It’s clearly stated that the initial purpose of copyright law is to:
So it comes down to ‘exclusive rights’ for the authors and inventors of copyrighted works. That’s control isn’t it?
Let’s keep the insults to a minimum, chief. I’d appreciate it. So you want the copyright laws changed. In 1909 they were changed with this purpose:
It becomes clear with this that the law is now attempting to balance the publics right to use music with the composers right to expect a monetary return for their efforts. We could disagree until the end of time about ‘adequate return’ but it remains clear that, as far as composers are concerned, copyright is about financial protection.
Sp you’re approaching this from a populist standpoint? You’re implying here that if many people do a thing then it’s right? Wouldn’t that make rioting and looting ‘right’? Yes, there’s strength in numbers, but I don’t think that justifies theft.
So is the right to protection of those musicians somehow less then for someone who plays live? I’ve done both (recorded and played gigs) and I don’t really view one as better than the other, but I don’t feel a need to impose my views upon others. You, by stating that a ‘real’ musician needs to play live and generate revenue from that source, are stating that people who do not share your attitudes are somehow second-class citizens. They are not entitled to equal protection under the law.
And here we come down to it. As I stated earlier in the thread, I don’t see peer-to-peer file sharing as doing anything more than increasing the ‘velocity of information’ (I think I should copyright that phrase, it’s a keeper). The labels wisely didn’t go after individual users for retail copyright infringement (dual tape deck work) but did go after persons or companies that engaged is widespread, organized violation. Now, with peer to peer sharing I can see the exact same circumstances applying. If you share with your friend by burning him a CD I’d bet you’re not worth bothering with, if, however, you spend your money setting up a free website that allows anyone who sees it to download your entire music collection then I’d bet your gonna get some attention.
It’s not really a matter of ‘going after the individual fan’ so much as it’s spotting and dealing with the fan that gets carried away.
Lastly, in answer to the ‘if the website is just making it possible for people to share files the website is not breaking the law’ argument I give you this case:
So Napster (and it’s intellectual heirs) may be held responsible for copyright violation by making it possible for such violations to occur.
Really, I have no problem with people sharing files, provided the owners of the copyrights agree. I’d support Napster 100% if they could come up with a foolproof means to prevent songs which the copyright holder did not want available from being downloaded. I think it’s a great way for unknown bands to get some attention (though I think there’s too loud a ‘signal to noise’ ratio for much to come of that). However, and here’s the crux of it, I have too much respect for the bands I enjoy to wish to damage them in any way.
Just a small example before I go. I had a local band (small, but with a good local following and a record deal, some local sales and airplay in the region) play my backyard for my kid sisters high school graduation. They let me record the show off the sound board. They also asked me not to distribute it. And I never have even when entreated to. It’s their performance and copyright, not mine, I abide by their wishes.
Yes. We can’t stop copying. Control over copies once made sense as a crude way to control access. But no longer. It can’t be done any more, and pretending that all we have to do is enforce the existing laws and everything will be fine will be a disaster. Then we have the worst of both worlds…copying is illegal, but everyone does it, so artists can’t make money, but there are no other ways to make money. Welcome to the war on Drugs/Music.
That’s my point. WHY is it important that it was only one physical copy? Under our current law it IS important. But that makes no sense.
Again. I understand that I broke the law 5 million times, and I could be sued for violating the law 5 million times. Suppose I was fined a dollar for every violation. I’d be destroyed for doing something that harmed no one and had absolutely no consequences. A law that no sane DA would ever enforce IS A BAD LAW. Even the most rabid IP law supporters agree that I haven’t really done anything wrong, even though I “technically” broke the law. If so, then the technicalities of the law SHOULD BE CHANGED. An unenforceable and ludicrous law is an affront to our legal system.
I’ll stipulate that. I violated their copyright 5 million times. That’s pretty bad, right? I mean, it’s got to be worse than violating their copyright once. Stealing 5 million dollars is worse than stealing 1 dollar, right? So writing that script elevated me up into bank robber territory. But then you say that although I violated the law I shouldn’t be prosecuted. Then why have the law?
OK, I imagine you want the law so that you can go after the people who actually harm the copyright holders, not people who pull little stunts. Fine. Why not write a law that DOES THAT? Why have laws that punish me for something that everyone can see didn’t harm anyone? That’s why I say it makes no sense.
Look. Stealing a CD full of music is stealing. Copying the CD may be wrong, but is it stealing? You still have your CD, you lose nothing. We need a way to pay creators for their work that does not depend on creating “copies”, since the concept of controlling copying is now obsolete. I don’t have a plan for such a model, I hope one can be worked out.
Perhaps every ISP will charge everyone with internet access a flat fee of ~$5.00 per month, track all downloads, and hand out cash to artists based on that. We could still prevent using someone else’s work to make money, since then there is an entity that can be sued for damages. I don’t know if such a scheme could work. All I know is that our current scheme doesn’t work and pretending it does isn’t helping.
I am in favor of capitalism, I believe that people should be rewarded for creative work, otherwise we don’t get creative work.
Don’t blame ME for the fact that copyright law doesn’t work anymore. I didn’t create this situation, and I’m not happy about the possibility that artists might not be able to make money from their creations. I’m just pointing out that the tide is coming in and the sand castle is going to be washed away. That’s not advocating stealing, that’s pointing out the inevitable. I’m not celebrating the inevitable. It’s possible we’ll have something even better than before, but I can also see we could have something worse.
Napster, as a company, was formed and was soliciting venture capital long before the current controversy exploded, so any notions of “before the RIAA took notice it was just Shawn Fanning vs. the RIAA” are simply misguided populist claptrap. The major investor, Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, led a $15 billion round of VC investment in May 2000, and is a major player in several software companies. Napster was a moneymaking venture from the get-go. To believe otherwise is fantasy.
This garbage about studio bands vs. live bands is a lot of hot air (fueled in no small part by rampant egotism). The Beatles, it might be noted, stopped touring in late 1966 and still managed to create several of their best albums and singles.
Furthermore, lots and lots of working musicians make their money as studio players, doing sessions–they aren’t all in bands. Where does the money come from to pay studio and session players? Record companies, fronting the costs for recording. (Ignoring for a moment TV/movie/commercial scoring gigs.) You cool with cutting off a major source of income to them?
My opinion, as is the opinion of everyone involved in this controversy, is motivated by blatant self-interest.
Strange how I started hearing more music that I like, after the emergence of Napster and other Internet music venues.
I’m all for anything that lessens the corporate aspect, and getting rid of all of the suits in-between me and new stuff I’d like to hear. I’m only now learning what shitty decisions they were making on my behalf for the past few decades.
Because this is the Pit, and I’m horrible at insulting, I threw the “dummies” in there to justify myself for posting a Great Debate post in The Pit…if ya get my drift. Nothing personal Mr. Chance. I find you very smart and level-headed, and am extremely enjoying the conversation.
Now back into the Pit…dummy!
Great! I tried…
Right, control. Not abuse. It’s like saying the steering wheel of a car is used to control the car…but can also be used to kill people, do major damage to property, and destroy itself. Sure you can use it and explain it that way…but it’s not the original plan, and has been bastardized for “profit”. The law really only came about so that the artist was protected against unfair use of their material, and the ability to collect money when it was permitted to use. That’s different from having “the right to give it away, use it, destroy it, or milk it for every penny they can.”
Again, sorry. The Pit bug got me…
Certainly. I’ve never disagreed this point. Hell, I fucking WISH my band can make millions on our recordings alone.
But we can’t, and not many artists can. Especially with the state of the industry today.
I didn’t create Napster. I think stealing is wrong.
See, I’m a normal human being.
But the fact is, it’s not physically hurting anyone (like Metallica is really going to be poor and homeless because of Napster!) except for the record labels and it’s way too easy for EVERYONE to use.
OK, you’re making unfair comparisons here. In rioting and looting, there’s more than just merchandise loss. There’s major property damage. Then look at the merchandise…when you compare the “loss” a label/artist incurs when a single song is downloaded vs. the loss of a bag of diapers from a looted WalMart…it’s like an ant climbing Kilimanjaro.
But regardless of this fact, have you ever seen a riot of 50,000,000 people? This is different. A rioting mob might represent .0000001% of the population. With Napster, we’re talking a significant percentage of the public here. This is more than just “theft”. This is obviously a sign that things need to change. Too many people agree that it is justifiable to “steal” the music instead of pay for it.
Would you like to stand up in front of this crowd of 50,000,000 and tell them all they’re evil, nasty, lying, stealing bastards and you don’t think they’re any better that looting rioting mobs?? Good luck…
I never said “that’s the way I think it should be.” I said “that is the way it’s happening, whether you like it or not.”
I do like alot of “studio” bands, and some of them are wonderfully talented. But with this revolution of new media, it’s gonna be difficult for them to survive.
Do you really think that if I could think of a way for artists to make money off of recorded material with the likes of Napster and other free-sharing software, that I’d still be debating at this point?!? I’d be off selling my idea to the record labels!! But alas…I can’t figure it out…and hopefully all this debating will at least give me a better idea of how to.
Dude! Nice!
Well, yeah. Of course. But with Napster, there isn’t one single person sharing all the music…it’s 50,000,000 sharing different music. With no single “entity” to target (Napster aside) would you like the job of going to arrest them all?!
Yup, that’s another thing. There’s a difference between logging onto Napster to find that old Barry Mannilow song you haven’t heard in years, and downloading every album released by every band you like to burn them onto CDs.
Again, like the difference between the original purpose of the copyright law, and the abuses of it.
It’s like blaming the guns for all the murders. Guns don’t fire themselves…
Anyways, great points offered here, my friend.
Ahhhh pldennison, welcome back to the Napster discussion…
Proof? I never heard about this.
Regardless, I’m not against the principle of Napster making money. I’m only stating that the people didn’t have to pay for it. The record industry needs to do something quick, or they’ll be S.O.L.
Ok, c’mon now. I NEVER said I was doing it!!! Quit fucking pointing your fucking finger at me!!! You’re asking me this question in a “look what you’ve done now” kinda way.
I haven’t done shit, except for claim that I am jumping on the “digital free world”, and if you know what’s good for ya, you will too. I feel real bad for what’s going to happen to the truly talented musicians that haven’t the means or ability (which I still don’t understand why they can’t) to perform. My message goes to them, too.
I love the Beatles! I wish I coulda seen 'em live. I’m not being an egotist…I’m not trying to start a live vs. studio war…I just prefer live performance over recordings, am I so fucking wrong for thinking that?!?
I’m not the one depriving them of their profit. I’m not the one forcing them to stay in the studio.
You’ve seen it. 50,000,000 people can’t be wrong. It’s gonna happen and IT’S NOT MY FUCKING FAULT!!
Thank you.
Milo
How right you are. Without the internet, my variety in music choices would really suck. I’ve discovered more great interesting bands on the internet in one week. than I have on MTV and the radio combined in fucking years!!!
idiotboy, in response to my statement concerning Napster’s VC position (which I FUBARed into “billions” rather than “millions,” BTW – my bad) asked:
Rick, I almost hate to take advantage of you, but it might behoove you to read Napster’s own press release about it. It’s not like they’ve made a secret of it.
Now, about this whole studio/live thing . . . can you please let it go? It’s really a non-starter, and it’s also really, really insulting for you to keep pulling this “true artist” crap. Some people get their rocks off playing live. Others fulfill their musical needs by writing and recording. Neither is any more talented or harder-working than the other. Some people just plain don’t like playing live, or have stage fright, or otherwise aren’t equipped for the stage. (Brian Wilson, Liz Phair, XTC . . . you may have heard of them. Liz has conquered her stage fright, but she still rarely tours or plays live.) Besides, a bunch of guys can get up on stage, sweat their asses off, and still suck the big one.
It’s especially insulting when, in reference to studio musicians, you refer to " . . . the truly talented musicians that haven’t the means or ability (which I still don’t understand why they can’t) to perform . . ." I know you know what a session player is. They do perform, and they perform a lot. Hal Blaine and Carol Kaye, to name two, probably did more work and appeared on more records from 1963-1967 than you and I will ever do in our lives. They aren’t in bands – they aren’t live performers (although they sometimes tour if called upon) --their job is to show up in studios and play on other people’s records. And it’s a hard fucking job. You may walk in cold with a guitar or bass, get handed a lead sheet, get 15 minutes to warm up, and have to play to order.
As far as “50,000,000 people can’t be wrong,” that’s just errant nonsense and you and I both know it. A billion people can share a bad idea, and that doesn’t make it any better. All it shows is that people will take something that they’re morally obligated to pay for if given the opportunity.
Milo, I have a question for you: How often do you go to clubs and listen to local bands play? How often do you buy their self-produced, self-financed CDs, cassettes and vinyl? How much of your record/CD collection is neither pressed on nor distributed by a major label? Good, small-label music’s always been out there to find. Don’t blame MTV and your radio if you’re a lazy, “Feed me! Feed me!” consumer.
Cut me some slack, Mr. Dennison. I live more than an hour’s drive from the nearest “big city,” and that “city” has 10,000 people.
We just learned that David Lee Roth is no longer in Van Halen up here.
Our radio stations seem to be in competition to see which can be the first to play 20 Lynryd Skynyrd, Boston or Bad Company songs in a given day - and not even the good ones!
And I can say with more than a little pride (and ego) that the local music scene just about vanished where I live when the band I was in broke up.
Ok, I believe I did notice this…I must have confused it with the Bertelsmann alliance…
But, like I said, I don’t care what Napster does with it’s money…that money hasn’t come out of consumers’ pockets.
Well, yes. I can let it go, and was ready to until you continued…
Wait…you’re trying to apply my old arguements to something completely different here! My “true artist” statement was about the fact of the enjoyment of playing music above all else, including money. I STILL hold to that statement.
This is different. I said it twice already, and I’ll say it again. I like and respect studio bands and session musicians. Alot of them are talented.
It’s just my personal opinion to rather see a live show than listen to a piece of plastic. You may not feel the same…and I’m not gonna be insulted if you say so.
And like I said, it’s not my fucking fault that these folks are the ones who are gonna lose the most from free-sharing on the internet. I have nothing against them. Can I make this point any clearer??
I wish I knew of a way to compensate them in this new market…believe me, if I knew, I would.
And I totally agree. I’ve seen alot of them. But…
<WARNING Personal Opinion follows!!!>
I personally respect those guys who play live and suck, more than those who record and sound flawless. Respond as you wish, I’m not going to argue with you about this because, as you see above, it is Personal Opinion and I don’t care if it insulted you or not. It takes courage. Everyone gets stage fright, but not everyone will admit it. No one is completely comfortable on stage, no matter how much they look it. And I respect anyone who is willing to stand vulnerable in front of a crowd to share their music, as crappy as it may sound.
</Personal Opinion over>
Yes. And I do feel bad for these truly talented musicians. And I don’t think they’ll just disappear. In this new environment, music will still be recorded. The only issue, is how to make money on the recordings.
I’m not saying “studio musicians suck!” I never did. I’m only pointing out that you know as much as I do, that in the music business, things change…often! And if this major change continues the way it has, recorded music will no longer see a profit. I’m not making a threat here…I’m only calling it as I see it.
Before you start pointing your finger at me again, I’ll say again…It’s not my fucking fault!
Well, what happens if they’re given the opportunity, whether it’s morally wrong or not, that never goes away?
Sure, nobody will pay for something if they can get it for free. I said that before. And if it’s made available to them with easy access, no risk, and for free…what can you do?
I’m not saying just give up music. I’m just trying to think of ways to work with the system…not fighting it. The industry has fought it’s way through cassettes, CDs, and now with MP3s. Their winning percentage isn’t very good here. You and I both see what’s coming. I’m only saying that there’s no point in fighting it. It’s gonna happen, if the people want it bad enough.
Oh, the disadvantages of a democracy…
But Napster was all about the “I’ll feed myself what I want, when I want”. It’s not delivered directly to your TV or to your radio. You actually have to go online, download it, install it, and search for the tunes you want.
This society used to be “Feed Me! Feed Me!”, and the radio and MTV would spew more bullshit at us…what they wanted us to hear…
And those “Good, small-label” groups would continue to be “Good” and “small-label”…becuase radio and MTV never played them, and they never had a chance to gain any following.
Now we have the technology to wade through all the crap they toss at us, and get what we want, when we want it. It’s giving those “Good, small-label” groups the same fair chance that any million dollar band has to gain fans.
No mercy here, Milo. I have spent the last 15 years living in (in order):
Frostburg, MD
Iowa City, IA
Hillsboro, VA
Now Iowa City had a decent population but no scene. Even if it is a college town I’ve never seen a deader place.
And the others are hardly hotbeds of new music. Hell, Hillsboro only has 100 people in it!
And yet I’ve managed to both be a part of and stay in touch with the scene in the nearest big city (DC, FTR). I’ve discovered emmit swimming, and Mary Prankster, and the Pietasters and many others.
Remember, support your scene or lose it. It’s no one’s responsibility except your own to find and encourage local music.
starts humming America the Beautiful and exits…stage left
1. Start and attempt to sustain my own local music scene. Oddly, I can say “been there, done that” on this one. But that’s reliant upon an awful lot of time, effort, money, other musicians, venue owners and lots of other people. Very, very hard to pull off and sustain in a rural setting.
2. Go to the record store and guess on what might be good, because you will have never heard this stuff on your local radio. Very expensive. Very mixed success (I bought S.O.D.'s first tape using the guess-method, which was a plus).
3. Rely on what other people (in magazines, etc.) tell you about music you’ve never heard. Very expensive. Very mixed success. I once bought a tape by The Smiths after reading a four-star Rolling Stone review that made them sound like All That Is Good and Right With Rock and Roll. Whiny, nasally, pale, effiminate, British blokes that have never hooked a distortion pedal to their guitar in their life are apparently that reviewer’s bag. They aren’t mine. Give me back my $11!
Now, there’s Option 4. Actually check out the sound of different bands on the Internet, bands you certainly would have never heard of otherwise. If you like it, download it.
Choosing that option over the extremely costly, time-consuming, burdensome and ineffective other three makes me a lazy, feed-me-now consumer?
Nobody has mentioned this, but the reason MP3.com is artist-only upload is because the Music industry did sue them, and one, when anybody could sue them.
I disagree. To quote (God help me) Frank Herbert in Dune, “The ability to destory something is the absolute control over that thing.” OK, maybe that’s a little over the top, I admit. But how do you allow someone to have their material interests protected without giving them complete control over their work? I don’t see a way other than to give them the rights they have now.
Now bear in mind that a composer doesn’t have complete control over their music right now. Other musicians have the right to perform or record others compositions without getting express prior approval. If compensation to the composer is not satisfactorily agreed upon then it falls to ASCAP to arbitrate a settlement.
And don’t use “profit” in that tone again, young man! Sing it with me now, “Profit is goooooooood.”
You’re also not physically harming anyone by hacking into a bank and transferring someone’s checking account to your own. Would you then say that electronic theft is all right? I think we can’t get hung up on ‘physical’ harm. If that was all the law worried about then we wouldn’t have laws regarding libel and slander. Reducing someone’s ability to earn money is causing them harm. And it shouldn’t matter whether it’s Metallica and their millions or Joe Blow and his checking account. The premise of 'Equal Justice Under Law" (over the Supreme Court entrance) means that the law cannot take into account the status of the victim. Not, I admit, that it always happens (O. J. Simpson?) but that’s the ideal towards which we should strive.
But theft is theft. With this statement you’re coming back to the ‘phyisical harm’ issue. And, as I’ve stated before, financial harm is harm.
In addition, as your following paragraph states, it’s not the transfer of a ‘single song’ in this case, it’s the potential transfer of many many songs.
<channels Geddy Lee>
Is the voice of reason, against the howling mob.
<drops two octaves>
If I feel I’m right then I’m willing to say it to anyone, anywhere.
I understand the ‘Vox Populi’ point of view you’re espousing here (Hey, 50 frenchmen can’t be wrong, right?) but I’m not sure it applies here. I’m willing to bet I can find 50 million Americans who would like to pay no income tax. Would that make it a wise thing to do? We’re concerned here about equal protection, the number of people involved in the activity shouldn’t really matter.
Now, with that as a given, if enough people truly want a law to change then they have a decent chance to change it. But my guess is that there isn’t 50 million people actively using Napster right now and that many of those who are aren’t the sort to actually attempt any change.
We find that (July, 2000 data, best I could find) 35 percent of Napster users are in the 15-24 year old range and 40% of the sites users are students. These are people who traditionally feel thing passionately (as you apparently do) but are very reluctant to attempt to enact change.
In addition the number of unique users that Napster had:
Feb 2000: 524,000
April 2000: 1,400,000
May 2000: 3,000,000
In the article Napster attributes the growth to ‘negative buzz generated by an ongoing suit filed by the RIAA’.
So given those numbers I’d have to say that the ‘Vox Populi’ argument is invalid. We are not looking at 50 million people here and, of the people we are looking at, 40% are of the sort to NOT make the effort to enact change.
Thanks. (TM, Jonathan Chance, Inc. All rights reserved.)
As mentioned above, it’s very doubtful that it’s ‘50 million’ people at all. And, as I stated in a previous post, faciltating infringement of copyright is a prosecutable crime just as normal infringement is.
And there IS a ‘single entity’ to go after, Napster. Or any other server or ISP that allows hosting of programs that allow peer-to-peer file sharing. I can foresee a whole slew of $50,000 lawsuits from individual labels targeted ISPs that allow the hosting of peer-to-peer sharing of music files. At least it’ll keep the lawyers busy.
Of course they don’t. But a gun is not a sue-able entity. Napster and it’s doubtless innumerable descendants are
This is exactly what I am talking about…the laws need to change. It seems that it’s increasingly harder to protect the artists rights to their material. And once programs come out that aren’t exactly as easy as Napster was to shut down, what then? Shut down the whole internet? No gonna happen. I only see the Napster-esque ideas moving in the same direction MTV and radio have, and maybe even interact with it.
The only problem, it the “Velocity of Information” has become faster than the “Strong Hand of the Law”. Maybe like the way that ASCAP collects money from the CD-R, CD-RW & other media manufacturers for artists, they can collect money for ISPs when Napster-esque programs pop up all over the internet. It’s an idea.
I am an artist. And I know the copyright laws protect my material. I just think there won’t be much to protect unless they change the law to apply to the changing technology.
“Profit is goooooooood.” Wow, I feel better already!
Right, and I agree. I only think that there is a better way to handle this situation. Stealing is not right…completely. But then again, the industry has been at it for years…stealing the money that rightfully belongs to the artist…am I right?
No, eliminating the tax is bad. But when the 50 million complain about about it, a change in the tax is proposed, right? Enough people complain, and something will change.
Ok, ok. Apart from those stats being almost a year old, we’ll limit the 50 million to a more reasonable 10 million, fair?
Sure you’ll have your average lazy American kids in that group. But alot of them feel ignored, and that’s the reason for their lazyness. With the recent election, where the person with the most votes lost, kids today don’t feel like they can make a difference anymore. If they only knew how wrong they are…
But as I noted, what if there were a service that distributed free software which allowed peer-to-peer sharing without a server needed. Just software on the users’ computers. The only possible solution would be to shut down the entire internet, one ISP at a time. Would that happen? I seriously doubt it.
Well, a server or software aren’t sue-able entities either! (Hehe, I said tities ) But if we’re targeting the manufacturer (i.e. Napster), can I sue Smith & Wesson for killing my Pa??
And not a bad one. ASCAP currently receives money from radio stations, MTV, and, as you mention, makers of CD R/W (one of which I just received for my birthday, Hooray!) gear, so why not ISPs that choose to host peer-to-peer music sharing services?
Though I think you undermine your argument that ‘the laws going to have to change’ by bringing this up. This doesn’t require a change in law rather it calls for an extension of an existing application. Since we’ve already had several extensions of the copyright laws I shouldn’t think another one would be difficult. Hell, it could even be negotiated outside the law by representative trade groups, say the RIAA and ASCAP on one side and some sort of ISP association on the other. I’d go for that.
There. Didn’t that feel good? Remember, you’re living in the time of the profits, don’t mock it or they’ll export you somewhere. And that would be a shame.
I don’t really agree with you that the industry is stealing money from the artists. If the artists enter into a contract willingly (and nobody forces them to sign) then they have agreed to abide by the terms of that contract. It’s certainly true that other avenues are open to them. Jimmie Haha of Jimmie’s Chicken Shack (DC faves) simply launched his own label (Fowl Records) and developed his fan base that way, when he became a mid-Atlantic phenom he orchestrated a bidding war for his services. Cowboy Mouth did the same thing, and so has Mary Prankster. (Note: examples taken from bands I follow. If they haven’t become huge that’s more my taste speaking than anything else)
So I wouldn’t exactly consider it stealing. In the contract the label agrees to provide services (gear, transportation, housing, studio time, marketing, etc) in return for the right to sell the bands music. The band is then responsible for recording a marketable piece of music and paying back the label for it’s up front expenses out of royalties. Once those expenses are paid back the band gets to keep their royalties.
And the bands can advance that time by cutting back on expenses. I know that emmit swimming (Hey, I’m a DC boy, sue me) elected to stay in a van rather than upgrade to a tour bus because they knew that the discomfort they experienced got them out of debt faster. It was their choice and, I think, a savvy one.
In addition, let’s not forget that, if the band’s record fails to sell (as so many do) the record label has to eat that expense. The successful bands end up paying for the unsuccessful ones.
Also, the back end payoff (in terms of royalties) for bands can be enormous. Bands are typically (though it varies) signed to a 5-7 record contract right out of the chute. If I recall correctly (and this is too funny to be ironic) Metallica managed to get out of it’s initial deal early and cash in on it’s second deal by suing the label that initially signed it. When that deal is up a successful band is in line to break the bank. All the power is in their hands.
I quote (paraphrase, really) Roger Taylor of Queen:
Well, I’d probably argue that it’s not quite a year. Anyway, here’s some better numbers:
This site quote a Media Metrix analysis of Napster traffic in August of 2000 (only 6 months ago, I note) stating that 6,200,000 people used Napster that month. Even if we assume a 15% gain per month we end up in February with 14,340,976 users. Assuming that 10% are hardcore users that won’t abandon the cause at the first sign of resistance we end up with a political base of 1.4 million people. And that’s not really a lot to spur a ‘movement’ per se. Based upon that I’d have to say the odds of peer-to-peer users bringing about significant change is doubtful.
Well, I thought I’d done that already. Clearly, the service is responsible for effectively aiding and abetting a felony. It’s been clearly established that assisting, in an organized manner, copyright infringement is a violation itself.
Don’t you DARE bring up gun control! We’ll get hijacked from here 'Til Tuesday!
In any event I don’t think your gun analogy holds. A gun has legitimate, legal uses. Peer-to-peer file sharing servers would fall under the ‘no legal use’ definition in copyright laws. It would be more like a firm selling a device that allowed anyone to defeat any lock anywhere. Selling that to the open market has no good use. It can be usefully sold to public safety groups, but the public at large has no legal use for such an item.
Well, I’m not exactly undermining myself. I still think whether a deal is struck to allow peer-to-peer sharing or not, the copyright law is still going to be compromised. The ISP users, even though the ISPs are helping fill the record labels’ wallets, won’t be charged to use the services. So, the artists’ material still isn’t under their control.
There’s our problem right there. Those damn pesky fans keep giving our music away, and we have no control over it. Do you see what I’m saying?
You say the copyright laws allow the artist to “control” his stuff. But any kind of peer-to-peer sharing compromises this control.
Now, personally, I’m tickled pink to think that there are thousands of people out there itching to share my music! But if I were one of these studio or session musicians (SEE! I really do care! ), that control is important for me to make my happy profit…he says with a smile!
So regardless of what “deals” are made to regulate peer-to-peer sharing…the copyright law still needs to be changed to keep a majority of control in the artists’ hands.
Thank you for kindness…but I wouldn’t mind being exported somewhere warm right about now…
Hell yeah! Gotta love Jimmie! Saw 'em open up for 311 a couple years ago!
DC, eh? Ever heard of O.A.R. (of a revolution)?
Oh, so the record label never sees a profit?! They just break even every time?
I know I’m being cynical here, but c’mon! When the artist…the person/group responsible for what’s on that freakin’ CD!..makes less that 1% of the profit, something is seriously wrong! You’ve GOTTA agree with me here!
I might be wrong calling it “stealing”, kinda like Napster-ites might be wrong calling it “sharing”…either way, I call it “business as usual”.
And that sucks for the label, but that’s the risk they take, isn’t it? But it shouldn’t come out of the successful bands’ pockets.
But that’s a pretty rare occurance. Luck is involved there…
Must be nice…
Well, you don’t have to be a user to help “spur the movement”. There are people who’ve never used the thing, but still support it.
Well, because the copyright and fair use laws are so vague, especially when applied to peer-to-peer sharing, in a sense, what they were doing wasn’t legal…it’s the users who were acting illegally.
Again, we can go back to the gun analogy…
Gun Control Fanatics:
(Before anyone tries to hijack this thread on gun control, don’t think about it. I’m not taking sides in gun control matters here. I’m just using a “gun” as an example. That is all. Go start your own thread if it bothers you that much.)
the guns are “responsible for effectively aiding and abetting a felony”, too, right?
Hopefully not…
Like I said, under the vague laws, we’re supposedly allowed to make copies of music we already own (via Cassette, CDR, MP3, etc) without distribution.
In an example, MP3.com began a service where they allowed users to insert a store-bought CD into their CD ROM and “Beam it” up to MP3.com where they take a copy of that CD in MP3 format and place it in your account. Technically, they’re just giving you storage for the music you already own. Of course, they went about it all wrong, and got called on it.
But they were thinking in the right direction. If I own a CD, I should be able to listen to it whenever and wherever I want, in any format (Cassette, CD, MP3, etc.).
So, Napster did have a “legal use” through a loophole (fair use) as well, but then also got caught on a loophole (copyright).
It only shows how vague the laws concerning copyright and fair use are, and how badly a change is needed.
Shouldn’t the gun hold the same here? Does the public really have a “legal use” for guns?? Protection? Well, there are other non-lethal forms of protection…
(I’m just asking for a hijack, aren’t I? :rolleyes: )
It’s a sucky situation, and I’ve never disagreed with that, but it’s also somewhat misleading. Presuming the artist is also the songwriter (which of course doesn’t apply to your Britneys and your Destiny’s Children and your 'N Syncs), and the record is a hit, the record label only gets the sales profit. Airplay/performance royalties go to the artist. The Beatles didn’t get rich from selling records; the Beatles got rich from getting their songs to #1 in every country in the world.
And with a system like what ASCAP currently does with CDRW manufacturers, the artists and/or songwriters should get royalties for peer-to-peer sharing from the ISPs via ASCAP. But once sharing really takes hold to the mainstream, CD sales should drop…so the poor labels will need to find another way to make money.
Exactamundo!! Could not have said it better myself. Bravo!
