ouch…
I hate it when I get i get slammed by people on my side of the discussion.
Look, everyone, I realize that my arguments against intellectual property laws in general as sort of extreme, but I don’t think that means I am arguing poorly.
That said, i agree with just about everything else you said, VarlosZ.
Bad Hat said:
Well bully for them. They (piss-poor artists that they are) took a decision. It was theirs to take, and I respect them for it. Whether it harmed subsequent sales is frankly not the issue. They took the decision.
My concern is with the majority of artists, big and small, who have the decision taken for them. Some might’ve decided to release to the net, others wouldn’t.
Well, insofar as you have access to their gas-bills, how about if I have the power to unilaterally declare that your personal earnings in the tax year 2000-2001 are halved. Feel good about that? I wouldn’t. The argument that ‘CD sales are increasing’ is specious. You cannot prove that CD sales are affected because there is no control experiment (i.e. what would have happened if Napster et al were not in the picture). That they (and what is ‘they’? All CD sales? CD sales of a particular band? Of a particular genre? Can you factor out other economic influences? No, of course you can’t) went up is irrelevant. They might have gone up more sans Napster.
You can stress it all you want. It’s economics. Farmers only get a fraction of what you eventually pay for their goods. There’s a whole lot of people in-between that cow and a Big Mac. It’s just that the net has given us a way of circumventing the standard procedure, people are doing it, and trying to justify it. Funnily enough I personally have more of a problem with the attempted justification than the act itself, but that may be because I am not personally harmed by it.
And (I’ve used this last argument in a similar thread) what about acts who choose not to tour (studio bands). You can argue all night about whether such acts are good, bad or indifferent but the fact is that these people, rare though they might be, are going to be hit hardest by loss of sales.
Bad Hat,
Yeah, that came out wrong. I should have been much more specific about what I meant, which is that dismissing the concept of intellectual property is very difficult to do, as is arguing that it has no relevance to the Napster debate. Most people who argue in favor of Napster (at least on these boards) try to do so and run into serious problems in the process, while I see no reason to stake one’s position on concepts that are so controversial (i.e. likely to draw vigorous and well reasoned/researched opposition). The concept of intellectual property is certainly relevant but not necessary to the Napster debate (and could probably maintain its own GD thread).
Anyway, I took the chance to say the above in a smart-ass and misleading way, and I apologise.
Alright, now I’ve got class. In 40 minutes.
Xerx…
To reiterate, I’m not trying to excuse anything. I don’t use napster, this isn’t some grad student rationalization of a bad habit here. I believe that the recording industry is an empire based on sand. the sand in this case is “intellectual property”. They figured out out a way to exploit artists that worked for a long time, and now the party is over.
Records were concieved initially as a way to market a live act. That it has become a multimillion dollar industry unto itself has very little to do with the interests of the average working musician. It has a LOT to do with creating a product and mass marketing it to the braindead lowest common denominator consumer and selling 5 million copies in the first week, then moving on to the next act, repeat… Musicians got along just fine for thousands of years without record companies or intellectual property watchdogs. I think they can do it again.
So as for studio bands who work entirely out of the studio. I guess the answer is "tough shit". They live in the empire of sand as well. Figure out how to do it live or get a dayjob. Or, better yet, do like the motion picture industry has done, and sell tickets to public listenings before making the music commercially available. (Radiohead actually did a minor version of this concept in support of Kid A, and people have been paying to see laser lights dance to pink floyd albums forever, its not as wacky as it sounds) In any case, most bands that have the luxury of doing this are well beyond the working class of musicians to whom I refer anyway. You are still up there fighting the good fight for the millionaire rock stars. More power to'em, but i don't buy that they need legislative protection.
And as to your slam about the small percentage that artists actually take home, I understand the economics fine, thanks. My point was that I doubt that a lot of folks who bitch about artists "livelihoods" being threateded have any idea what a small percentage of said livelihood generally comes from record sales. If you balance the potential loss of livelihood from "pirated" music against the gain in exposure and subsequently the increse in concert attendance, I'm gonna bet that free downloads help the average working musician- since the income percentage from performance is significantly greater than that from record sales (no cite here and obviously this is an impossible proposition to verify mathmatically, but this is personal and anecdotal experience talking).
CJ
Bad, your arguments are good, and I suspect that there’s nothing that can stop the dissemination of digi-stuff via the net. Your point that a lot of bands get good exposure is fair enough, but they’re at the point in their career that any exposure is good exposure.
My point comes down to choice. Not the choice of the consumer to get something for nothing, but the choice of the producer to allow it. I’d personally like free sex, but it ain’t going to happen (except in some of my more memorable dreams). It seems to me like much of the argument is that because we can do it, and are doing it, it must be right.
Why on earth should they? Just because you (and I, actually, but that’s not the argument) equate live = good why should they have to conform? Sheesh. That sounds a bit too totalitarian for me. Live and let live…
By and large, the artists who don’t benefit from the publicity afforded by free online distribution are the artsits who have industry muscle to do thier marketing for them. I have a hard time getting weepy for the rock star who makes the (equally unverifiable in the negative) claim that Napster is costing him x amount per year and he needs the government to step in and stop it. Boo-f#$%ing-hoo.
Lets call bob geldof and put together a fund raising album for all the starving rock stars, right after the one I am planning for the %40ers who are so upset cuz they only get to take home 60% of thier $200,000 plus a year.
It sounds like you want to have one rule for the rich muso, and another for the poor. How is that fair? If xyz band hits it big and reaps in the dollars, good luck to them. It doesn’t happen for many.
Xerx, you are of course entirely correct about the harshness of my anti-studio band sentiment, I had these images of YES and BOSTON dancing around in my head, :::shivers:::
You will note that I do believe that there are alternate ways to make a living as a musician ( the pink floyd this worked). I guess it just get creeped out by the idea of music being commodified like that.
Ironically enough, a very similar debate to this happened when the recording medium was first introduced. There was (and actually still is) a very strong sentiment among some purists that the idea of recording therby defining a song was a really bad thing. The rationale being that music performance was a folk tradition. The artists toured and shared his song and it evolved and changed as the artists did. Further, a musician from one region was likely to hear a traveling singer/storyteller, and take his song and change it to refelct his circumstance, passing it on to his children etcetera. So when the idea of “pressing” a song entered the picture, this was seen by many as the death of music. It sounds a little extreme today, but i actually really like the idea of a song being a fluid temporal thing, instead of a legally defined entity that exists on a plastic disc.
As far as choice, I see what you are sayiny with your sex analogy, but to take it one (potentially ridiculous, so bear with me) step further. Say you want sex anytime, and you have a holodeck. You can have sex anytime, because on the holodeck sex is an unlimited resource. Like the net.
I hear you, and we may be starting to grind our wheels at this point, but I guess what I am saying is that if there isn’t any demonstrable harm to these wealthy rock stars (who are clearly in a minority among people that make a living as musicians) then why bother creating artificial institutions in thier defense?
It seems much more complicated to go around on a case by case basis and ask everyone if its okay the allow dissemenation of thier recorded work, than to simply aknowledge the fact that a losing battle is imminent and say “look, this may not be in your best interest (or it might be, we’ll probably never know) but it is most likely in the best interest of the working class or artists, so deal with it”.
CJ
Quite the opposite, though my analogy may have been a little skewed. I want the same rules to apply to all of them.
Quite the opposite, though my analogy may have been a little skewed. I want the same rules to apply to all of them. I think its the “rock star clas” in this case that is asking for special treatment, disguising it as a plea on behalf of the entire community of muscians, who are no doubt wondering where they were when Metallica called them for the general assembly vote.
I’ve always said I was born about 400 years too early.
As a teenager (a very long time ago) I remember quite enjoying Boston… More than a feeling… there was a lyric line in there which I never did manage to work out.
Back onto the topic; I see where you’re going with this, and I guess it’s inevitable to some degree. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree (a little) about this.
Actually, my position has softened a bit thanks to your input. I’m not for it, but I don’t think I’m as against it as I was…
Back to the holodeck 
Intellectual property is hardly “sand”. The concept is that if someone creates a work of art, invention, or piece of literature, they have the right to decide how it will be used. That’s why we have copyright laws and patents.
Artists make a deal with the record companies to have their music marketed and distributed all over the world. In exchange for this service, both parties receive a percentage of royalties paid on every CD, tape, BLANK TAPE (that’s right Jeremy, part of the fee on a blank tape goes to the record companies) and MTV or radio broadcast.
Saying “Napster is a very effective tool for unsigned artists to get their sound out there” is bullshit. You can’t download their music if you have no idea who they are. Face it, without the record company, most bands would just be five guys practicing in their dads garage, posting mp3s on the Net that no one downloads and playing covers at the local bars.
As for the percentage of new artists who are exploited (and I’m sure some are), I don’t really have any data on this. If somebody has some actual figures, please post them, otherwise its just baseless “anti big business” rhetoric.
So what about Napster? Let’s face it, most of us download songs from Napster because it’s FREE. Forget the “Napster is a tool to benefit the people” crap. I download songs from Napster because I want a copy of that song without paying for. I don’t intend to buy the CD. If I like the CD, I’ll download the whole damn thing and burn it to a $0.50 CD-R blank.
So am I wrong. Yes. However it isn’t that simple. The Internet and Napster has rendered many copyright laws irrelevant. Unlike making a tape copy, it’s now possible to make a copy that EVERYONE can access at zero cost.
DSYoung, you’re almost there, but lets take morality out of the picture. Let’s just look at it from a business perspective. Imagine Napster ran a device that made a perfect copy of ANYTHING at zero cost. Go out and buy a $45000 BMW? No, just borrow a friend’s and make a copy. Keep buying RiceARoni at the store. Nope, just buy one box and keep copying it. It would render our current economic system irrelevant. Manufacturing companies would complain and fight it for awhile. But once everyone realized you don’t need the traditional manufacturing - distribution - supply chain network, the entire system would change.
That’s what the Internet has done. Since you can now distribute an mp3 file (or any published work) to everyone for free, the whole ‘intelectual property’ business model will change.
You still need marketing though. People still have to find out what bands are out there. Concerts need to be promoted. Boy bands need teeny-boppers. In the end, both Napster and the record companies will probably become something very different from what they are now.
Easy. The Smashing Pumpkins gave away their final album, <i>Machina II</i>, on the Internet. Not that they’re going to starve as a result…
J.E.T.
I believe that Dave Mathews also released his latest album on the Internet before the CD came out.
But, as JET pointed out, these bands already have made it big.
I’m not sure how much Napster helps the little guy that no one has heard of.
Xerx,
Pleasure fighting ignorance with you, sir.
Msmith,
Of course, I know what intelectual property law is designed to do. I think i made myself pretty clear on why i think the law is headed for the trash heap. Do you have anything to say about my arguments? or just wanted to tell me I am wrong?
I guess, in case you missed it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, my point is that MOST BANDS ARE “JUST FIVE GUYS PRACTICING IN THIER DADS GARAGE, POSTING THIER MP3s ON THE INTERNET AND PLAYING COVERS AT LOCAL BARS”. The “rock star class” is an anomaly, the working clas or more often starving class or musician is far greater. Thats who I am interested in helping. I hate to write the same thing over again, so take a minute and look over the bottom quarter of the last page. Also the free digital music as a marketing tool arguement is n’t “bull shit” as I think i and many others can contest.
Scenario: I have the names of a number of bands in my AOL profile. Sometimes local bands search profiles for certain bnd names they feel thier band is similar to, and send an email to us. Usually this email includes gig date and time and a link to the bands IUMA, or Garageband page, or to Napster. I’ve actually discovered more than one band in this fashion. There also the simple and more common experience of reading the local music press, seeing a couple of show listings for a friday night, and having no other way to decide which band to check out, tada… you actually get to hear them and decide for yourself.
Have you been paying attention here? 95% of what you bring up has been discussed at length already. As for exploitation: I can’t really give you a figure or a cite, as the problem is that IMO, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY is vulgar excercize in exploitation of artists (not just young artists) for profit. It saw an exploitative opportunity in what used to be a disposable marketing tool and built a self serving empire around it.
The existence of the recording industry, by and large, doesn’t serve the interests of anybody except for the industry itself and a very very very select few artist who are fortunate enough to sell millions of records thanks to the labels promotional and marketing muscle. I’m really not even big business bashing so much, as arguing big business’ bottom line approach to selling art is and excercize in commodification, which i find offensive. Which is why I believe musicians are actually entertainers, and not property salesmen.
ack… I’ve said all this.
CJ
Premise: When buying a CD you buy, not a physical object, but a license to that recording for personal use, including, but not limited to, creation of a backup copy.
Given: [list=a][li]When purchasing a physical object, such as a chair, you are purchasing, not a license, but an item, and are free to use it for whatever purpose you like, within boundaries of law.[/li][li]When buying a computer program, you buy, not a physical object, but a license to that recording for personal use, including, but not limited to, creation of a backup copy.[/list=a][/li]
Evidence: [list=a]
[li]When a physical item becomes lost or damaged, you are not entititled to a replacement, as the item itself is what was purchased. A replacement copy must be purchased at full price.[/li][li]Limits are placed on the usage of a computer program, as what was purchased is a license to use it within the copyright owner’s specifications. In particular, copying, reverse-engineering, and modification are widely disallowed.[/li][li]When the physical copy of a computer program is lost or damaged, upon display of proof of purchase (such as a receipt or registration code), replacement media are available for little or no extra cost, because of the fact that the data on the media are what was purchased, and the media are only incidental to the transaction.[/li][li]Similar limits are placed on music purchases: No public performance, no copying, etc within the bounds of fair use.[/li][li]However, when a music CD becomes lost or damaged, an additional copy must be purchased at full cost. No replacement is available.[/li][/list=a]
Seems as though the record companies want it both ways: If your media become damaged, then you have purchased a physical object and not a license, therefore you must buy a new copy. However, if you choose to use your physical object as you see fit, then it is treated as though you have purchased a license to a recording. It is either one or the other. Why is it that record companies can treat their sales as though they have a “wave/particle duality” instead of being forced to make up their minds? It doesn’t and can’t work that way.
If it’s an object, then I can share, modify, or duplicate it at my whim. Otherwise, it’s a licensed performance and, having paid for it once, I am entitled to a new copy once mine wears out or is damaged, for price of shipping plus media. One or the other, not both.
If the record companies can violate copyright law by blocking fair use (not to mention the above items), then I have no sympathy when it comes to widespread civil disobedience.
So it’s basically a control issue. Fine, I can understand that. The record industry depends a lot on “blind” sales, where you buy a CD based solely on the marketing hype. You take the CD home, listen to it, and realize, “Ugh! This is total crap!” and either sell it off or file it away to never be listened to again. Doesn’t matter, the record company already got your money and is laughing all the way to the bank.
For indie/unsigned artists, it seems to be equivalent to regarding their music as their children. I’ve heard many wails and lamentations from indie musicians who discover one of their songs on Napster. Okay, I can understand where the emotion comes from, but part of me wants to ask…"If you didn’t want people to listen to your music, why did you record your music in the FIRST PLACE???"
I’m aware of that, thank you.
Huh??? I’ve downloaded THOUSANDS of mp3s, from Napster and other sources, from artists I had never heard of before! I discovered many, many talented bands that way, including a very good progressive rock band called Ayreon (and yes, I actually went out and bought some of their CDs, and recommend them to all my friends – buy Flight of the Migrator, it f*ckin’ rocks!!!)
How can you make this generalization? Metallica started their career as a garage band that gave out demo tapes and encouraged their fans to copy them and distribute them far and wide. Word of mouth spread, and they finally got signed to a major record label, and ultimately made millions of dollars. That’s how it starts. I’ll give that record companies are a necessary part of the equation for top-selling bands, as somebody has to take care of the marketing, promotion, and distribution of the music. My beef with them is that they take an unfairly large piece of the pie.
I download a lot of songs from Napster simply because there’s no other economical way of getting them. There used to be this thing called “Personics” whereby you could make your own cassette tape by choosing from a list of songs at approx. $1 each. Quite a deal, even if their selection was a bit limited. But they don’t exist anymore, and NOTHING comparable has taken their place (just look at the songs offered at CDNow’s “Make a Custom CD!” service. Pathetic.) Before Napster, I would buy a bunch of cheap, used CDs, burn the one or two songs I liked to a CDR, and sell off the original CDs. Napster just made it easier and cheaper.
However, if the record companies would offer a service allowing me to pick and choose exactly which songs I wanted, hell yeah I’d pay money for it. But I am certainly NOT going to spend $17.99 on a CD for one song. Maybe, after I win the lottery, I will. But not while I’m poor.
That’s an interesting analogy, but not entirely accurate. There are certain perks to buying an official CD – the packaging, mainly. Plus, the sound quality – a true audiophile such as myself can tell the difference between the source recording and even the most high-quality mp3. Granted, not everyone has “golden ears” like I do, or cares about flipping through the CD booklet while the music is playing, so you do have a valid point. So what the record companies need to do is provide incentive for paying for music over downloading it for free – aside from, “We won’t sue you,” of course. 
J.E.T.
Excellent point. Most software companies allow you to download free upgrades whenever improvements are made to their product. No such service exists for CDs, which is part of their marketing ploy. If a CD gets remastered, or reissued with bonus tracks, you have to pay for the new version. Tough noogies.
J.E.T.
Was it neccesary to say “Didn’t you know that?” at the end there? I haven’t looked at this thread in 36 hours, and it has grown immensly, and I have read none of he second-page posts, but come on SPOOFE. There is no way you can make a comparison like this…
Nhat are you talking about? No one, and I think this is the important part, is actually getting hurt through the process of mp3s and Napster. People’s music isn’t getting downloaded, and then "OMG, I am so hurt by that, I think I am gonna have to go into rehab…I will never be able to trust another guy! :eek:. Your arguement may be that “People are getting hurt because of the lost of a sale.”, but that is not true either. Sales are up, and that is a fact. The artists who are relying on the sale of a single CD are not the kinda artists that are showing up on Napster reguarly.
[QUOTE]
**
Get crackin’ through Audiofind or Scour.
**
[QUOTE]
I would be almost certain that someone as “deeply involved” in current affairs as yourself is, would know that scour is gone, and has been for around 6 months.
Joe_Cool,
Brilliantly stated, my friend, from beginning to end. I am humbled. And you give good computer advice…
CJ