I think it could actually help music - more small bands, doing it for the love of music rather than hearing the same three manufactured boy bands singing crap wherever you go.
For example, Lily Allen announced she would be retiring, that because of file-sharing she was not making the millions and millions of dollars she so clearly deserves, and because of this she would not be producing a new album.
A great day for music lovers everywhere.
for smaller independent artists performance is still a big part of how you get paid. You actually sell more at a live performance. The good news is that better technology also makes it easier for independent artists to have a decent product to sell.
A producer can exist independent of the major record labels.
If you’re trying to make the argument that record labels are important because they have a knack for making crap music profitable, then shouldn’t we be striving to put them out of business as fast as possible? Is that the type of creative work the law should seek to protect? Goldman Sachs made lots of crap products profitable; should our laws act to preserve their business model?
I’m not trying to make that argument. I’m just noting that at times there are good reasons why certain individuals get paid big bucks and often the smaller independent artist can’t begin to afford them. The other side of that coin is that sometimes a terrific unique creation comes from an individuals talent and vision and , pardon me, their soul, and that’s often something no record company will ever reproduce. I love and prefer to hear a great songwriter play their tune on guitar or keys. I’m also aware of how great production can take a good idea and turn it into something amazing.
Hey , Nashville cranks out and spends a ton promoting whay I think is crap. We sit around wondering and bitching why bad songs continue to get cut and people who can’t really sing become celebritys. I had a meeting with an ASCAP exec and he told me bluntly to not compare my stuff with the average radio cut because most of it was recorded and released for political reasons not because it was good. If the new technology keeps them from recording as much crap and allows talented independents a piece I’m all for it.
Then again , it is the music business, not just art.
There’s a load of great acts signed to major labels. The question is, if doing what a label does is so easy, why are bands only too eager to sign contracts with labels? Why are there not more bands taking an independent route? The obvious answer is that labels are providing a service to bands that they otherwise couldn’t do for themselves.
Sadly labels have a lot of power and influence at radio stations. The days when independent stations could play whatever the DJ thought was awesome are fading fast. Major labels do have a lot of money and clout in putting together major tours, promo, and distribution to get a band out in front of as many people as possible. Bands and artists work hard to develop a local following but often in order to attract a major label.
Your analogy fails in many ways.
The one thing that you said that I agree with is that “people don’t want to pay.”
The laws of supply and demand for music hasn’t changed; as it relates to demand. The demand for Lady Gaga is as as strong as it was for her natural predecessor, Cindy Lauper.
This is unlike poetry, where there is no such demand. (or the laws of supply and demand dictate that there is a very small business model, if at all)
The only thing that 's changed is that technology allows people to steal the product. The supply equation has been altered by technology; a technology that facilitates theft. People don’t want to pay for gasoline either. Or blue jeans. Or twinkies. And if technological advances made it possible to essentially steal those items would you be making the same argument?
and sadly over time they would steal and justify it somehow. Hell they already do. One of my pet peeves in retail is the rent for free program. Buy something you want to use temporarily and then take it back when you’re done using it for a full refund. It saves you a couple of bucks but it costs companies millions that gets passed on in higher prices and altered return policies. That’s why I object to changing how we view it through our moral lens. It doesn’t not become a form of theft just because it’s easy and lots of people do it. View the musicians and other artists affected by this as real live people who deserve to get paid for their efforts and buy it or don’t.
Why is this “sad”? For an artist, this is exactly why you sign up to a label. An independent artist can’t hope to sell himself to every local radio station in the country, but a label can. Artists clearly want to have their works disseminated as wide as possible, and that’s why they’re signing up to labels.
It’s sad because so much is programmed and dictated now that a local artist with a good product has a hard time finding a local station that will even consider his song for airplay. There are still a few stations that will listen to local artists and consider them for airplay. That gives you a chance to be heard by more people and listeners can call and ask about you.
I understand and appreciate the idea of wide distribution. It’s a beautiful thing. I just wish there was a little more room available for the local community as well.
They can pay recording costs, they’re adept marketers, and they have relationships with the radio stations.
But really, we’re getting away from the OP. In the OP, a judge reduced the damages from a file sharing case by 90% because the statutory damages awarded was a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. The statutory damages in question were created by Congress to protect the rights of copyright holders, but the judge in this case has essentially said that the damages provided for were completely beyond the scope of any damages the plaintiffs could reasonably claim to have suffered. Richard Parker’s point about making some determination of the actual damages suffered is a good one; in this case, the plaintiffs have availed themselves of a statutory remedy without having to spell out how the defendant actually harmed them.
So the issue is what purpose do these huge statutory damage awards serve? They’re certainly not deterring. If they’re in place to protect the current business model of the record industry, should they be? Can we imagine other business models? If their main value is as a conduit to the radio station, even though most people I know seem to think that they deliver mostly garbage, wouldn’t it be better if the radio stations themselves were in the driver’s seat? If the radio stations had to pick and choose winners, they’d probably have to deliver up a much wider variety of artists to figure out what people like. Wouldn’t that be better for radio listeners?
Quoting because this says (almost) everything I wanted to say, without me having to do the work. tim314, I’d pay you for your efforts (maybe 5 cents?) but I don’t know how to get it too you. What a world it would be if I got paid every time my software ran.
Technology has advanced to the point that the actual copying of music is a very small part of the cost of production. So low that individual music consumers are willing to pay that cost with no thought whatsoever. Yet the recording industry wants to pretend that they are still pressing records and that people are physically stealling those records. They want ignore the reality of modern technology and just let the government to collect their profits for them.
When I hear this my mind goes back to annoying unfast-forwardable intros they have on DVD’s now days.
“You woudln’t steal a car! You wouldn’t steal a hand bag! You wouldn’t steal a television! etc.”
Indicating that pirating is generally viewed as more acceptable than these other acts, although maybe it shouldn’t. Yet it the act of stealing a song has a penalty approximately the same as stealing 10 cars.
ETA: just for the record I don’t pirate and am against the practice but geeez, get some perspective. Also I hate that DVD intro with the light of a thousand suns.
What makes you think it’s just about the cost of making a copy. There are lots of other costs associated with marketing music.
I agree that the punishment did not fit the crime in this case but I still think they have a right to address the crime itself.
I didn’t say it’s just about the cost of making a copy, although I can’t imagine what the costs of marketing have to do with anything in a case when someone made an illegal copy. There was no cost of marketing, distribution, copying or anything else for that matter.
The artist and company have a right to protect their copyright by whatever means they think is necessary. I couldn’t agree more. But their current plan seems to be to viciously attack random offenders using ancient methods of calculating lost value on tangible goods. If the companies can’t be bothered to figure out what their actual loss was, if any, at least well enough to explain it to a judge, then why should anyone take them seriously?
So are we paying so that the producer/band/singer gets compensated, or are we paying so that the record company can pad its advertising budget?
Are we paying for people to *make *music, or market music?
Let’s make a few things clear. Copyright violation IS NOT A CRIME. You cannot be arrested for violating copyright. You cannot be prosecuted. You cannot be convicted. It is not a crime.
Violation of copyright is not stealing. If you steal a car, that’s a crime. If you steal a loaf of bread, that’s a crime. If you steal a physical CD, that’s a crime.
But if you copy the information on a physical CD to another medium, you haven’t stolen anything. What you have done is something different, which is copyright violation. You’ve committed a tort, not a crime.
I assume those costs are figured into the price of a CD and if one is copied that can be translated into a lost sale.
I agree that’s not a good solution and the business has to accept and adapt to changes in the marketplace.
all of that. As a business they get to make a profit. If you think their business plan is bad and they charge to much then don’t buy from them , but piracy is not an honest or justified alternative. It’s like any other business. Losses have to be factored in and that affects what’s available at what price to folks who don’t steal it.
The difference being, if you take an item from a store without paying for it, that item has to be physically replaced, whereas a recording can be copied almost infinitely now, without any detriment to the original item, which an artist should already have received a fair payment for.
ps. Piracy is only a crime because the laws are outdated. There is no inherent right for corporations to make money by whoring their carefully selected artists.