Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers & others reject Apple's iTunes

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gex gex *
**If such a store still exists, there is no doubt I will use it. Give up on the experience of counting down the days to an albums release date, making the journey to the store the very day it comes out, searching the racks for that album, staring down over the artwork, perusing it from all angles, then, as soon as you get it outside, ripping open the bag, removing the plastic wrap and studying the liner notes and artwork? Buying an album isn’t about music! It’s about ritual! It’s about holding a physical missive from band to fan, saying this is us for the past year. This is how we’ve spent our time. We hope you get something from it.

While I understand what you are saying, what you are describing is a niche nostalgia market based on sentimentality which is not a good basis for a wholesale industry. That said, nostalgia and sentimentality are powerful forces in culture and society and it could well be that they will keep the ‘album format’ alive well past the time it should by all rights be dead (some would say it already is).

All artists retain some rights controlling the distribution of their work. They retain moral rights, even after the work has sold. If you buy a painting, and then use it to draw people into your Nazi web site, the artist can force you to stop. There was even a case where a couple was forbidden to paint a wall in their own home because it had an original artwork painted on it.

And of course an artist retains the right to sell his artwork in the way he sees fit. He may have signed those rights to the record company, but the initial decision is his.

Not that I’m necessarily making a case against the record companies, but there is a difference between filesharing and what you’re describing. Generally, when theft occurs, a property owner is being deprived of said property. That is, the main reason that such behavior is proscribed against is not that the thief is receiving something without paying for it, but that the victim is losing their property. When one downloads an MP3, physical theft is not occuring.

The obvious counterargument to this is that if everybody downloads the MP3, the record company is losing their financial investment in the band. However, this brings up an interesting question – many folks have MP3s of songs they would never realistically purchase. Therefore, IN THEORY, the record companies aren’t losing anything on this download. Copyright law is being violated, but no entity is losing out on potential financial gain.

Obviously, slippery slope, and I don’t think such a thing could be defended in court (nay, I know it couldn’t be), but there you go.

Again, true, but consider that the US recording market has been controlled by five giant companies for years. As well, there is no price competition on CDs – it would be detrimental to all five if one started underselling the others. Similarly, in an artistic medium such as this, competition wouldn’t likely occur anyway; this assumes that music is a commodity, and that people would simply listen to whichever artist was sold at a reasonable price. This does not match my experience of how people choose the music they listen to.

I would like to see cites for this assertion. I’ve heard of this happening in Europe, but I’m not aware that these ‘moral rights’ have been upheld in the United States.

Very much so. In fact, their last album Warning had a few hit singles off of it. I’m not a big fan of theirs (actually, I pretty much hate their other albums), but I really, really like this album. It’s really good. Do yourself a favor and check it out. It doesn’t sound much like any of their other albums - a lot more complex melodies and more varied instrumentation.

So how soon you think 'til we see a Radio-version TiVO? :smiley:

Wouldn’t THAT be a kick in the ass to this whole debate.

There is a radio Tivo. I read about it last week.

This sounds awfully fishy to me. If I buy the copyright to a piece of work–not just the physical artifact–surely I can use it in any way I want? And, based on your sketchy anecdote, how do we know by whom the anonymous young couple “was forbidden” (note the passive voice)? Maybe it was their city or state exercising eminent domain to preserve an item of historical interest–which would be interesting, but totally irrelevant to the debate at hand.

In a word, cite?

After doing a bit of Googling, it appears that the U.S. does not recognize as many Moral Rights for artists as the rest of the world.

From this cite:

Moral Rights of Authors in the U.S.A.

This last one was probably the right invoked by the artist to prevent the people I mentioned from painting a wall in their house.

There’s an interesting case mentioned on the cite:

I wonder if that would apply to selling parts of an album if the author specifically demanded that the album be sold whole as a single piece of art.

Then there is this case:

Unfortunately, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m already over my head on this stuff. Perhaps one of the lawyerly types could chime in on this stuff.

The latest “radio TiVo” device I’ve heard about is nothing more than a radio + digital audio recorder + timer. The most important feature of the real TiVo (IMO), and the only one relevant to music sharing, is the program listing and recommendations database, which doesn’t exist for radio.

It’s possible that someone has made a database of syndicated radio shows and local listings, but radio stations don’t announce their playlists beforehand. You wouldn’t be able to say “record ‘Sk8er Boi’ next time it comes on”, or “record everything by Eminem”, or “here are my favorite bands and songs, now recommend some new music I might like”.

I’ve written this out many a time before… but it still bears repeating…

The music biz works likes this…

(1) Creativity and Artistic Vision.

(2) Recording and Production.

(3) Distribution and Packaging.

(4) Marketing and Awareness.
Obviously, Point (1) is in the hands of the artist themselves and them alone.

Point (2) is a grey area. Within reason, $50K of gear can make a pretty impressive album these days. But when push comes to shove, a truly magnificent album still requires the “million dollar studio” - and the reason for this is because the absolute best of the best like to record with unbelievably expensive, and rare microphones from the 50’s and 60’s. Such studios offer that sort of equipment, along with other classic instruments from the period and it’s all part of the package, as it were.

Point (3) is where the existing RIAA business model is falling short by the farthest. It’s just a fact that more CD pressing plants exist now than ever before, and as such, the sheer economics of scale mean that actually producing a professional silver background CD costs (when dones en masse) as little as 38 cents these days - and that includes all the liner notes and various other printing requirements. By this standard, vinyl LP’s were FAR more expensive to make if truth be known.

Point (4) - Marketing and Awareness… ahhhh… now we’ve reached the REAL CRUX of the matter.

You see, the world is full of magnificent music which never became famous. There is probably a million hours of it by now. Various songs and recordings which, in isolation, were probably as good as bits of “Abbey Road” or “Let it Bleed” etc.

Consider, my American friends, for a moment the band Powderfinger. Their last album here in Australia (I’m pretty sure) was the biggest selling rock album of all time down here. 1 in 20 Australians bought a copy. That’s a huge market insertion. You might know some of the songs - “My Happiness” for example. Gorgeous songs - rich, luscious songs played with magnificent feel and sensibilities etc.

And yet, they couldn’t even crack a nut in the USA. And it wasn’t due to lack of talent either. The list of American musos who wax lyrical about Powderfinger is seemingly endless.

So why couldn’t Powderfinger (who is but one recent example of this incredibly huge pool of examples) even crack a nut in the USA? Quite simply, their Record Label down here in Australia simply couldn’t afford the minimum of $300,000 US which was needed to get the song paid for to go on to Clear Channel’s playlists. Their Label has stated that, after tallying up all the costs which were necessary to get even one song on EVERY USA rock station (which meant more than just Clear Channel) that it was going to cost $520,000 US - which at the time was $780,000 AUS and it was simply WAY too expensive.

Hence, this great band who write epic rock masterpieces with strong overtones of The Beatles etc are still basically unknown within the USA.

And THAT is why the RIAA is so incredibly vicious about protecting their turf you see.

Everybody raves on and on and on about the evil RIAA etc. In reality, the RIAA should actually be referred to as the STUPID RIAA because they’ve actually brought their own fate upon themselves. It’s generally accepted now that to get just one new song onto playlists nationwide on just Clear CHannel alone costs at least $300,000 US. This is an instituionalised form of payola which is expedited through mediums known as “Independant Music Distributors” and in essence, the RIAA has resigned themselves to a fate of having to exist in a symbiotic relationship with THEIR masters - namely the US Commercial Radio monopolies.

Accordingly, the RIAA now believes, quite justifiably, that they spend billions of dollars per year making certain songs famous each year - and that is hard bought market awareness. From their point of view, people who download those songs for free are doing so without ever compensating the RIAA for the massive payola they had to pay for in the first place.

In short, the current music landscape in the USA is rotten to the core. FM radio remains king to this day, in terms of making a given song a true classic for the ages. MTV might take care of the image aspect, but at a musical level FM radio remains king. But the only tunes which make FM radio now are those which have had massive amounts of payola forked out because that’s the blackmail which the major Networks now wield. Accordingly, only “safe bets” make it on the airwaves now.

As a result, there is simply a mountain of great music which America is no longer hearing anymore. Don’t believe me? GO and look at your charts. Look and see how few, how little music is being made from outside of the USA. Compare it to 30 years ago when the USA FM Radio scene was free of payola and DJ’s were free to play music based purely on merit.

So, my point is this… it matters not whether file sharing is moral, or not moral. It matters not whether iTunes is a good thing, or a passing thing. What counts, what really, REALLY counts is that the USA has sealed itself into an insular cocoon where little if any outside music gets in anymore - and as such, you’re missing out on so much wonderful music - it’s incredible actually. And the bottom line is this - if you don’t know about it, you won’t download it.

I don’t think any of us who use P2P actually want to justify it. We don’t care. You’re costing a rich person about $1.00 - which is what they would get if you bought the album. It’s not worth worrying about.

No it’s not. It’s copyright infringement. It is not stealing.

It’s more than a “niche nostalgia market based on sentimentality.” It’s a very real factor in the way people choose the products they buy. I, and many other people like the concept of purchasing a physical product when they buy music. It is the way we choose to have our music packaged.

Technological determinism doesn’t hold up. Just because there is the ability for people to purchase music as electronic information does not mean this will become the sole means of distribution. This is echoed throughout other industries - it is possible to never purchase another book again - but people like books. They appreciate the physical connection they have with the object.

No-one need ever purchase film for their camera again. But they do. No-one needs to even write a letter or send a christmas card again since the rise of email. But the postal service still delivers millions of them.

I’m not saying that the popularity of CD as a distribution method will not decline; I’m sure it will. But I don’t think it will disappear altogether, and I do not think that the album disappear, and it will certainly not be confined to niche markets. Artists will always want to release larger, more involved musical statements, and people will always want to listen to them.

Sadly, I no longer have any respect for the RHCP. They’ve gone the way of Metallica in doing whatever their manager tells them to without thinking about the issue in question.

Napster BAD! Money GOOD!

Here at the SDMB we fight ignorance, we don’t spread it KGS. As to your “remark” that very few musical artists have ANY control over how their work gets distributed. Hell, most of them don’t even get paid…being screwed over financially by management/labels/bad record deals/etc.

Is it the record companies fault if an artist signs a recording contract without reading it over carefully?

Hell no.

Cute how your tune changes from saying that “most pop artists have no control over their careers” to what I quoted above.

Again, it all depends on what the recording contract says.

As for not getting paid, almost every artists signed to a record label gets an advance, anywhere from $10-250,000. The band can do whatever they want with the money. If they were smart and had even a rented clue they would put their advance money towards recording their album, but most acts instead choose to blow it on strippers and drugs.

Again, that is the recording artists fault, not the record labels.

And you don’t seem to understand a very simple and basic point: Metallica/Red Hot Chili Peppers have infinitely more of a right to choose and decide how, when and in what formats their music will be distributed becauseit is their music.

They are the ones who created it.

Not you.

You had nothing to do with it.

Apparently, the “fact” that you claim to have such rich, wide and varied tastes in music that your “Need it” list grows faster then your budget, so you have no problems breaking the law and committing felony theft.

That just shows how self-centered and self-absorbed and selfish you truly are.

I’d like to see cite for this one. As in specific statute.

Well, as a said before…I read between the lines of that article, and I’m seriously wondering if RHCP really does share that attitude. Indeed, I’m thinking that RHCP has been dragged into this mess because Lars Ulrich is now using his management as a “mouthpiece”. So until Anthony Giedis or Flea make a statement, I’m reserving judgment for now.

BogieBlanca, I’m not responding to your post since it’s a personal attack, which is inappropriate for this forum. Feel free to take it to the Pit, though, and I’ll be happy to go 12 rounds with your ass. :slight_smile:

This was posted on another message board, but without attribution, so I don’t know where it came from originally:

And thus it explains why I’ve purchased every single album/CD by Iron Maiden (including the ones that suck!!!) as well as every live album, every CD single, and their box set, and only started in on bootlegs because, dammit, there’s not a single piece of music I can purchase from them that I don’t have already!! Iron Maiden may not be able to fill the stadiums like Metallica anymore, but fans like myself remain forever loyal, because of this sort of attitude. It’s all about respect.

And here’s another quote from the lead singer of Dream Theater, which really has nothing to do with file-sharing, but I thought it was funny:

:slight_smile: :smiley: :cool: :smiley: :cool: :smiley: :slight_smile:

Nothing disappears altogether, there are people still out there making flint arrowheads afterall, the question is will it really MATTER anymore. The answer is no I think. After the bonds of nostalgia and cultural conditioning break down (which happens with time), people will choose the better, cheaper and more efficient product. There is NOTHING about an electronic format that would prevent an artist from making ‘involved music statements’, it just requires a bit of re-thinking. Let’s look at the other examples you give in citing how ‘technological determinism’ doesn’t hold up. Film is rapidly going away, digital cameras are gaining market share at an incredible rate. When you consider the fact that digital cameras that can compete with the resolution of film based cameras are recent on the consumer market scene and are still quite expensive it makes that market penetration all the more impressive. When digital cameras with 6 to 10 megapixel resolution come down significantly in price (and they will) you will see film begin to disappear exept for specialty shops. Expect movie film to soon follow suit. Books, I love books myself… it seems weird to me to think of a time without them but it’s coming. To date there really hasn’t been a good replacement for paper, but it’s coming. When you can carry a flexible, paper thin, durable, electronic display around with you that is intuitive to use and causes very light eye strain you will see a huge transition. E-paper is currently in the works and it will be to the printing industry what CDs were to the vinyl record and floppy disk industries. Look at the benefits, you can carry MULTIPLE books and periodicals around with you anywhere you want, it’s waterproof, potentially you could be able to transition to the internet to look up something you just read about online or talk to a fan club about the chapter you just finished. The costs should go down to where the 40 dollar hardback release is a distant memory and more authors should be able to get their chance without subjecting themselves to the whims of the printing industry ( I firmly believe many classic books would NEVER have been printed were they written today). Think of the savings in terms of the environment also, fewer trees cut down for paper. In my opinion all of this is inevitable, you just have some people who find it hard to grasp and even worse try to keep it from happening so they can continue to make money using old technology.