...it aint even free.

and the fact u keep bringing up the stupid ass example shows how little faith u have in what u say. either that or u have no coherent argument

*go research any of the montsanto cases and see the extent the u.s govt will prosecute copyright/trademark violations when a fortune 500 is involved. food is something people really should be stealing...

yall dont hear me though

go back to ba ha-ing

>i suggest that an artist gets to dictate what happens to his
>work of art.
>
>either that...
>
>or i suggest a total rejection of the concept of property
>across the board

Okay, let's go with number 1. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT??? (Thee ? marks becuase its a vexing question.)

>and yeah...i'll even go so far to say people should be
>prosecuted for illegal downloading

Criminally? Or civilly? They're doing it civilly now - do you think they just need to sue 10,000 times more people and it would solve the problem?

Do you propose we imprison people like Emily? Is that your workable solution?


>
>you cant name ANY other product that is ALLOWED to be stolen.
>and as homeboy in the article pointed out...google, apple etc
>profit off of the stolen music.

1)There is no THEFT. Nothing is being STOLEN.

People are making UNAUTHORIZED COPIES of something - but it is not theft. It's UN- AUTHORIZED COPIES. And you can be sued civilly for doing so. And selling un-authorized copies is a violation of criminal law so bootleggers are under a different law.

Apple implemented DRM on music downloads AND now offers a service whereby the allow people to pay a fee to basically legalize/authorize copies of downlaoded non-authorized music and giving them money back to the industry.

Youtube pays licensing fee to some major media companies to be able to have content shared on the site. (That's why NBC clips are taken down (no agreement) but Sony properties are not (yes on agreement.))

Or is part of your solution to implement DRM, legislate that all devices can only play DRM'd files, and to allow the music industry to filter content on all search engines as they see fit?

That's basically what SOPA was. And it still would not have been effective - your have to have software installed on your devices to monitor what you are doing with the music.

That's not hyperbole - SONY ACTUALLY DID THAT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal <-ACTUAL SHIT

>
>smfh
>
>cats is sheep. like homeboy said...it aint even free.
>
>and the fact u keep bringing up the stupid ass example shows
>how little faith u have in what u say. either that or u have
>no coherent argument

Just give a SOLUTION my man. I think I heard it : Imprison people who STEAL MUSIC. (Wackenhutt industries will be on board FOR SURE!)

And while all cats are cats, and some cats are sheep, not all sheep are cats. Q.E.D.


>*go research any of the montsanto cases and see the extent the
>u.s govt will prosecute copyright/trademark violations when a
>fortune 500 is involved. food is something people really
>should be stealing...

That's not a COPYRIGHT case. That's a PATENT case. But I'm glad STEALING one thing is okay, and stealing another is not to you.

(I'm not in favor of big-agra either.)

But someone has stolen something here - you've stolen my heart.

>Okay, let's go with number 1. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE YOU
>ACCOMPLISH THAT??? (Thee ? marks becuase its a vexing
>question.)

i propose that people pay for music before putting it on their devices. how do we accomplish that?? i think education is a good place.


>>and yeah...i'll even go so far to say people should be
>>prosecuted for illegal downloading
>
>Criminally? Or civilly? They're doing it civilly now - do you
>think they just need to sue 10,000 times more people and it
>would solve the problem?
>
>Do you propose we imprison people like Emily? Is that your
>workable solution?

nah...u aint gotta imprison em. what do people get for stealing fruit???

>1)There is no THEFT. Nothing is being STOLEN.
>
>People are making UNAUTHORIZED COPIES of something - but it is
>not theft. It's UN- AUTHORIZED COPIES. And you can be sued
>civilly for doing so. And selling un-authorized copies is a
>violation of criminal law so bootleggers are under a different
>law.
this is semantics. i'm no lawyer but i think i could argue the contrary. because digital files are EXACT...copies implies degradation. a digital "copy" is essentially the EXACT same thing as the original. there were music execs at the dawn of CDs who said "you realize we are selling our masters right?"

and for fun...name another industry where unauthorized copies are allowed to exist (dj drama anyone????)

>Apple implemented DRM on music downloads AND now offers a
>service whereby the allow people to pay a fee to basically
>legalize/authorize copies of downlaoded non-authorized music
>and giving them money back to the industry.
>
>Youtube pays licensing fee to some major media companies to be
>able to have content shared on the site. (That's why NBC clips
>are taken down (no agreement) but Sony properties are not (yes
>on agreement.))
>
>Or is part of your solution to implement DRM, legislate that
>all devices can only play DRM'd files, and to allow the music
>industry to filter content on all search engines as they see
>fit?
>
>That's basically what SOPA was. And it still would not have
>been effective - your have to have software installed on your
>devices to monitor what you are doing with the music.
>
blah blah blah...i'm no big business advocate. i'm advocating for the artists!
we supposed to take our moral cues from sony and apple. i'm talking bout people stealing music.

(i shoulda ended the conversation when you said nothing was being stolen... legal bs)

>>smfh
>>
>>cats is sheep. like homeboy said...it aint even free.
>>
>>and the fact u keep bringing up the stupid ass example shows
>>how little faith u have in what u say. either that or u
>have
>>no coherent argument
>
>Just give a SOLUTION my man. I think I heard it : Imprison
>people who STEAL MUSIC. (Wackenhutt industries will be on
>board FOR SURE!)
>
>And while all cats are cats, and some cats are sheep, not all
>sheep are cats. Q.E.D.

you wanna impress me...walk out the restaurant the next time u dont like the meal or tell the cabbie his ride was too bumpy.... otherwise yall are all....

>>*go research any of the montsanto cases and see the extent
>the
>>u.s govt will prosecute copyright/trademark violations when
>a
>>fortune 500 is involved. food is something people really
>>should be stealing...
>
>That's not a COPYRIGHT case. That's a PATENT case. But I'm
>glad STEALING one thing is okay, and stealing another is not
>to you.

well my point with montsanto is that peoples "property rights" are stringently enforced when its big business. and yeah stealing food is ok to me because food is like air and water homey...u die without it. smh. you have internalized societies assumption that food SHOULD cost money. that aint absolute truth

last thing...

i do music...have thousands of dollars in software....no cracks...paid for everything.

the free ones is out there for the taking

what would happen if everyone started stealing all software/???

>i propose that people pay for music before putting it on their
>devices. how do we accomplish that?? i think education is a
>good place.

Proposal noted and promptly ignored by Emily, and the rest of the world.

>nah...u aint gotta imprison em. what do people get for
>stealing fruit???

The first time it's a misdemeanor - probably pay a fine - or if's it's real expensive furit - probation. The second time they might get a month in jail (which are overcrowded by enforcing all the drug enforcement laws and now, a legion of music theives). The third time they're repeat offenders - which might make it a felony. So local time - 12 months or less. The fourth time they're 2 or 3 strikes into it , so a few years. And the next time, in California it's prison for 20 years.

Emily stole 11,000 MP3s. She'd be in prison until the sun burns out.


>this is semantics. i'm no lawyer but i think i could argue
>the contrary. because digital files are EXACT...copies
>implies degradation. a digital "copy" is essentially the
>EXACT same thing as the original. there were music execs at
>the dawn of CDs who said "you realize we are selling our
>masters right?"

No , they are COPIES!!!! Copies are NOT THE ORIGINAL!!! If you think it's semantics then you're a wors-er person even than Emily is.

>and for fun...name another industry where unauthorized copies
>are allowed to exist (dj drama anyone????)

YOU AREN'T ****ALLOWED*** TO DOWNLOAD MP3S YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE AT ALL RIGHT NOW. AND DJ DRAMA WAS SELLING HIS UNAUTHORIZED COPIES OF THE MUSIC.

SEE , SELLING COPIES IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
DOWNLOADING MP3S IS IS A CIVIL VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.

Is that just semantics too? (I hope the all caps made it seem like I was yelling.)


>blah blah blah...i'm no big business advocate. i'm advocating
>for the artists!
>we supposed to take our moral cues from sony and apple. i'm
>talking bout people stealing music.
>
>(i shoulda ended the conversation when you said nothing was
>being stolen... legal bs)

So violating the law, like you say, is just legal BS? Sounds like Emily thinks that too.


>you wanna impress me...walk out the restaurant the next time u
>dont like the meal or tell the cabbie his ride was too
>bumpy.... otherwise yall are all....

Not paying for a meal isn't against a criminal law violation - it's a civil law. And , just like with MP3s, you can be SUED for it. This provides a lot of cases on The People's court. (This and bad haircuts.)

And did you not see where the music industry has been suing people for download unauthorized MP3s?

(I believe not paying a cabbie is an a violation of most states/cities law. )

Or did you mean that the chef or cabbie would beat you with their fists. Why not beat the shit out of Emily and see if unauthorized downloads stop.

>well my point with montsanto is that peoples "property rights"
>are stringently enforced when its big business. and yeah
>stealing food is ok to me because food is like air and water
>homey...u die without it. smh. you have internalized
>societies assumption that food SHOULD cost money. that aint
>absolute truth

No, YOU "have internalized societies assumption that " MUSIC " SHOULD cost money. that aint absolute truth"


>i do music...have thousands of dollars in software....no
>cracks...paid for everything.
>
>the free ones is out there for the taking
>
>what would happen if everyone started stealing all
>software/???

Thank god they stopped software piracy completely.

Face it, you've got no solution to this - you just feel it's a moral injustice.

Legislate it, like the RIAAA wants, fine everyone $10,000 per illegal download, and give BMG the power to shut down internet sites and restrict search results from any site on the Internet.

And don't worry, Emily will grow old and die in an America where there is no safety net. She'll get cancer, get dropped by insurance and die in a room surrounded by her collection of MP3s. Oh- the irony.

>Proposal noted and promptly ignored by Emily, and the rest of
>the world.

so because there are many Sanduskys out there...we should allow pedophilia??? i dont understand this logic

>Emily stole 11,000 MP3s. She'd be in prison until the sun
>burns out.

i thought you said it wasn't stealing...make up your mind

>No , they are COPIES!!!! Copies are NOT THE ORIGINAL!!! If you
>think it's semantics then you're a wors-er person even than
>Emily is.

agree to disagree

>>and for fun...name another industry where unauthorized
>copies
>>are allowed to exist (dj drama anyone????)
>
>YOU AREN'T ****ALLOWED*** TO DOWNLOAD MP3S YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE
>AT ALL RIGHT NOW. AND DJ DRAMA WAS SELLING HIS UNAUTHORIZED
>COPIES OF THE MUSIC.
>
>SEE , SELLING COPIES IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
>DOWNLOADING MP3S IS IS A CIVIL VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
>
>Is that just semantics too? (I hope the all caps made it seem
>like I was yelling.)

valid point of distinction (selling)

>So violating the law, like you say, is just legal BS? Sounds
>like Emily thinks that too.

my point is...i'm talking morally. i'm not talking about the law. the law is DICTATED by the major companies. law & morals do not have to overlap. it use to be illegal for blacks to marry or read or be free...


>Not paying for a meal isn't against a criminal law violation -
>it's a civil law. And , just like with MP3s, you can be SUED
>for it. This provides a lot of cases on The People's court.
>(This and bad haircuts.)

my point is "who does it though??". exactly.

>And did you not see where the music industry has been suing
>people for download unauthorized MP3s?

like 5 people lol. how come they not going after google? rapidshare? you know the government arrests striking railroad employees for striking because its a regulation of trade??? how arent these companies profiting from "illegal copying" being charged with regulating trade and facilitating theft... again...name another instance where the government stands idly by??? its only because musicians are isolated and poor! smfh


>No, YOU "have internalized societies assumption that " MUSIC "
>SHOULD cost money. that aint absolute truth"

no i have internalized that what i have created is mine and i can give away MY stuff or i can sell my stuff. but people do not have the right to demand access to my work.

is that hard to understand? name another place where the creator doesnt control his work.

>Face it, you've got no solution to this - you just feel it's a
>moral injustice.

i never said i had a solution (beyond education) and i said it was morals the whole time. the whole section i quoted was solely about morals and how this is the 1st time people have said we will accept something morally wrong (illegal DLing...because there is no policing).

less than 1,000 musicians made more than 75k last year... think about that. less than 1000 albums sold more than 10,000 copies. thats a staggering amount of theft fam. you really think that aint a problem?

smh

paz

Emily claimed she only 'illegally downloaded' a smidgeon of the files in her 11K track library. she didn't say she was struggling w/doing the right thing when it comes to procuring music.

i haven't read all of the 2nd letter, but the writer may be using the wrong example for his/her agenda.

i saw where it was going and didn't care. especially after the massive misquote.

no, thanks.

but back to Emily:

i'm w/her...i don't think ppl are gonna be convinced to pay for albums under the current model. the way i see it, as i've said numerous times here, the only way to get ppl to pay for something is to keep them from accessing it for free. period. that's why i (feel like i) can't (easily) walk out of 7-11 w/a pack of Twinkies w/o paying for it (and so i don't try). and Hostess makes sure i can't (easily) get Twinkies (or an exact copy) anywhere else w/o paying. supply chain security and shit (i'm no MBA, 'supply chain' may be the wrong term). unfortunately, w/the current model the record companies won't be able to force the genie back in the bottle. ppl can get the music for free. the majority of them won't be guilt-tripped into paying. the only way forward under this model is to tighten up security in that supply chain. but good luck w/that. LOL.

though i did skip down and read the part about the deaths of Mark Linkous and Vic Chestnutt, which I thought was completely disingenuous.

and suggested she make a donation to an artist charity to relieve her conscious.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

just waiting for the opportunity to write the letter. i just find it funny that the person saw the initial article and thought, you know what'll work, if i write a 10k piece talking down to her she'll change her mind.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

where the write tried to link two artist suicides to filesharing.

On a personal level, I have witnessed the impoverishment of many critically acclaimed but marginally commercial artists. In particular, two dear friends: Mark Linkous (Sparklehorse) and Vic Chestnutt. Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their incomes collapse in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.

Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance. On March 6th, 2010, Mark Linkous shot himself in the heart. Anybody who knew either of these musicians will tell you that the pair suffered from addiction and depression. They will also tell you their situation was worsened by their financial situation.

disgusting.

Especially when you know the history of Vic Chestnutt and Mark Linkous... those two cats had a LOT of problems long before filesharing. And Chestnutt in particular had been trying to kill himself since the 80s.

A well written counterpoint could have been a good companion piece, now I just question everything he wrote in it.

'The 'bet' part irked me the most, he sounds like he's shilling for the oppressive contracts that finds artists paying back the 'bet' for years.


> disgusting.
>
>Especially when you know the history of Vic Chestnutt and Mark
>Linkous... those two cats had a LOT of problems long before
>filesharing. And Chestnutt in particular had been trying to
>kill himself since the 80s.

Send this to Ari Emmaunele post haste so he can use it instead of the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY argument.

her blog tells it like it is, his (while misunderstanding her whole post, it seems) correctly identifies the issue of personal responsibility in the equation. He just doesn't realize that personal responsibility is something most consumers simply don't and simply never will take into consideration when making acquisitions.


one thing about Emily's post tat rubbed me a little wrong is that she takes pains to say she was never big on illegal downloading, but doesn't really acknowledge all the other, more hands-on ways she's acquired music are also technically illegal. That struck me as mildly disingenuous in a piece that was supposed to be about telling it like it is.


SoWhat and I've talked about this before at some length. I don't know that my position on the right thing to do has changed at all, and it generally ties into the legal way to do things. That said, being a condescending asshole and trying to pin the suicides of chronically depressed musicians on filesharing is as big an affront on ethics as ripping your entire radio station's CD library to your hard drive.

>That said, being a condescending asshole and trying to
>pin the suicides of chronically depressed musicians on
>filesharing is as big an affront on ethics as ripping your
>entire radio station's CD library to your hard drive.

This is the crux of what each person was essentially saying.

In my mind, this makes them both obnoxiously extremist, but on different ends of the spectrum.

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>ripping your
>entire radio station's CD library to your hard drive.

was it unethical when radio dj's were dubbing their selections from vinyl to cassette. technically yes. but there was a different context which made it seem acceptable no? it was standard practice and there was little thought about the legality of it. from managers to interns folk would do it. the only unethical action was to steal the actual vinyl from the station.

sharing has always been a part of the culture, it's only recently been determined that sharing is legally unethical, because by most other.... bah. do i really want to debate this again.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

When you're taping, it takes the length of the entire album to make a copy. When you're ripping the CDs, it takes what? 3-5 minutes?

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

but see how technically... meh.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

When you invest the time it takes to tape an entire album, well, that's how I could see someone rationalize that it's not stealing.

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

It's like a cowboy being mad because he lost the duel because he used a colt 45 and his opponent had a semi automatic. Except the cowboy's dead. Was his opponent unethical?

WTF AM I TALKING ABOUT!!!
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I see movie adaptation possibilities, as well.

Who's doing the soundtrack?

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

in short... people are unethical, and it's unreasonable to expect them to behave ethically when there are no repercussions.

I'm not going to act like I DIDN'T dub cassettes, but I'm not going to act like there's an ethical difference between dubbing a few cassettes (I probably did 10 or 12 in 4 years as a DJ) and ripping an entire station's library... there's a difference of scale, but it's the same ethics.

The grey area that could be argued, ethically (not legally, I think), is that as a station DJ, one is expected to familiarize oneself with the music in the library in order to play it. As such, DJs ripping it will save the companies lots of $$$ compared to sending a dupe for even just one or two DJs and will get their music into their ears.

I dunno... in the end it's not even something I care overly much about; I just don't like the way people on most sides justify the ethics of their actions. That's why i love SoWhat... dude says 'yeah, I and the majority of people are just following economic laws.' Doesn't pretend to care about whether what he's doing has any ethical implications or not.

but as for the ethics...IMO filesharing = dubbing a cassette like we used to in the wayback. it's just more convenient now.

i have the same ethical issues w/filesharing that i've had w/dubbing.

>when there are no
>repercussions.
>

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

unfortunately it would be unethical.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

#Emily, even though i still buy hella physical (and digital) music

"The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.) By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists. Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue to let these companies violate the law without being punished or prosecuted. We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models.

Who are these companies? They are sites like The Pirate Bay, or Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. They are “legitimate” companies like Google that serve ads to these sites through AdChoices and Doubleclick. They are companies like Grooveshark that operate streaming sites without permission from artists and over the objections of the artist, much less payment of royalties lawfully set by the artist. They are the venture capitalists that raise money for these sites. They are the hardware makers that sell racks of servers to these companies. And so on and so on.

What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the equivalent of looting. Say there is a neighborhood in your local big city. Let’s call it The ‘Net. In this neighborhood there are record stores. Because of some antiquated laws, The ‘Net was never assigned a police force. So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the products from the shelves of the record store. People know it’s wrong, but they do it because they know they will rarely be punished for doing so. What the commercial Free Culture movement (see the “hybrid economy”) is saying is that instead of putting a police force in this neighborhood we should simply change our values and morality to accept this behavior. We should change our morality and ethics to accept looting because it is simply possible to get away with it. And nothing says freedom like getting away with it, right?

But it’s worse than that. It turns out that Verizon, AT&T, Charter etc etc are charging a toll to get into this neighborhood to get the free stuff. Further, companies like Google are selling maps (search results) that tell you where the stuff is that you want to loot. Companies like Megavideo are charging for a high speed looting service (premium accounts for faster downloads). Google is also selling ads in this neighborhood and sharing the revenue with everyone except the people who make the stuff being looted. Further, in order to loot you need to have a $1,000 dollar laptop, a $500 dollar iPhone or $400 Samsumg tablet. It turns out the supposedly “free” stuff really isn’t free. In fact it’s an expensive way to get “free” music. (Like most claimed “disruptive innovations”it turns out expensive subsidies exist elsewhere.) Companies are actually making money from this looting activity. These companies only make money if you change your principles and morality! And none of that money goes to the artists!"

WHO COULD ARGUE THAT?????

oh?

but he even breaks down how the costs is just shifted...

shits funny

come from a bubble. why? because the industry won't admit to the fact that it created a bubble right before downloading began. why? because that would indicate there's a problem bigger than downloading at issue here. and i've said it for years now... an mp3 is an advertisement. once they adjust to *THAT* model they can figure out their revenue streams proper.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

the problem with that though is that most folks are happy with the advertisement or an advertisement of the advertisement (a youtube of the mp3)

edit: i think alot of what the writer says is unnecessary...but i think his analogy is good...as is his breakdown of google, rapidshare etc

>the problem with that though is that most folks are happy
>with the advertisement or an advertisement of the
>advertisement (a youtube of the mp3)

to actually provide a proper product that makes the advertisement pale by comparison. a lot of indies already realize this. fulll album streams. exclusive downloads through partner sites. special edition packaging, etc, etc. It works for a lot of artists. Primarily because they can say okay we're not trying to make platinum hits just break even or make a decent return on our investment. it will increase the brand and make plotting year round tours which makes the life of the artist sustainable.

>edit: i think alot of what the writer says is
>unnecessary...but i think his analogy is good...as is his
>breakdown of google, rapidshare etc

meh. i think it was a waste of his time. i really do not give a fuck about alladat. my moral obligations are to my wife and kids not an artist or label that hasn't figured out that shit ain't gonna change. it's been ten years already, they can't even see the line in the sand anymore.

http://www.analogindustries.com/blog/entry.php?blogid=1340142746743

* technically he's not an artist anymore. and he's actually more successful now.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

.

even though I'm sympathetic to his argument... he's gone Cracker, man.

baby dontcha go dontcha go to U Georgia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stYvXv7vqMk

babe why dontcha go now... somewhere else

I didn't even pick that up on that authorship first run through.

I wonder if Lowery's pissed that I bought the CVB x Eugene Chadbourne used. And my original copy of II & III & Plus was a cassette I dubbed from a friend's CD. Bet it makes him do the Sad Lover's Waltz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8tJF6VEi9o

It ain't ethical, but it was done when Lowery was 'making money as a musician.'

Not a good look, especially that Vic Chestnutt bullshit, and I take back what I said last year about wondering why CVB hasn't achieved retro cred god status like other 80s underground icons.

Lowery really oughtta worry more about why he hasn't made a good record since CVB broke up, and their last one or two were a bit dubious too. And their only tunes approaching anywhere near 'hit' status were a novelty ditty and a Status Quo cover.

I still cringe every time WXPN plays that goddamn 'what the world needs now' Cracker song.

I'm a fan. Follow in on the Facesbook. And have almost unfollowed numerous times because that is pretty much ALL he talks about on there.

And I don't care how filled to the brim with douchebaggery Emily's post is. David Lowery made me hate him by the time he tried to blame me and my burnt copy of "Good Morning, Spider" for killing poor Mark Linkous.

He went from being a band frontman to teaching Music Business at U. of Georgia, so he's even more in love with his own voice that he ever was and now he can't be interrupted by the other band members starting a new song.

I spent about forty-five minutes on Twitter last night ranting like a maniac. I have self-released eight albums, and the grand total of units I've moved <<<< a half-day of "Call Me Maybe" legal downloads. It is not the audience's responsibility to keep me alive and happy. Or Mark Linkous or Vic Chestnut or anyone else. I want them to buy my CDs and my vinyl singles and bandcamp downloads but I'm not begging.

That guy whined like a puppy about revenues being down since 1999. A gallon of gas cost $1.10 in '99. In 2012, I need a tank of gas to get to work more than I need 180 gram Lana Del Rey vinyl.


"70,000 albums were released in 2010. 2% sold more than 5,000 units." He throws this quote out there like it's a Feed The Children commercial. Guess what? Albums are pretty much unnecessary. They're luxury items.

Lowery is essentially right to call out the "I want everything and I want it now" culture on their bizarre attachment (and willingness to pay) for the hardware and mechanics of it all, but not for the product created by the artist (which does indeed call for a Marxist analysis if Marxism wasn't considered an entirely empty exercise these days).

Emily's truthfulness needs to be taken into account by the folks who run the machine ... because this generation *hasn't* bought music, and even older generations have easily slipped into the same habits.

But in the end, both sides err in their omissions:
Lowery willfully ignores the fact that a good portion of the population now *does* try to do the right thing by grabbing tracks or albums through Itunes or using subscriptions services that they are sold as being legit. He also ignores the absolute failure of the record industry to cope with the transition in the first place, pursuing cease and desists instead of trying to develop productive ways to harness tech to the ends of the artists (ideally) and those who support them. It's really only been the last (five?) years that the labels have sought to adapt, to stay ahead of the curve and to figure out how to monetize the whole thing - but big surprise that it's taken so long for all involved to adjust to the adjustments, and extra big surprise that the artists are (largely) getting screwed from the new legit models (spotify, rdio, itunes, etc).

Lowery also ignores the *increase* in physical sales over the last few years that suggests that we may have be seeing a slight (though certainly not dominating) return to physical form (particularly vinyl), and doesn't really wonder what that might mean.

In short, Lowery does a lot of fingerpointing at the fans but really lets the labels and industry off the hook. Emily, on the other hand, actually has a pretty reasonable "excuse" (if we can call it that) in that she grew up in an environment that the industry partially created and are only now trying to adjust to.

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4531850_460s.jpg

I really don't have time to read all of that, but this always has been
and always will be an argument about the nature of money and value.

How much is your favorite song, and whatever it inspires, worth?

How much can you do with a computer, and how much is that worth?


Even if every contributor to every endeavor is paid, how can we be sure
that their pay accurately reflects the value of their actions?

Is the richest man truly rich? (That's a bit of a skip, but it links
directly to the rest of the issue.) And so on...

and it won't be my fault that he remains a successful professional musician.


WN: How do you feel about efforts to control how music flows through the online world with digital rights management technologies?
Tweedy: A piece of art is not a loaf of bread. When someone steals a loaf of bread from the store, that's it. The loaf of bread is gone. When someone downloads a piece of music, it's just data until the listener puts that music back together with their own ears, their mind, their subjective experience. How they perceive your work changes your work.
Treating your audience like thieves is absurd. Anyone who chooses to listen to our music becomes a collaborator.
People who look at music as commerce don't understand that. They are talking about pieces of plastic they want to sell, packages of intellectual property.
I'm not interested in selling pieces of plastic.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

its alot easier to take that position once the major labels have already spent millions of dollars marketing you

and it doesnt have to be an either/or conversation either


...just saying

there is a disconnect between execs and artists because execs don't care about how good the music is
if they can give people less music and more sales, they'll do it because to them it's something you put on a shelf and sell
they only see the cost/profit instead of thinking about how putting in time with an artist for the long haul would make everyone happy
you'd have an artist able to concentrate on making songs without worrying about paying bills, companies that are making their money back off their investment many times over and fans that buy the stuff making it possible for decades instead of weeks or months at a time

he's not wrong...

but if i'm a kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth its easy to take the position that college will help me win

because i have all the access due to my financials. for a poor kid whose folks is broke ...it is also true that college will help me win...but the path is much more convoluted

its easy for a musician marketed throughout the 90s to say... i dont care about people DLing...cuz his brand is already established.

but if he was starting today ...could he make it and would he?

its doubtful

and I know for a fact while it's easier make music now than it was 15 years ago, it's probably even more difficult to get your music heard because where there was thousands of artists doing it then there's a million doinng it now

he'd probably be more interested in doing so than he claims to be.

Wilco's considered a good live band, but if they had been unable to sell their critical darling albums a decade+ ago, they wouldn't be able to support themselves primarily by touring today. They *did* adapt by proving that streaming can & does generate sales, but they still sold over 500,000 copies of YHF. That's a shitload of records.

In other words, while he has a point from a solely artistic standpoint, he's comfortable enough to be able to take that standpoint. Camper Van Beethoven, on the other hand, has to rely on preaching to the heathen masses at a college, and is bitter about it because he isn't comfortable enough.

funny enough.

good read, though.

I hate this argument so much. People pay easily 100 bucks a month between internet, tv and cellphone bills in order to watch videos and listen and download music.

You are paying for it, just instead of paying universal music, warner and Sony you are paying Time Warner, Comcast & Verizon to listen to music.



**********
"naive as the dry leaves on the ground looking past the trees to the blue sky asking 'why me?'" -Blu

and she's probably right until it becomes something that is punishable on a large scale/hard to do.