Precision Image Calculation

Pardon me if I roll my eyes.

The recording insustry sucks, so that absolves you completely if you want to get free music. Lucky for you that it works out that way, huh? If only complex issues like abortion could have the clarity of intelectual property law. I may be guilty of the same crime, but it sounds like you just want easy answers.

Just cause you don't get in trouble for "stealing" music doesn't make it right. It doesn't necesarilly make it wrong either, but I'm pretty sure the artists whom you like to support by going to their concerts and by buying their swag, would also love it if you bought thier CD instead of shafting them big time.
If you want to fuck the industry, you'll also be fucking your favorite artists at the same time.

(I'll listen to the mp3 when I get home but I doubt it'll change my mind on this.)

From:

A "performance" includes radio, tv, film, internet and other broadcasts. Artists and songwriters deserve to get paid for their work when it is performed. And although you would not like to line Hillary Rosen's pockets, I sure would hope that you would line mine properly when one of my songs is a hit you want in your music collection. I am NOT a performer, yet people perform my songs. I deserve to be compensated properly for my music being purchased, downloaded, or broadcast. I enrich the quality of people's lives with my music (I hope). And I deserve to have my quality of life enriched by being compensated for my work.

From:

nfotxn.livejournal.com

There are contributing factors to my views. Firstly the cost of recording, distributing and generally having a record made is greatly reduced. Also I don't believe that recording == performance. A record is a thing and should be valued as such.

Do you really believe you $20 goes to the artist most of the time? Fuck man, it's probably closer to $1.50 at best. There's a breakdown of the standard record deal somewhere on salon.com, it's pretty tame. On the other hand a performance makes them a significant amount of money for a product that I think is a lot more valuable than another record.

What has to be understood is that the internet has utterly changed the cost of distribution and is in direct conflict with the traditional industry. The internet is superior in how it achieves certain aspects of distribution ie: scale and cost. It's like denying the printing press exists and that everybody still has to go to church to hear the bible read to them.

I'd listen to the mp3 regardless. Interesting fact: record sales declined %5 during a year that was a recessive across the board economically. The RIAA attributes it to p2p file sharing which traded 5x the volume of the actual records sold.

My statments about not buying records were a little off the cuff and harsh, I admit. I still buy the same amount actually and if I had more cash I'd buy even more. I think the aspect of freedom is more important here. I should be able to trade music online completely freely because it doesn't compete with record sales. I'm sure the numbers will continue to show this and infact p2p file sharing I think will ultimately benefit people and our econoy as a whole in the end.

From:

nfotxn.livejournal.com

Yeah, I sorta bumbled totally on that journal entry. What I was trying more to touch on was the freedom to express myself via somebody else's creation. Patent law and whatnot which is not so apparent in the world of music. I still think the cost of producing and distributing music has sunk dramatically and consumers need to be compensated accordingly. That digital distribution with fair rights of use has to happen sometime soon or else the whole industry will possibly suffer large ill-effects.

Like I said to Greg, it's like ignoring the printing press exists and that you still have to go to church to hear the bible read. Or else your somehow "stealing" from the priest. It's just not that way, things have changed. There could be alternate revenue systems for collecting royalties but they haven't materialized because nobody wants to change. Things are too lucrative. At the same time consumers are more savy than they're given credit for. Everybody knows paying $15 for an n'sync album is a total shaft, those boys are the virtual legion of producers, stylists, writers, correograhpers, aroma therapists, shiatsu masseurs and god knows what else are being paid handsomly.

The options the industry presents, of an electronic police state where every recording is managed by big brother and any software that alters, transmits or otherwise tampers with a precious recording is neutered or denied execution is not exactly the brave new world I want to live in. Culturally we're seeing DJs are artists sampling and remixing from all angles. There are new forms of music directly influenced by technology and digital distribution that can't exist under digital rights management law. Did we outlaw paints to the impressionists?

I think you have ever right to be paid but I think the present of purposed systems of copyright infringe on freedom.

From:

Like I said to Greg, it's like ignoring the printing press exists and that you still have to go to church to hear the bible read. Or else your somehow "stealing" from the priest.

True bro, but you still have to buy a copy of the bible to read it. Heh, Damn you! Actually that's an unfair example you're using there, cause the bible is in public domain, and thus can be accessed online, or you can go down to the airport and find several sweaty people with glazed expressions just handing it out to strangers. The Bible holds a special case because it is often printed with the intention for it to be given away at some point. I'm sure somebody makes money off the printing or something, but I've never bought a bible in my life and I have at least two.

But that does bring me to an important point. The Lessig lecture makes some good points about how the byzantine nature of copywrite law hampers creativity, and yes the Mickey Mouse extension is unfair and unjust, but I fail to see how that justifies you getting free music.

I'm currious how you connect the death of big label music to cheaper music. I can buy a N'Sync album for $15 and yeah it's a total screw job, but If I want an artist on an out of town, indie label I'll have to pay double. You may not dig on Def Jam, but they seem to get product out cheeper than Def Jux can. And I'll be honest, the reason I'm switching over to High Speed internet access is so I can get the FunCrusher Plus album without having to shell out 30 dollars to get it. $30? Fuck that!
However I'm fully aware that while I very much want my $30 and I very much want to listen to FunCrusher Plus a scheme which allows me to have both probably won't be "morally right" and will probably constitute "stealing". But nobody can stop me, so I don't care.

Let's break it down to basics.

If you get something for nothing
It was either a gift or you stole it
period
How many thank you cards do you plan to send out for all
the birthday presents that are cluttering up you hard drive?

Oh and the notion that an intangible experience is more valid a product than a physical object .... That's just wack.

From:

Do you really believe you $20 goes to the artist most of the time? Fuck man, it's probably closer to $1.50 at best. There's a breakdown of the standard record deal somewhere on salon.com, it's pretty tame. On the other hand a performance makes them a significant amount of money for a product that I think is a lot more valuable than another record.

I'm not going to be so neive as to suggest that the system is fair,
But if the artists get so little out of the deal
Why do they get so upset when we steal their songs?

From:

brucelloyd.livejournal.com

And I'll be honest, the reason I'm switching over to High Speed internet access is so I can get the FunCrusher Plus album without having to shell out 30 dollars to get it. $30? Fuck that!

You're going to spend $40+ to save $30?

As for the conversation - I say steal music. Steal everything. If artists are artists simply to make profit, then they're merely creative accountants.

From:

Hey buddy! What do you do for a living? Should you be expected to do it for free? Creative or not, you get paid for an hour's or day's work. Artists deserve to get paid for their work. Just because they enjoy what they do for a living doesn't give ANYONE the right to steal from them. And what's wrong with making a profit on their creative output? They aren't there to simply make a profit, but to make a living with their talents. I'll tell you, when done right, it beats the hell out of being a Dilbert in a cube.

From:

brucelloyd.livejournal.com

I'm a consultant for a small IT company. I get paid to listen to a bunch of whining 20-something brats bitch about how Quark doesn't work or how Illustrator crashes.

I will always steal music, that won't change. If you don't like that, then stop making it.

From:

Firstly, your printing press analogy is a little off because you have to purchase a bible to read it. I completely agree that there should be alternative revenue systems for collecting royalties. ASACP and BMI have actually been working on new systems of collection and distribution. Without them, songwriters like myself, wouldn't be able to collect our performance royalties correctly. When I've had music in a film or songs broadcast on the radio in 150 markets across several continents, it is WAY too overwhelming to consider tracking all the money down. My problem, and I can tell yours as well, is with the record companies. They've needed to secure digital distribution of music for nearly 10 years and all they've done is ignore the reality of the situation. It's a bit like when they killed vinyl off with the advent of the cd. They didn't need to do that because the penetration of cd players in the marketplace wasn't even 75% at the time. By not encrypting those cds from the start of the digital age, record companies have now put themselves at the mercy of bootleggers.

Now they're feeling the effect of p2p transfers. This is an issue I brought up 6 or 7 years ago when I worked for a label. Deaf ears all around. They were, and still are, resistant to the digital revolution. CD technology was revolutionary. MTV was revolutionary. Digital (mp3, p2p, etc.) is revolutionary. Record executives, both the old suits at the executive level who ignored digital technology and the young neophites without the education or experience of record business 101 (from publishing, to marketing, promotion, etc.), all think you just plug in the computer and it will sell the music itself. Foolish, narrow-minded, and ultimately, as you said, are about to bring the whole industry down with possibly irreparable ill-effects.

On to your bashing of *NSYNC. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the right to pick on the music they make (different strokes, pal) or put them in a place like David Gray (or any other supposed "righteous" or "correct" or "honest" performer) is not using the same video directors, styilsts, writers, shiatsu masseurs, etc. Of course, writers of the songs get paid what they get paid. A whole 7.2 cents per song! I won't spend it all in one place. If you have two writers on a song, they split that profit equally. The real big money is in performance royalties - radio, tv, internet play, etc. Agreed....a cd costs (with artwork included) about $1.00 to manufacture. A cd wholesales for around $11.00 which means a store marks up $3-$8 for their profit. Of that $11.00, $1.00 for manufacture (not including the actual recording and studio costs) and $1.00 for artist royalties, $9.00 is left to promote and market that cd. That costs about $4.00 on an average release. Now we're down to $5.00. These companies gotta keep the lights on and machine running. That's a lot of overhead. After all, cds aren't THAT expensive.

Of course, I agree with you that digital distribution would cut out about some costs. It doesn't lower the overhead costs much for a record company. I lowers the manufacturing costs. But the music still needs to be recorded and marketed. So the costs are still there.

Art is not for free. I'm sure you agree. You even have to (usually) pay to go to a museum. I don't see anyone balking at that cost. How about films? $100 million budgets? There are digital distribution issues there, as well. I'm not really fond of all the Robin Hood mentality of some people. I am not pointing a finger at you, because you actually have some of the info at hand to formulate an educated opinion. It helps to understand the deep layers of this issue other than "record companies suck". Yeah! So do most corporate entities. What else is new? Should everyone get free internet access just because everyone thinks it's too expensive?

By the way, I really love your glasses. I want a pair.

From:

WOW! Sounds like you're really thrilled with that job. I guess you're proud of depriving other people of the income that is rightfully theirs. Maybe the company you work for should take money out of your paycheck every week and see how you like it.

And your retort is incredibly childish. I don't like that you're admittedly stealing music. But I'm certainly not gonna let that stop me from the joy of making music. I can't think of a hotter guy I'd rather debate the topic. (Sorry, my libido is out of control today.) :)

From:

brucelloyd.livejournal.com

The company I do work for does take money out of my paycheque every week - on behalf of an arrogant, monopolistic government that does nothing for me. They steal from me daily. You can't tell me that the creative process doesn't involve "stealing" concepts and ideas from other musicians and artists. Either you're stealing property or you're stealing ideas - it boils down to theft. Picasso said good artist copy, but great artists steal.

As for the musicians out there who I do steal music from, I'm surprised many of them can sit from being punished fucked by their labels on a daily basis. The real crooks aren't people like me who find paying anything above $5 for a piece of plastic outrageous, but the recording industry that holds on to some archaic concept of music publication with little or no regard for the artists.

Artists are no more than the puppets of filthy rich recording execs and the treasure chest of my extensive MP3 collection.

From:

loganbeary.livejournal.com

Has anyone commenting here actually listened to the mp3?

Besides me and Brodie that is?

Read my thoughts on this subject (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?journal=loganbeary&itemid=49166) in my journal if you care.

From:

Your heated argument would hold water if any meaningful percentage of the price of a CD went to the artist. It doesn't. It goes, as Brody indicated, to line the pockets of RIAA managers and staffers. As long as RIAA persists in its delusion that US$20 is a reasonable price for a CD, people will continue to vote with their wallets...and their computers. Personally, I think it's terrific that every time the RIAA and its associates and affiliates come up with some new "uncrackable" copy-protection scheme, it never lasts more than a week or two before it's dead-dead-dead. The thing is, these worthless CP schemes and RIAA's endless lawsuits and PR campaigns are what is funded by the $20 price of a CD. Me, I'm proud of the fact I can't remember the last CD I bought.

And I'm betting it'll be a very long time before I buy my next one.

From:

Why do they get so upset when we steal their songs?

"They" don't. A few vocal artists, probably put up to their vocality by the RIAA, bitch and moan about it.

From:

Artists and songwriters deserve to get paid for their work

Absolutely! You bet! And with the continued end-run around RIAA, perhaps enough artists will tell the RIAA to go pound sand that a new system will come about. I've never believed that doing something the wrong way is better than not doing it at all.

From:

If artists are artists simply to make profit, then they're merely creative accountants.

BRAVO!!!!!! *thundrous applause*

From:

Creative or not, you get paid for an hour's or day's work.

Ayup. And if the union or organisation that speaks for you (e.g. RIAA) is doing a shitty, hamfisted job of creating market conditions that discourage the freeloading of your work, and is failing to funnel enough of their profits back to your pockets, then it's time to get someone else to speak for you. Simple as that.

From:

My problem, and I can tell yours as well, is with the record companies.

And continuing to support the record companies (RIAA) by buying $20 CDs full of pap whipped up using nothing more than a gaggle of photogenic pretend-badass-dudes and a vocoder would only be prolonging and exacerbating the problem. The only effective way to apply leverage to the RIAA is to stop buying their product.

They've needed to secure digital distribution of music for nearly 10 years and all they've done is ignore the reality of the situation.

Yep, they've failed. And it's their own stupid fault. I don't like to reward stupidity with money. The market decides their system is crap, and does an end run around it.

By not encrypting those cds from the start of the digital age

The "stick" approach like this has never worked. It doesn't work for software, and it doesn't work for music. Encryption is irrelevant, because it's easy to get around. I don't know how, personally, but there are plenty of people who do. Trying to devise effective music encryption is a pointless waste of money.

No, the "carrot" approach is vastly superior. Offer me twenty clams' worth of value , and I'll consider buying a twenty-dollar CD. It's like books. Nobody photocopies books to read, they buy them. Why? Because they offer value for the dollar.

Now they're feeling the effect of p2p transfers. This is an issue I brought up 6 or 7 years ago when I worked for a label. Deaf ears all around. They were, and still are, resistant to the digital revolution.

The results, then, are their own stupid fault. It's a shame the artists will feel the pinch from the industry's stupidity, but they're already getting shafted by the industry, so in the long run it'll have to lead to a new kind of industry.

Record executives, both the old suits at the executive level who ignored digital technology and the young neophites without the education or experience of record business 101 (from publishing, to marketing, promotion, etc.),

Given how badly the industry is "broken", I don't think indoctrinating new people into its ways is likely to have any positive outcome.

about to bring the whole industry down

Vive la revolution!

with possibly irreparable ill-effects.

People will make music, and other people will want it. Therefore, there will always be a music industry.

On to your bashing of *NSYNC. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the right to pick on the music they make

I think you missed his point. NSYNC is just another inisipid plastic groupoid, the talentless creation of a record label, nothing but a vacuous marketing tool to rake-in profits, $20 disc by $20 disc. It's been going on for decades. Spice Girls...New Kids on the Block...the Monkees...these kinds of groups differ from individuals or groups with actual talent. While I feel for the legitimately talented artist's plight, I have no problem whatsoever reducing the profitmongering effectiveness of ploys like NSYNC by refusing to buy-into it (or buy it). Acts like these constitute an insult to the intelligence of anyone with more than one operating brain cell.

These companies gotta keep the lights on and machine running. That's a lot of overhead.

Then the overhead needs to be reduced. Fewer high-bucks bashes. Fewer limousines. Fewer shiatsu massages. As Grizz416 put it, if somebody is an artist solely for the profits and perks...

You even have to (usually) pay to go to a museum. I don't see anyone balking at that cost.

Because you get your money's worth.

How about films? $100 million budgets?

Another industry I try very hard not to support...

From:

Actually it's not all that heated. I was for the most part arguing that Brodie's assumption that downloading music is completely justified was on pretty shakey ground. I don't think he should stop downloading though, I mean cause I'm not going to so why should he.

but back to the point you made..

This is what El-P has to say on the subject. He basicly runs his own small label. I can only assume he isn't cheating himself out of his own money. I mean it's possible, but I doubt it.

So all of a sudden, as an artist, you get into some weird questions about the relationship between yourself and your fans. A lot of the fans don't understand the industry and how the business works. They don't understand how if affects your relationship with retail if you don't sell a certain percentage of your initial shipment in the first couple of weeks, which therefore affects how much money you get for distribution, which affects the amount of records you can put out in a year, which affects what you can do for the records. But people are a little too quick to expound on their own perception or philosophy of how it helps or doesn't help.
(...)
If you want people like Can Ox and Aesop Rock to be able to release records and keep doing their thing, then you can't do that because it's a relationship between us - us and the fan, us and the consumer. We hold our end up, we're respectful to you, we put out the best music we can in the best way and we bust our asses to make it available to you. The least you can do it help us if you care. But in the end it's not that big of a deal, you know what I'm saying? I'm just gonna put annoying voices on my press advances.

From: