John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong

from the good-for-him dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the story about how John Perry Barlow went to the e-G8 event and got to sit on a panel with some copyright maximalists, and explained to them how they are arguing about the wrong thing:
I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call “intellectual property.” I don’t regard my expression as a form of property. Property is something that can be taken from me. If I don’t have it, somebody else does.

Expression is not like that. The notion that expression is like that is entirely a consequence of taking a system of expression and transporting it around, which was necessary before there was the internet, which has the capacity to do this infinitely at almost no cost.
He later added the key point, that everyone else who was on the panel weren't creators themselves, but were those who made their living off of creators, stating he wanted to focus on “incentivizing creativity by people who create things, and not large institutions who prey on them and have for years.”

Of course, this left his fellow panelists stumbling around a bit to defend their positions.
Jim Gianopulos of 20th Century Fox shot back that “no one’s going to argue against free speech,” if “free speech” means that someone takes a video camera and makes a movie on any subject he or she wants. But when “speech” is defined as sharing copyrighted works?

“Speech has to be free but movies cost money,” he said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn’t see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films.

Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterand took Barlow to task for his dramatic statements. “I do not share this apocalyptic vision of some dictatorship that will be creeping back through the internet into our lives to control our thoughts and the way in which we function,” he said. Some controls on the internet are eminently reasonable—we need “economic solutions to economic problems.”

The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent. DIdn’t Barlow understand economics?
Of course, Barlow understands economics much better than the others on the panel. The problem is that these guys seem to think that the only way to make money is through greater protectionism and treating content as property that needs an artificial scarcity. The whole point of what Barlow was saying was that this is simply not true. It's a fundamental assumption these guys are making that is false.

I actually see this all the time in these debates and it's immensely frustrating. When people like myself and others talk about why copyright is not that important, and that there are all sorts of other ways to make money, we're always hit back with the "but it costs money to make this stuff!" Those who suck off the teat of the old system are so fundamentally wedded to the idea that you must have copyright to make money that they entirely miss the fact that we are talking about ways to make money. Their brains simply default to "no copyright = no money," and thus, to them the argument "but these things cost money to make" makes sense. But that's only true if they don't hear what we say, and don't realize that we are talking about ways to make money -- just without relying on copyright to do so.

Kudos to Barlow for pointing much of this out -- though, it doesn't appear that his points sunk in.

On a separate note, the article points out that other digital thought leaders and activists urged Barlow not to go to the e-G8, because of concerns about how it was set up as a way for governments and companies to come together to regulate the internet to protect old business models and to stomp out speech they don't like.

I have to point out that I think it's silly, dangerous and wrong to suggest folks like Barlow should not participate in these sorts of meetings. If anything, it's better that he and others go and make their voices heard. Otherwise, these people don't hear the other viewpoints, and they assume -- falsely -- that they're right and that everyone agrees with them.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:04am

    If anything, it's better that he and others go and make their voices heard. Otherwise, these people don't hear the other viewpoints, and they assume -- falsely -- that they're right and that everyone agrees with them.

    Just as often, they'll continue assuming they're right and that "who-let-him-in" is just some sort of possible dangerous outlier.

    They'll assume that here as well. I'm guessing the maximalists are firing up their keyboards as we "speak," readying some sort of entitlement word dump and otherwise making angry noises at all of the "who-let-him/her-in" outliers that reside here in the Masnick Echo Chamber (patent pending).

    "But if we can't make money the way we used to, we'll never be able to make any money."

    Whatever.

    AT&T used to make most of their money on landlines. Everything changed and yet they still make money. (Snark insert: they've just shifted their monopoly.) It's weird, but it's been known to happen. Your usual outlets get shut down but new opportunities open up.

    Blockbuster used to make money renting videos. Now they don't because they thought that was used to work would always work and reacted years after it was apparent to others that the rental business needed to change drastically. That's your maximalist thinking. Hold onto a certain viewpoint until it bankrupts you. At that point, you're more than welcome to start pointing accusing fingers at everybody else (pirates!) for killing your dreams.

    Sad thing is, Blockbuster didn't even need to compete with free. Netflix was charging money for their service. Red Box charges for their rentals. They had at least one leg up on most of these maximalists and yet, they still decided to do too little way too late.

    Do you still want to sit around complaining that the world isn't fair? If you had parents, you've probably known this since age 5. Try to make what's working work for you. Stop trying to control all those things you can't. You're wasting time, and that's the most precious commodity you have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:52am

      Re:

      I'm guessing the maximalists are firing up their keyboards as we "speak," readying some sort of entitlement word dump and otherwise making angry noises

      What you can expect. Let me summarize to save them the time:
      * Everyone is a pirate. This is a pirate blog. Etc. Same old, same old.
      * Change the subject. Introduce irrelevancies and red herrings.
      * Name calling. Freetards. Pirates. Theft. etc., etc.
      * I just don't see it. I just don't get it.
      * Straw man arguments. Let me describe my ideal evil monster, and then watch me knock it down!
      * Call for an analogy that involves illegal activity -- even though nobody else is talking about illegal activity. (It's a higher level implied form of name calling.)

      What you won't hear:
      * Actual substantive debate about the subject.
      * Reasoned arguments. Logical. Coherent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:50am

        Re: Re:

        Apparently they are trying a new angle today:

        Why are you anti-choice!?!

        Why do you hate freedom so much!!!111

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes. Anti choice. A bit rich coming from monopolists and monopolist supporters and mouthpieces.

          How dare I talk about it when I'm not paid by a monopolist to be their mouthpiece!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:36am

        Re: Re:

        Damn you for making sense and deflating all the anti-arguments! Now how can we sharpen our wit and logic by deflating their egos? Travesty. TRAVESTY I SAY!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Killer_Tofu (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:05am

      Re:

      Try to make what's working work for you. Stop trying to control all those things you can't.

      I believe this is part of the problem. They made enough money form the old systems, and are so closed to those making the laws that they actually can control where these laws go to an extent. I believe that is a rather large problem for the American public (and it appears foreign web site owners who registered a .com domain too).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:26am

        Re: Re:

        that they actually can control where these laws go to an extent.

        Controlling the law isn't controlling reality. The illusion (delusion) of controlling politicians and the law doesn't mean you can control the tide.

        Sure, those laws will have an effect. They'll manage to kill off some smart start-ups and throw some pirates in jail and alienate (sue) many of their customers. Maybe they'll even manage to break some of the foundations of the internet (and force it to adapt less breakable methods).

        It won't last.

        At some point, whether its in 2, 5, or 20 years, in order to hold on to their business models, they'll need some law that even our bought politicians will balk at. Maybe it will be jail time for downloaders. Maybe it will be to cut off diplomatic ties to a country that has created a data haven. Maybe it will be restrictions on speech that even the bought politician can see is truly a restriction. Or something else we can't quite imagine yet. But there is a limit.

        Its not whether the legacy business model will survive, nor even how long they will survive - its whether the companies trying to survive will be able to make any semblance of a transition or will just collapse one day like Enron or Bear Stearns.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Killer_Tofu (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 12:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It is that transition period that I see as a problem. There is no reason the public as a whole should have to suffer because some rich people are being whiny bit**es.

          I can only thank his noodly goodness that they cannot control reality.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:24am

    "The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent."

    This argument again?

    Waah Waah! It cost money to make business! Waaah! Gives us special privileges! Waaah!

    It's ridiculous. There are a ton of more important businesses that cost lot of money to develop and maintain, and you don't see anyone give them a handout.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      adrian, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:09am

      Re:

      lots of people get handouts. there are the massive subsidies in the US for farmers, the auto industry, etc.... patent rights for drug & software companies, etc...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:32am

      Re:

      If a business is being adversely affected by lawbreakers, of course they are going to ask the government for assistance in dealing with the problem.

      Why shouldn't they? I don't understand why you people whine about this so much.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:02am

        Re: Re:

        Why is copyright infringement against the law again?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:33am

        Re: Re:

        What if your business is NOT being affected by lawbreakers?

        What if it's being affected by something you refuse to see and "piracy" is just a convenient excuse.

        I wish we could wipe out all piracy. Then you'd have to face reality. I don't want your content.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What if your business is NOT being affected by lawbreakers? What if it's being affected by something you refuse to see and "piracy" is just a convenient excuse.


          What if you came up with some examples?

          I don't want your content.

          Then you have nothing to worry about. Why are you so angry then?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Because the entertainment companies are making decisions that affect everybody, even people who don't want their products. The DMCA has been used to suppress legitimate free speech not relating to copyright violations of movies or music, even though it was the entertainment companies who pushed for the bill.

            Right now, the RIAA is pushing for oversight over online music lockers, even though their content is not the only music out there. I have a music locker full of creative commons licensed music that I'm free to distribute without fear of a lawsuit, but just because the RIAA thinks that their content is the reason the internet is so popular these days and they are the source of music without which music would not exist, they want to cripple what I can do with that service and they want to be able to snoop into what I'm listening to as if they have a right.

            The entertainment companies think more legislation will just ensure their profits but they don't seem to either realize or care that they're setting up an authoritarian government structure that can be used for suppressing human rights. They want deep packet sniffing to root out copyright infringement online, but oppressive governments will use the same thing to suppress insurrection and to arrest, torture, and/or kill dissidents. This shit matters. Corporate profits for companies that willingly use government corruption for the sake of their wealthy shareholders do not matter.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.

              If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.

              I wish you the very best of luck with that.

              The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it.

              Please don't play dumb.

              If the cyber-lockers want to stay in business, they need to take action and get legal.

              If they can't, tough.

              Adapt or die, as you would say.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                xebikr (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.

                There is already a system for enforcement in place. They want new ones. New horrible overreaching entirely unworkable and completely useless ones. They actually believe that if they are given the entire resources of the US (and others) government, they can win this war on piracy! Just like we won the war on drugs! Except the property is intangible and near impossible to track. Hmm..

                If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.

                I've tried that. I just get a form letter back. If I ever have a few spare million dollars to hire lobbiest, you can bet I'll do just that.

                Please don't play dumb.

                Why not? Don't you want someone to play with?

                Adapt or die, as you would say.

                Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!111! Repeating back thing that we say is not the same thing as understanding them. (Ha ha ha!!! I'm still laughing at this one!!! :D )

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.

                Captain obvious is that you?
                f you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.

                I wish you the very best of luck with that.

                What do you think people are doing? Not only have you not presented any arguments that back up what you say, you absolutely refuse to do so, instead preferring to make obvious statements of fact that have no bearing on discussions of actual practicality, morality or really anything else.

                When you can present an argument that morally justifies why copyright should last after an authors death, why piracy justifies spying and censorship with little to no oversight, or even present one that directly refutes John Perry Barlow in this very article (an artist on whose behalf you apparently speak) feel free to make one.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So you're trying to get copyright off the books?

                  Have you noticed that you're failing miserably and have no chance of ever succeeding?

                  Have you noticed that the reason you're ignored is that you are just as greedy as the people you are accusing of being greedy? And that's why no one takes you seriously and laughs at you behind your back?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 11:23am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Is that why you're unable to posit even one remotely in-depth answer justifying the need for copyright?

                    Is that why you completely changed the topic of discussion to plain insults?

                    Why are you so against against artists like John Perry Barlow who see copyright as having gone too far?

                    Why are you against personal privacy? Why do you find censorship so agreeable because a college student downloaded Avatar?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "So you're trying to get pirating off the internet.

                    Have you noticed that you're failing miserably and have no chance of ever succeeding?

                    Have you noticed that the reason you're ignored is that you are just as greedy as the people you are accusing of being greedy? And that's why no one takes you seriously and laughs at you behind your back?"

                    you are just full of irony today arnt you?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:59am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.

                Unfortunately they don't like actually having to police their content because that effects their bottom line. They want other companies (ISPs, google, ect) to do it for them. They also don't want any oversight on their accusations. And who the hell cares if these new laws end up hampering free speech or negatively effecting musicians and artists who do not use the dinosaur businesses.


                If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books. I would recommend starting a non-profit and sinking millions in funding into it for questionable studies and out right lying, I mean lobbying.
                I wish you the very best of luck with that.

                The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it. So because something has illegitimate uses we should over regulate it so it can't be used for legitimate purposes as well. Like the VCR or blank cds, if we had stopped those as we planned no one would know the difference.

                Please don't play dumb. That is my job.

                If the dinosaur music companies want to stay in business, they need to take action and get to innovating.

                If they can't, they can spend millions of dollars lying to the government to make sure their outdated business model stays insanely profitable despite market demand and the will of consumers.

                Adapt or create laws to stifle speech and inovation, as you would say."


                Fixed a few grammar things for you.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                MrWilson, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law."

                But they don't have the right to corrupt democratic processes or pay for legislation. They don't have the right to subvert human rights for their profit motive. This isn't about corporations getting paid. This is about human beings having their rights suppressed. I'm not talking about copyright violation. I'm talking about the laws that these companies are pushing for (or have already gotten passed) that undermine the free speech of political dissidents and activists. I'm talking about IP laws that let people die because the pharmaceutical companies want poor people to pay money they don't have for life-saving medication. You keep spouting off about piracy and you're just arguing for rich people to get richer. You haven't addressed the human rights issues at all. If you ignore them, they'll just go away, right?

                "If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books."

                Ah, the refuge of the entrenched status quo lover. If my elected representative actually represented me, that might be an effective course of action. Of course you'd disingenuously say, "good luck." You know that the system is so corrupt and so heavily influenced by the suits at the companies that no grassroots campaigns or efforts are going to overcome all the money in campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door. Give me a real solution for changing a corrupt system that doesn't involve violence and you'll be heralded as the next political genius of our time.

                "The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it.

                Please don't play dumb."

                Argumentum ad populum

                "If the cyber-lockers want to stay in business, they need to take action and get legal."

                Are bus station lockers illegal? I can store a murder weapon or stolen property in a bus station locker.

                How a customer makes use of a tool or a service does not make the tool or the service illegal. The music lockers are already legal. They don't need to do anything.

                "If they can't, tough.

                Adapt or die, as you would say."

                The music locker services did adapt. They created a business model and provided services that were in demand from customers. It's the music companies that have failed to adapt. Why didn't they innovate online music in the early 2000's? Why aren't they creating their own music locker services where they can make sure the content is legal? They can't because they can't adapt. They can't give the consumers what they want. They are stuck with their heads up their asses and back in the 20th Century and want the golden days of manipulated high prices on albums full of filler content and physical media and payola schemes.

                But what is worse is that, as I have said and you have not addressed, they're fucking over the people who want nothing to do with them. They're screwing over our political system with their twisted laws and pretending it only affects their bottom line rather than people's lives. If you can't address this issue and are only going to spout more about piracy, don't bother. We've heard your "but... but... piracy" arguments before.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:30am

    Why are you people so anti-choice? Yes, the internet provides a way to DIY if you choose, but labels and studios provide services and opportunities if you don't.

    Why are you trying to force everyone to work in the manner *you* think they should?

    That's not right and your attitude will not succeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:34am

      Re:

      You do not see the elephant in the room?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:58am

        Re: Re:

        They see the elephant. But like a deer in the headlights, they are frightened stiff. Too afraid to do anything constructive or productive. Just stare and stand there to get run over.

        No. Nosiree. Can't allow digital downloads at a reasonable price -- that might hurt the sales of 25 cent round flat pieces of plastic and glossy cardboard.

        Just like the 1970's vinyl records and home recording to cassette tapes -- can't have people listening to music in their cars, walkmans, etc. (Today substitute CD's, mp3 players, phones, cars, etc.)

        The VCR is the biggest threat to recorded music. (Photocopier, radio, printing press, etc.)

        Prediction: once they eventually are forced to embrace change and are making money (if that actually happens), then the next big innovation will be the biggest threat, and what they are resisting today will be the biggest moneymaker.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:44am

      Re:

      but labels and studios provide services and opportunities

      Services: hollywood accounting so a movie with over a billion dollars in revenue is not profitable.

      Opportunities: to screw both the artist and the consumer. Opportunities for legislators to get rich.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:48am

      Re:

      No one is forcing anyone to do this, however there are developing number of different ways to do this at cheaper cost, not handing over ownership of content. New more efficent ways which big companies many not be able to keep up with.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:57am

      Re:

      The Big Three labels, in their current incarnation, need to die. This is not because of a relentless hatred for these companies, but because it is essential to the content industry's continued relevance.

      It is very important that you do not misrepresent the nature of this blog; it has repeatedly offered potential new revenue streams. People like myself write to these companies on a weekly basis to explain why, in our collective opinions, their attitude is wrong.

      A refusal to acknowledge that there may be soemthing in our collective words means that they become increasingly less relevant, and are litigtating their way into obscurity.

      MArk my words; there will be a reckoning and soon. And the men in suits will become either extinct or be taken off in the funny white coats.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:28am

        Re: Re:

        The major labels aren't going to die, sorry.

        Anyway, again, why are you so anti-choice? Why are you insisting other people must act the way *you* want them to act?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The major labels are anti-choice. They insist that other people must act the way *they* want them to act.

          For example, the major labels are so against even the very idea that there are other ways to distribute, sell and profit from music (or any other content) that they will come to a forum like this to fight the very suggestion of alternatives.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't work for the major labels or RIAA, sorry.

            You *are* anti-choice.

            An artist doesn't have to sign to a major label if they don't want to; they could sign to an indie or try to go DIY on the internet.

            But you want to remove those choices and have them only work the way *you* want them to. Why do you think *you* have the right to dictate that?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              cc (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But who decides what the choices are? The artists? The labels? The legislators?

              NO. It's the market that should decide. It should NOT be up to the artists, labels and legislators to force specific business models on the market, it should be up to the market to accept or reject business models.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:33am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Saying the market is also just another way of saying the public. Guess how awesome art is without an audience?

                Oh that's right, you can't have art without an audience. Which is why the public should be treated like thieves in the night. This makes perfect sense.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                uh no. Artists are not indentured servants. Sorry.

                They get to decide.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:41am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yep. And a lot of artists are deciding NOT to sign to major labels. So the majors (EMI, Sony, etc) are dying because they're litigating, not competing, with the new labels that aren't afraid to fileshare, use bittorrent, and Youtube to success.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:54am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  We are all indentured servants to reality. If nobody wants to pay you for your art then you better find a better way to survive.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Any Mouse (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:40am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Of course they get to decide, but that decision is 'do I want to do what the public will pay for, and be able to put food on my table,' or 'do I want to just do what I want to do and risk obscurity?'

                  See? Decisions! The market WILL help you decide what you SHOULD do.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  cc (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:43am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Don't like what the market wants? Then don't enter it. Forcing an unwanted business model on the market is not acceptable nor sustainable, sorry.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:59am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    There's nothing unwanted or unsustainable about record labels.

                    Artists want to sign with them, and people want to buy their releases.

                    They just don't like people taking their creations without paying. Hardly anything wrong with wanting to stop that.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:14am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "There's nothing unwanted or unsustainable about record labels."

                      DRM, Rootkits, attempts to remake the same dollar on various formats over and over...

                      "Artists want to sign with them, and people want to buy their releases."

                      Please stop talking for all artists. You will appear uninformed

                      "They just don't like people taking their creations without paying. Hardly anything wrong with wanting to stop that."

                      Please stop talking for artists.

                      You will appear uninformed

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      cc (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:14am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      More and more new artists are keeping away from the labels, many existing musicians are dropping out. People aren't buying their releases and the size of the recording industry is shrinking even though there's demand for music the overall music industry is growing.

                      In your frenzy to stop unauthorized copies, you are buying laws that conflict with the privacy, speech and property rights of everyone and you are bringing internet surveillance and censorship through the backdoor.

                      You are trying to stifle a multi-trillion technology to sustain your ancient copy-selling business -- how long can that go on?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 2:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Goo Goo Dolls singer John Rzeznik:

                  "It’s the artists that are the last ones to get paid and we get paid the least of anybody in the chain. Our last record sold maybe 800,000 copies – we didn’t make any money. None. Not one penny from record sales."

                  Let see thats at least $8,000,000 for the label and 0 for the artist. Sounds a little like indentured servitude to me.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    The Goo Goo Dolls made no money on that record because they chose to take a giant advance, and use it on studios that were too expensive and a producer that was too expensive. They thought it would go triple platinum like their previous album did, but it only went gold.

                    And of course, since you know you have no leg to stand on, you had to quote out of context. Way to go scumbag.

                    "I think with iTunes more and more people actually spend a buck. I do it every day. It’s a buck. Please, just give us a buck! I don’t agree with (file sharing). I do think that it’s wrong. I did this work and I deserve to get paid for it. There was a time when I would never have said that. What people have got to remember is it’s really fun to take down The Man but The Man will always be there. It’s the artists that are the last ones to get paid and we get paid the least of anybody in the chain. Our last record (Gutterflower) sold maybe 800,000 copies – we didn’t make any money. None. None. Not one penny from record sales. Imagine if we weren’t able to go out and tour and make money on tour. What would we have done? We would have had a gold record and go out and get jobs."

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How exactly am I anti choice?

              I am not in favor of removing anyone's choice.

              As for the labels, they are doing a fine job of removing themselves. I'm not doing it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The major labels aren't going to die, sorry.

          Absolutely they will.

          Look at a list to the ten biggest companies of 100 years ago.

          How many of them even exist now?

          How many have survived without a radical change in their main business?

          Companies are by their nature short lived (unless they are bell foundries). All companies will die - most of them fairly soon - no special analysis is needed for that point.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2011 @ 12:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sony was founded in 1945.

            EMI was founded in 1931.

            Universal was founded in 1912.

            Warner Brothers was founded in 1904.

            107 years ago.

            Wanna try again?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chosen Reject (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          When run a business, you must act in a way that makes your customers happy, otherwise your customers go elsewhere. This is a fundamental law. It's like nature. In fact, it is nature.

          The dinosaurs might have stood up and shouted at their environment demanding it not get hot or cold or whatever it was that killed them off, but nature didn't care. It changed anyway. They had a good run, those dinos did. Some hundreds of millions of years. Some of them adapted, which is why we have birds. The ones that didn't we go see in museums.

          Similarly, customers don't care what a business stands up and shouts about, if their preferences have changed, they've changed. The business can adapt and survive, or it can relegate itself to being a relic in a museum somewhere.

          I can hear your rebuttal now. "Customers are only happy if businesses give everything away for free" or some other nonsensical drivel. I'm going to buy a harddrive soon. Sure it'd make me ecstatic to get it free. But I'm also perfectly happy to spend a fair amount of money on it. It's called a fair exchange. I'm willing to give up X amount of money for a harddrive. Newegg is willing to give up a harddrive for a Y amount of money. So long as X >= Y, we can both be happy. Obviously the lower the price, the happier I'll be, and the higher the price the happier Newegg will be, but just because you could have been happier, doesn't mean you aren't happy.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Note that I said "The big Three labels, in their current incarnation". I did not say "all record labels".

          1/10.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PrometheeFeu (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:29am

        Re: Re:

        "The Big Three labels, in their current incarnation, need to die. This is not because of a relentless hatred for these companies, but because it is essential to the content industry's continued relevance."

        Actually, at this point, I'm pretty sure there is some relentless hatred from many of us who are tired of being screwed over and over again.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          How have the major labels "screwed you over"?

          You personally; examples please.

          No one forces you to buy their product.

          In fact, if you have ripped off their product, are you not a massive hypocrite?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You personally; examples please.

            I, personally, have:

            -Lost money when software I legally bought and paid for stopped working because the company which made it was sued out of existence (321 Studios).

            -Spent hours of my own personal time rebuilding and reimaging my own and others people's computer that have been messed up by various forms of DRM (mostly screwed up installs of SecureROM).

            -Spent 2 hours recovering someone's iTunes library when their hard drive died because of Apple's agreement with the labels to not allow redownloading of already paid for tracks.



            Those are specific examples I can point to that have personally happened to me. Not in that list are theoretical savings of time and money that I was never able to have because the labels/studios killed off (or discouraged from even existing) products and services that would have benefited me.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:08am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What an incredibly weak response.

              The major labels aren't responsible for a DVD-copying software company being sued.

              The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product.

              The major labels aren't responsible for someone's hard drive dying. As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?

              These are the type of weak rebuttals that have become the norm for you self-entitled types.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:30am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "The major labels aren't responsible for a DVD-copying software company being sued."

                Actually, they are. Link

                "The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product."

                Again with being obtuse? Why not follow what he's saying instead of your incredibly weak link to major labels.

                He's talking about how he had to uninstall and reinstall games with Securom, which probably stopped him from getting games with that publisher in the future. On top of that, he had to fix other people's computers because oh hey, they decided they wanted to "protect their property"

                Yeah, protect their property but lose a customer to BS. Securom is still controversial, with a number of people not paying for the game. Especially when a great alternative or two exists.

                " As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?"

                You seem to be ignorant of a few issues here. Apple's music format used to be proprietary. Using the AAC format, it could ONLY be used on Apple's iPod. Since he only had one license Apple wouldn't allow him to reupload what he bought.

                Now, if you could only sit down on your chair 5 times before it disappeared, are you telling me you wouldn't find a way to get a chair that is more permanent? There's legal and illegal ways to do it. Figure that one out for yourself.

                (Speaking of which, if you only license music from Apple iTunes, instead of selling music, there's a problem with how iTunes works)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "self-entitled types."

                Pot meet kettle.

                Pot: "Hey you're black."

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "The major labels aren't responsible for someone's hard drive dying. As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?"

                No but they are responsible for not allowing him to redownload his already purchased music. Why shouldn't he be able to expect a new copy if something goes wrong with the one he paid for? Its not like it costs anything for the new copy, except a little bandwidth. Especially since they are trying as hard as possible to keep people from making copies of their music with DRM and shutting down cyberlockers. There is no "burden" to apple to allow him to have what he already bought without having to buy it again.
                Hard drives fail, since you don't want us to be able to make copies wouldn't it make sense to allow us to redownload?

                Why do you expect him to keep paying over and over again for the same thing? Sounds like typical self-entitled douche response who thinks he should keep getting paid for the same thing by the same customer.

                Why do you expect that you can give a customer a horrible experience and not have him seek alternative ways of getting what he wants without all the hassle and the risk of his product literally disappearing?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                techflaws.org (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                What an incredibly weak response.

                More insightful than anything you've come up so far. Sorry.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                What an incredibly weak response.

                You asked for personal examples. I supplied them. You have been asked many times for specific evidence or examples supporting your views, yet never, not once have supplied any. If I'm wrong, please direct me to those posts. Put up, or shut up.

                The major labels aren't responsible for a DVD-copying software company being sued.

                What law did MGM use to sue 321 Studios out of existence? The DMCA - specifically the anti-circumvention part. Who was the driving force behind that law in the 90s? The music labels.

                Besides, the major labels, movie studios and game studios are all effectively the same monster. They have the same mindset, their execs all play musical chairs, they all lobby for the same things and are part of same and similar trade groups.

                The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product.

                Again, same mindset. The belief that in order to "protect IP" they need to (many times secretively) install software specifically designed to break functions of a computer. Who else does this? It couldn't be Sony, they would never install a rootkit, would they?

                As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?

                Was actually my girlfriend's roommate's drive, but that's immaterial. Shift the burden? What burden? So Apple doesn't have a database of what users buy which tracks? They certainly had to have authentication servers with those lists when this happened, back in the AAC days. I expect infinite copies because that's what the internet allows at near zero cost. No extra effort and no extra cost to provide an excellent service for users stopped because of the label's fear. That's the whole point.

                Mostly these personal examples are weak because I learned very early on not to pay money or waste time with broken products. Other people aren't so lucky. What happened to customers who bought products using Microsoft's "PlaysForSure" tech? They got screwed. Walmart's online music store? Screwed. I can't keep track of how many music stores and services that require authentication to tracks at certain points have failed. Rhapsody and Napster if they haven't failed yet, will. Users will be screwed. That's just music. Blu-ray players that are getting bricked or newer movies not playing on them? Users got screwed. All those Sony PSN users who couldn't even play single player or activate parts of their game when the network was down? Screwed. Dragon Age Origin players at launch? Screwed. blah. Screwed. blah blah. Screwed. blah. Screwed.

                All for imaginary property.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            charliebrown (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "No one forces you to buy their product."

            No but if you want to legally obtain said product, such as a CD of an album which is controlled by a major label, you are forced to buy their product or go without.

            "How have the major labels 'screwed you over'?

            You personally; examples please."

            Examples of how I have been screwed over by the labels:

            I purchased a copy of Lily Allen's album "Alright Still" (on EMI) which I cannot listen due as every beat on that album is distorted due to excessively loud mastering. I cannot take it back as the CD itself is not faulty.

            I purchased a copy of John Farnahm's album "Whispering Jack" 20th Anniversary remaster (Sony). It was mastered so loudly with excessive compression. I cannot listen to it. I cannot return it as the CD itself is not faulty.

            I purchased a copy of Wes Carr's album "The Way The World Looks" (Sony). See "Whispering Jack". I purchased Michael Jackson's "Bad" remaster (Sony). See "Whispering Jack". I purchased Abba's "Arrival" remaster (Universal). See "Whispering Jack".

            I purchased a new LP copy of "Please Please Me" by The Beatles (EMI). It had a groove lock on the second song upon first playing. The record was faulty. However, I could not return it as the labels apparently don't accept returns on records.

            My roommate, a huge fan of Delta Goodrem, purchased her latest album in 2007 only to find that if he downloaded the album (not song by song but the whole album) he would have gotten an extra song at iTunes and a different extra song at BigPond Music. He spent $25 only to find that he didn't even get the same number of songs as those who paid less to get a crappy download.

            I purchased a region 1 DVD of "The Golden Girls" season 4. I could not make a backup copy due to the copy protection employed on it. That was OK at first but two months later the second DVD in the set stopped working. Inspecting it for scratches, I fond none.

            I purchased a region 4 DVD of "The Golden Girls" season 5, made by a different company to season 4 thus hoping to avoid the above scenario. My player refused to play it full stop. All three discs, no go. Returning it to the shop, they would not take it because their DVD player played it with no problem. Every other DVD I owned still worked on my player. Just not "The Golden Girls" season 5. Research revealed they had "enhanced" the copy protection.

            So now if I want an older album on CD, I track down a second hand copy on eBay that was mastered prior to 1995. If I want a DVD, I rent it out first. If I want a new album on CD, I borrow it from my local library first. I'm glad I did as one album I borrowed out had sound quality so badly compressed and distorted, even my roommate was going "OH MY GOD! TURN THIS OFF! MY EARS ARE KILLING ME!" and this was an artist he LIKED!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I purchased a copy of Lily Allen's album
              You can't blame the labels for that - it was your own stupid fault

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                None of the things he mentioned are the fault of the major labels; if he doesn't like the mastering jobs, there are lots of people to blame.

                If a store doesn't take returns, you need to shop elsewhere.

                And blaming the majors because his roommate didn't buy on itunes, thus missing a bonus track?

                That's pathetic.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Bullshit.

                  Mastering is done (or contracted) by the labels. You cannot make your own copy from the masters (the labels own the only copies), therefore you are dependent upon the labels to assure the quality of the recordings. It is the labels' fault if it is done wrong. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best.

                  Stores will not take returns because the labels won't reimburse them. Therefore no stores accept returns. There is no 'elsewhere' that you speak of.

                  If a person is forced to buy a package of songs three times in order to get *all* of the songs he/she wants instead of having the ability to purchase them individually that is (again) the fault of the (only) supplier (the major labels). Who else would you blame?

                  Fail. Fail. Fail.

                  Care to try again?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I worked for a record store for many years (now closed of course- thanks Napster), and worked in the returns department 2 days a week.

                    So yea, get stuffed.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      charliebrown (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:01pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I shop at record stores that still exist, though I have become far more selective on the CD's based on their mastering. Something I should not have to do but since I have, I have not been stung once. But now eBay is my first choice in music stores for old CD's, I seldom buy new CD's as a result of this sloppy mastering. Now how am I supposed to listen to the small amount of music that I do enjoy from the last 15-odd years? Tell me that please!

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      G Thompson (profile), May 28th, 2011 @ 3:17am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ah but you worked in a record store that wasn't under Australian Jurisdiction did you.

                      Though if you had worked in an Australian Store, and knowingly refused to honour returns, refunds, or repairs of originally faulty merchandise, and that is whether the product comes with a manufacturers warranty or not (we have statutory warranty in Australia for minimum 1yr... and lifetime of goods for ALL products) there is not only a fine of up to $10mill dollars (depending on size of company) but also criminal sanctions available towards yourself as well.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Hephaestus (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lily bashing time :)

              "I purchased a copy of Lily Allen's album "Alright Still" (on EMI) which I cannot listen due as every beat on that album is distorted due to excessively loud mastering."

              I wouldn't be able to listen to it period!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              if you want to legally obtain said product, such as a CD of an album which is controlled by a major label, you are forced to buy their product or go without.

              So?

              That's life, junior.

              WTF is your damage? Grow up.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              G Thompson (profile), May 28th, 2011 @ 3:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If any of the above can be proven to be mastered at a compression level that a reasonable person could not listen to it, and therefore the sale of the product was not what was advertised and is not of merchantable quality you have a case to apply to the Dept of Fair Trading in your state.

              If the record of the Beatles was faulty at time of sale and you can establish that then the Merchant, and not EMI, has to give you the choice of replacement, repair or refund.. and they then take it up themselves with EMI thats a statutory warranty and law for the whole of Australia. All you need to prove that it was originally faulty is show them the record and get tehm to play it. If it doesn't work, skips, or anything else that disrupts the listening, and there is no scratch, then you are able to obtain one of the the 3R's above. If any problems, again contact Dept of Fair Trading

              As for the DVD's.. It is NOT unlawfal within Australia to use a circumvention device on the DVD to remove that copy protection to backup the DVD as long as you are using it for private backup purposes. This does not matter what Region the DVD is for since Region coding is not allowed for the purposes of copy protection under Australian law.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            btrussell (profile), May 29th, 2011 @ 6:51am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sony rootkit.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PrometheeFeu (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:26am

      Re:

      Nobody here is anti-choice. We are against the government spying on us to enforce monopolies or really the monopoly existing at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:31am

        Re: Re:

        There is no attempt at a monopoly here except by you people, as you are trying to force artists into working the way *you* want them to work.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Monoply

          That word does not mean what you think it means.

          A monopoly menas that only one supplier can manufacture and distribute a product. Both copyright and patents work that way, thus they are monopolies.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You're saying you don't think an artist should have complete control over their own work?

            wow. That's seriously messed up.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JMT, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              In this interconnected digital world, as soon as you put your content out there you have lost control of it! You can either adapt to this reality or go get another job. You don't have another viable choice.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You're saying you don't think an artist should have complete control over their own work?

              Once they release it, no. If I tell my friends a new joke I thought up, they absolutely have the right to go and tell it to other people, and I absolutely don't have the right to "control" how it spreads.

              Believing otherwise is "seriously messed up".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That's quite the oversimplification there, isn't it?

                A joke you made up is analogous to a movie that employed many people to make and cost millions?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:27am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  How much I spent (or claim to have spent) is completely irrelevant to the underlying philosophy.

                  That's like making an airplane without wings and then claiming the law of gravity should be suspended for you personally because you spent millions on developing said aircraft, and if it doesn't fly you won't recoup. So what?

                  It's not my responsibility to make your crappy business decision return a profit merely because you based your future revenue projections on the fairy tale of "complete cultural control". You don't have that, you won't have that, and any business model based on it is going to crash and burn like a plane without wings.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    That's like making an airplane without wings and then claiming the law of gravity should be suspended for you personally because you spent millions on developing said aircraft, and if it doesn't fly you won't recoup.

                    Except for the part where it isn't.

                    I'm sorry you have such hatred for artists and those that help them.

                    There will be no crashing and burning. Artists and labels aren't going away.

                    And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:47am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      How much do I pay to listen to music via YouTube?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:22am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I'm sorry you have such hatred for artists

                      Giving artists advice on how to stay relevant and continue to make money in the internet generation is "hate"? IP-trolls are all the same. "Change is hatred!"

                      Artists and labels aren't going away.

                      Agreed. I think that some labels are going away (the ones who can't adapt), but as Mike has frequently pointed out and as I have pointed out already in this very thread, there is still a role for labels in the music industry. Artists, of course, aren't going anywhere.

                      And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume.

                      Most of my content is purchased, actually, but not because I have a moral duty to (I don't) or a legal duty to (I couldn't care less). I buy when it's most convenient to buy, and copy when it's most convenient to copy. If you want me to buy from you rather than copy from a tracker, cater to my desires as a consumer. Threatening me won't get me to buy your content, no matter what delusion allows you to pretend otherwise.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:17am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        not because I have a moral duty to (I don't) or a legal duty to (I couldn't care less).

                        What a charming person you must be in real life. Loved by so many, I'm sure.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:39am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Please come up with better arguments. You're acting like TAM.

                          It's not Friday yet.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:35am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          What a charming person you must be in real life. Loved by so many, I'm sure.

                          Anyone who has a philosophical disagreement with IP law is an unlovable troglodyte? Your "arguments" get more pathetic with every iteration.

                          (And based on the tone of your responses in this thread, I think I'll just let everyone else be the judge of whether or not they'd rather have me around or you.)

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Hephaestus (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:35am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume."

                      Actually, when all this is straightened out, consumers will not be paying for content (except movie theaters). The record labels will have to compete with 5 million artists and bands. Making their slice of the pie much smaller, and their profit margins will all but disappear.

                      YouTube, free online radio and streaming, promotional music, etc, all say you are wrong in your assumption that people will pay to consume. And like any good feedback loop, removing any of these free choices removes your ability to promote new artists, and allows people to come in and replace you.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      MrWilson, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:13am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You keep conflating artists and "those who help them."

                      We like artists. We don't like the entertainment companies.

                      You keep acting like the artists can't create or be successful without the companies. This simply isn't true anymore. If the companies died tomorrow, artists would still make music. We might be bereft of the fake stars from shows like American Idol (good riddance), but true artists would still make music and still make money without the labels.

                      Nobody hates the artists here (except maybe the ones who have blindly bought the lies sold to them by the industry that exploits their talents for corporate profits).

                      Anyone who thinks that artists can't survive without the companies and lawyers to protect (exploit) them doesn't understand what art and culture are.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:05am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        You're not an artist. Why do you feel *you* have the right to dictate to them how *they* should create or who *they* can choose to work with? That's *their choice*, not yours. Who are you? Just some anti-choice guy on the internet.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 11:27am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Why do you feel *you* have the right to dictate to them how *they* should create or who *they* can choose to work with? That's *their choice*, not yours.

                          Nobody has said differently, not even the person you're replying to. Artists can create what they want, choose to work with who they want, and release their content how they want.

                          Telling someone that their particular method of accomplishing any of the above might not be the ideal method is not "anti-choice". You're pushing a total strawman.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Hephaestus (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 11:36am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          You should get your blood tested. Your meds for Bi-polar disorder seem off.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I'm an artist and you're a moron.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          MrWilson, May 27th, 2011 @ 10:05am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          You don't know me, so how can you say I'm not an artist?

                          I am an artist, but I don't make my living off of selling my works. I have a salaried job creating multimedia objects.

                          But that's irrelevant. You don't have to be an artist to be able to comment. Consumers have a dog in this fight. I'd rather pay an artist directly for their work than pay some middleman an inflated cost just because the middleman convinced the artist that he was necessary. This paradigm is no longer true in the 21st Century.

                          I do pay artists directly. Check out jamendo.com. This is the source of all my music locker content.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Artists and labels aren't going away."

                      Artists are not going away, labels are.

                      Half right. Your average is going up!

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      techflaws.org (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 1:50pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume.

                      Straightened out like in the last 10 years or so? Funny how delusional you shilltards are.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I bet his joke could probably be more entertaining than some of these expensive films.

                  Also, the people employed to make the movie are all paid for the work they did except those that invest in the success of the film...which is a risk (like any investment). Reap the rewards or eat the losses. If there are losses then somehow it is the fault of somebody else...not the dope who took the risk?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  A joke you made up is analogous to a movie that employed many people to make and cost millions?

                  the days of making millions on a film are slowly coming to an end. the people who used to make millions and aren't should do something different. they're free to keep doing what they are doing, but it's really not a good idea.

                  people now distribute films for free and there is not a force on this earth that can stop it. that's a simple fact.

                  the answer is simple: stop making crappy films that costs millions to produce. the market won't buy them and you will lose money.

                  here are a few simple suggestions to stop losing money on films:
                  1) keep making crappy films, but drastically reduce your production costs
                  2) keep making films that cost millions, but drastically improve their quality.
                  3) stop making films entirely.

                  options 1 and 2 are kind of risky, but option 3 is guaranteed to work.

                  remember: winners never quit, quitters never win, people who never win and never quit are idiots.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:10am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Just a thought, money still matters

                    It sucks but it's still true.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:10am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Just a thought, money still matters

                      of course it does, that's why you should reduce costs.

                      a film that makes $500,000 in it's first week is a miserable failure at the box office.

                      an independent web series making $50,000 is roaring success.

                      the problem is that the box office way is not sustainable in its present form and the web series is now and will most likely always be.

                      it's true that a billion dollars is cooler than a million dollars, but a 200% return on an investment is even cooler.

                      also, it's way easier to make (and to recover from the loss of) $50,000 than it is to make (and to recover from the loss of) $500,000.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Richard (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  A joke you made up is analogous to a movie that employed many people to make and cost millions?

                  Yes - how long did it take to make up the words of "Happy Birthday" - pretty much less than what a joke takes - yet that is protected by the same law - and has made millions.
                  You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualitative and a quantitative difference.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              cc (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I make I chair, sell it, I want to control who gets to sit in it.

              I make a car, sell it, I want to control who drives it and where.

              I make a house, sell it, I want to control who lives in it.

              I write a song, sell it, I want to control who listens to it, sings it.

              Complete control over other people's property is messed up.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Why are you comparing tangible goods to intellectual property?

                If you don't like copyright or intellectual property, go ask your elected representative to remove it from the law books.

                I wish you the very best of luck with that.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You started with arguing the philosophy, and now you're arguing the law. That's how you know an IP maximalist is up against the wall in a discussion.

                  "Copying is immoral!"
                  "No it's not, for reasons X, Y, and Z."
                  "Oh yeah? Well I can stop you from copying at the point of a gun!"

                  Maybe, but you can make people do a lot of things by threatening them with a gun. Does that prove the morality of an action?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You started with arguing the philosophy, and now you're arguing the law.

                    I can very easily do both, in any order that is required.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:48am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      How about arguing the art?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Richard (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:08am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You started with arguing the philosophy, and now you're arguing the law.


                      Actually he's arguing "might is right"!

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Um, sorry to break it to you, but you can't. You are failing at both.

                      Miserably.

                      But keep up the good work, you're very entertaining.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:31am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Why are you comparing tangible goods to intellectual property?"

                  Yeah why would you do that? If you actually make a physical product and sell it of course its not yours anymore. But if I make 1 art I can control that forever and my kids can send their kids to college with the monopoly rents, thats how the world works.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  cc (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:52am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'm pointing out the STUPIDITY and ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY of you wanting to control how others live their lives and do with their own stuff in their very homes.

                  So it's a copy of a song and not a chair - why should you be able to stop me from doing anything I want to do with it? Because you are an artist and you're "special", but the chairmaker isn't?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:34am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    So it's a copy of a song and not a chair - why should you be able to stop me from doing anything I want to do with it? Because you are an artist and you're "special", but the chairmaker isn't?

                    clearly he is. if chair makers were so bloody special they would have a decent lobby.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              adrian, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              An artist starts off with complete control over their work. It's theirs until they decide to give it up. The major labels, love them or hate them, aren't forcing artists to sign contracts. If the artist doesn't like the offer, they are free to turn it down. The reason the offer's aren't really changing is because artists keep accepting them.

              p.s. no, I don't work for nor do I like the RIAA

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I never said that, I actually support a short term (30yr) copyright. Nice job putting words in my mouth though.

              I am however, tired of all the maximists who wrongly call themselves free marketers while supporting a monopoly, and justify their position with the marxian value of labor while slamming anyone who isn't for copyright lasting forever as "communist"

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nobody but the labels are trying to force artists to do anything.

          Nobody here has a gun to artists heads.

          It is the labels. They are so afraid of alternatives and choice that they come to a forum like this because it commits the sins of merely pointing out alternatives and pointing out the failures of the labels.

          So who is anti-choice again?

          Oh, yeah. The monopolists. Monopolists are always anti-choice.

          Calling alternatives anti choice? Psychologists call this "projection".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Nobody here has a gun to artists heads.

            Exactly- no one forces an artist to sign to a label. It's their *choice*.

            But you've decided you don't like that choice.

            Why exactly do you think it's ok for you to decide things for other people?

            Again, why are you anti-choice?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JMT, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Quit it with the anti-choice crap, you're making that up out of thin air. Nobody here is limiting anyone's choices, nobody's deciding anything for anybody.

              But we will point out the obvious downsides to trying to stick with the old way of doing things. What someone does with that info is their choice.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:20am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I won't quit anything. I'm pointing out a fatal flaw in the way you people think, and you don't like it. Tough.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  yeah, AMERICA

                  FREEDOM

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You know that part where you're pro-choice?
                  DD: Every film that we have restored is completely different in its technical problems. Each one always has some unique problem that we have not come across before and that needs to be conquered. We find solutions by working with the best labs and archivists. . . Rights can be the most difficult hurdle to overcome. It took us 15 years to find the rights holder to Anthony Howarth’s People Of The Wind. Sometimes we have to give up on a dream film because the rights are impossible to find or too expensive to acquire.

                  Nuremberg & Beyond: A Film Restoration Roundtable

                  And what about this:
                  Hollywood studios generally buy 10 times as many scripts as they make into movies, which means they currently own exclusive rights to a shitload of films that will never see production. And in most cases, they won't let anyone else have them. E.T., The Matrix, Pulp Fiction and Star Wars are all films that you never would have seen because the studios that owned them were content to sit on each forever. They were saved only because someone convinced another studio to re-buy them, usually at a higher price.

                  [...]

                  And finally, sometimes studios will sit on entirely completed movies. We've told you about the time a studio made an abysmal low-budget adaptation of The Fantastic Four it never intended to release, simply because it wanted to keep the rights. It turns out this sort of thing is more common than you'd expect: When legendary producer Harvey Weinstein was in charge of Miramax, he used to buy exclusive rights to foreign films and then push back their releases indefinitely as part of a scheme to get bonuses from Disney. He bought the rights to distribute Jet Li's movie Hero and then didn't, releasing it a full two years later only when Quentin Tarantino finally intervened.

                  5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:41am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The anti choice is just your new form of name calling.

                  You call me anti choice, yet I'm not trying to take away anyone's choice.

                  You won't quite anything. It's clear. You just change your name calling to a new form.

                  There is no fatal flaw in my thinking. I'm not anti choice. So how can I have an anti choice flaw?

                  Yet you'll keep saying I'm anti choice.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Any Mouse (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:51am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  How are we, the consumer, responsible for the constraining of artists' choice? We have the final choice of purchase. If we don't like what you've got, or how you're offering it, that's your problem. Continuing on the way you are is your choice. We aren't forcing you to change the way you are trying to force us to stay the same. Guess who wins in the long run?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Why are you anti-choice? Can't we (the market) choose not to pay for music we don't want? Can't we choose to pay for music services that benefit us without being accused of being a copying criminal? Can't we choose not to pay more in data transfer services through "you must be a criminal" taxes?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There is no attempt at a monopoly here except by you people, as you are trying to force artists into working the way *you* want them to work."

          BS. Why is it that the lawyers for Hurt Locker want to look at 25,000 bittorrenters and their information to sue them?

          Enforcement := progress

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), May 29th, 2011 @ 7:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There is no attempt at a monopoly here except by you people, as you are trying to force artists into working the way *you* want them to work."

          Who is their boss?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:40am

      Re:

      There are some things which are immutable and/or physically impossible. It's not that we want to force them to act "this" way, it's that if do not, they will implode soon.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:18am

      Re:

      Why are you people so anti-choice? Yes, the internet provides a way to DIY if you choose, but labels and studios provide services and opportunities if you don't. Why are you trying to force everyone to work in the manner *you* think they should

      As Mike himself has stated many times, labels can be a very useful choice, provided the label understands the market and can bring added value to your work. What we object to here is police power being used to prop up business models via laws about imaginary property. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with labels, other than the fact that they are usually the worst offenders in this regard. Labels could be relevant without relying on copyright.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re:

        They are enforcing copyright law, not "propping up business models".

        Who exactly would you suggest is supposed to enforce federal law besides the government?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And the ever-more-draconian IP laws we see daily spring up fully-formed from a senator's desk? You're disingenuously trying to make it appear as if the industry is not the one sponsoring (read: bribing their way into) said legislation, and that they are merely disinterested bystanders, helpless to stop the police from kicking in doors and seizing domain names.

          No one here is buying it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The 2000-2009 period saw massive piracy and you want us to believe there are too many laws or that they are too draconian?

            I don't think so. This issue wasn't even addressed for real until Obama took office. But you know that.

            You people had a nice long run. Don't you think it's rather greedy to be complaining now because the law is finally being enforced?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "The 2000-2009 period saw massive piracy and you want us to believe there are too many laws or that they are too draconian?"

              [citation needed]

              Where's your research along with the very fact that Clinton signed the DMCA in 1998, NOT when Obama took office?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "They are enforcing copyright law, not "propping up business models".

          Who exactly would you suggest is supposed to enforce federal law besides the government?"

          All evidence that the enforcement of copyright law leads to success are extremely biased (IFPI, USTR 301 Report, etc)

          Anyone wanting increased ex officio powers of government, who rely on raiding the homes of DJs (Link and Link), who make DRMed products (Just... Sony), who treat the end user like crap instead of learning what people want and supporting them and what they do legally with music, does not deserve anyone's money. So tell me, how exactly is raiding and enforcing copyright law down the throats of businesses going to help them succeed?

          How about ASCAP enforcing copyright law to "get artists paid?" Do you really believe that's happening? I guess only paying the 200 top artists of the year, when they take 16% of the profits for themselves, from legal extortion is a great way to enforce copyright.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:19am

      Re:

      So if an artist chooses to attach themselves to a money losing scheme then they should not bitch when they lose money. But instead, they are lobbying government to subsidize their failing business model and making everybody a criminal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re:

        I think Joel Tenenbaum said pretty much these same words in a court of law.

        Google him and see how it worked out for him.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So you believe an artist should be paid because he says he is an artist?

          And the Tenenbaum case has nothing to do with my statement. Did the court rule that the above statement is not true? Silly troll...strawmen are for kids.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:33am

      Re:

      Why are you people so anti-choice? Yes, the internet provides a way to DIY if you choose, but labels and studios provide services and opportunities if you don't.

      the content industry is more than welcome to maintain the status quo and go down in flames. i just don't want them to take my civil liberties with them.

      they are perfectly free to waste their money on strategies that will not work, but they are not free to lobby government to waste tax payer dollars on ineffective protectionist policies that limit my free speech or my right to privacy.

      Why are you trying to force everyone to work in the manner *you* think they should?

      you are free to put yourself out of business. you are not free to put someone else out of business. i wouldn't stop you from killing yourself if that's what you wanted to do. i would stop you from hurting someone else.

      IP maximal-ism, especially when it seeks protections from the government that infringe my rights, affects everyone.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re:

        you are free to put yourself out of business. you are not free to put someone else out of business.

        I agree, except *we* are not trying to put anyone out of business. People that take a product without paying, *are*.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          except *we* are not trying to put anyone out of business. People that take a product without paying, *are*.

          you make a product that costs a lot of money to produce but is effortless to take without paying for, and there is no fesible way to prevent that taking.

          that's the very definition of an unsustainable product.

          you are free to keep making it for others to take, but that's really not a good idea. a better idea would be to read the writing on the wall and stop making that product.

          if you want to keep making something, make a different one that uses the fact that it will be taken and given away to its advantage. otherwise, just stop all together.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          People that take a product without paying, *are*.

          I would never take a product without paying for it. I might copy a configuration of bits from another person who volunteered them up for copying, however.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      CommonSense (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:50am

      Re:

      Idiot.

      It's the labels and studios that are trying to make the world work the way THEY think it should. We're just trying to protect and encourage the alternatives before these assclowns get their way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:43am

    The guy who understands the 21st century says:

    I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call “intellectual property.”

    That's it. The dinosaurs-R-us group makes its money off the back of those who are creative. And off the back of those who pay to purchase that creativity. That is, they screw both ends of the distribution -- the supply, and the consumer.

    They call it "services". Yes specialized services like the well known hollywood accounting where a movie with over a billion dollars in revenue doesn't make any actual profit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:36am

      Re:

      I can't say I've seen a lot of accountants on MTV's Cribs.

      Seems like the successful artists are doing rather well.

      So now is this the part where you say they're actually making too much money so it's ok to rip them off?

      Which one is it?

      Artists aren't getting paid or they're getting paid too much?

      And who are you to go around making sweeping declarations about who gets paid what in a business you don't work in?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:54am

        Re: Re:

        Said like a true monopolist.

        It's just that monopolies don't last forever. Because of the artificially high prices, alternatives always develop. It's simple economics. Monopolies always fight to maintain their monopoly. It never works -- in the long term.

        In this case, alternatives to the past recording industry distribution and promotion monopoly.

        Yes, it makes some people rich, and keeps some artists poor. So it's both. As I said, they screw both ends. The former screws consumers. The latter screws artists.

        And who am I go to around talking about monopolies when I'm not getting paid by a monopoly? Anyone can be informed about how monopolies work. The recording industry isn't the first (and unfortunately probably won't be the last) monopoly.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          There is no monopoly and hasn't been one, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I really have no idea what you're talking about."

            we know

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

            Thomas Jefferson

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html


            What would an economist say?


            All of this brings us to what intellectual property law is really about - a reality that is simply obscured by analogies to other types of property. Intellectual property law is not about your right to control your copy of your idea - this is a right that we have just pointed out, does not need a great deal of protection. What intellectual property law is really about is about your right to control my copy of your idea. This is not a right ordinarily or automatically granted to the owners of other types of property. If I produce a cup of coffee, I have the right to choose whether or not to sell it to you or drink it myself. But my property right is not an automatic right both to sell you the cup of coffee and to tell you how to drink it.

            [...]

            So what is the contractual arrangement in current intellectual property law? The most significant feature is the agreement not to sell copies of the idea in competition with the person who sold you the idea. Outside of the area of "intellectual property" such an agreement would be called anti-competitive, and a violation of the anti-trust law. If you reach an agreement with someone else not to compete with them, not only would the courts refuse to enforce such a contract, but you would be subject to substantial civil and criminal penalties. "Intellectual property" in other words, is not about property at all, it is about legal monopoly.

            http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/coffee.htm

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > I really have no idea what you're talking about.

            I just don't see it.

            I just don't get it.


            There has been a monopoly on music distribution for decades.

            Copyright is a government granted monopoly.

            The fact that you don't like the alternative business models, or that artists can choose them, is because you want monopolists to maintain their monopoly.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There is no monopoly on music distribution. None. Zero. Any artist can do whatever they want: Sign with a label or DIY on the internet.

              Why are you so against this choice?

              Why are you anti-choice?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:47am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Why do you refuse to acknowledge basic history?

                Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

                Thomas Jefferson

                http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

                Why do you keep changing the nature of discussion?

                When will you stop asking vague questions in an attempt to avoid providing a clear basis for any of your claims?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Why are you anti-choice?

                Not sure where you get this "anti-choice" thing from. I don't see anyone clamoring to outlaw labels, or prevent (through force) artists from signing up with labels.

                Artists are free to pursue whatever boneheaded strategy they want. If they go out of business because they didn't make the right decision, that's not "anti-choice", that's "reality".

                You could tell me that your new business venture involves digging holes in your backyard and then filling them back in, and I could tell you why that's probably a failure of a business model and why I would suggest you put your hole-digging abilities to a more profitable use, but it would be nonsensical to claim that my criticisms of your approach made me "anti-choice".

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Are you now pretending the "major labels are evil and must die" hysteria around here doesn't exist anymore?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 11:23am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    A lot of people want the labels to fail in retribution for their previous legal antics, but how many of them advocate the use of force (laws, firebombs, etc.) to do it?

                    Your definition of "anti-choice" is rather unique.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:57am

        Re: Re:

        I would turn that last question around and ask: who are you to go around making sweeping declaration about how the Internet works, how ISP's should filter and monitor everything for you for free, when it is a business you don't work in?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Nathan F (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:02am

        Re: Re:

        You will please note, that those places they are showing off on MTV's Cribs are usually the most successful of artists. A very rarefied single digit percentage of all performing artists out there. By that very fact they are an exception to the "successful" artist label. How many garage bands are there out there who are as good, or even better then, whatever group is showing off their multi million dollar home struggling to make it with performances at bars and parties?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Huph, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not even that. Most of those homes are rented specifically for Cribs episodes. It's a rather well-established fact in the hip hop community.

          Some well-known artists really do have magnificent homes and a lot of money and "things", but that's only a small segment of artists shown on Cribs, not even of artists in general. (musicians, we should say. We're not all "artists").

          It seems a lot of people don't realize that famous rock stars and the like don't even own their own homes. Most of the nice stuff you see them with is actually owned by their label. When sales dry up, the first 'perk' the labels take back is the lifestyle.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It seems a lot of people don't realize that famous rock stars and the like don't even own their own homes. Most of the nice stuff you see them with is actually owned by their label.

            This is easily one of the stupidest lies I've ever seen on this site, and I've seen a ton.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Huph, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No. Sorry. This is something I'm very familiar with.

              Start here:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtv_cribs#Controversy

              You sir, are not very good at "internet".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:06am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And I'm more familiar with it than you.

                Your statement, "famous rock stars and the like don't even own their own homes. Most of the nice stuff you see them with is actually owned by their label", is complete BS.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "And I'm more familiar with it than you."

                  = Yeah I watch cribs all the time and can't wait till people are forced to buy my music and I can get a house like that. Lord knows its the only reason I started "creating."

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        JMT, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:34am

        Re: Re:

        "I can't say I've seen a lot of accountants on MTV's Cribs.

        Seems like the successful artists are doing rather well."


        Right, so that's a few hundred people from a group of industries that must have tens of thousands of artists trying to be successful. If getting onto Cribs is your definition of making it, then it looks like the odds of success are very tiny.

        "Which one is it?

        Artists aren't getting paid or they're getting paid too much?"


        Both. Most get paid very little if at all, while a very few get a lot. That's the way the labels have worked for decades.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          They get paid on how much they sell and how much they spent.

          It's very simple.

          But feel free to keep spreading nonsense about an industry you know nothing about if it makes you feel better about ripping off artists.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:40am

        Re: Re:

        Seems like the successful artists are doing rather well.


        Successful artist is successful.

        That's a powerful argument.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:49am

      Re:

      >>>I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call “intellectual property.”

      And the Grateful Dead enforced their rights to intellectual property. If you sold a T-shirt with their intellectual property on it, without permission, they would shut you down. I don't know if Barlow participated in this revenue stream, since he was just a songwriter, but he sure didn't object.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:23am

    Also

    But that's only true if they don't hear what we say, and don't realize that we are talking about ways to make money

    Even more to the point: You do not have a fundamental right to make money. If you can't make money from recordings, don't make recordings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:38am

      Re: Also

      That logic fails.

      If everyone could steal cars, would we stop having cars?

      No, the government would step in and enforce the law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re: Also

        Nice trick.

        Nobody said that the records were stolen. There were simply not sold.

        Should the government step in and force people to buy records? Or cars?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:02am

        Re: Re: Also

        "No, the government would step in and enforce the law."

        What the hell? You've just described Communism and don't realize how that can't be bad for society?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Also

          Communism is the government enforcing the law.

          Thanks for clearing that up for us.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Also

            Two things, you said "government comes in to enforce the law", making no indication if that law were needed or not.

            Second, it's as if you're basically wanting the government to supply everyone with a shoe making job, even if they don't need it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also

              The law has been around since the founding of the country. Businesses have been built ever since with the protections of that law. It's not going to change 235 years later so your lazy ass can rip off artists.

              Deal with it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:00pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also

                "Deal with it."

                It's really funny how you believe the world hasn't changed in 235 years of legislature. Especially when there's civil rights issues that directly disagree with your supposed protections by law.

                So tell me, bucko, how did the 3/5ths compromise work? Better yet, how about the Emancipation Proclamation and what it did to the old agricultural society?

                Great example of law protecting the old ways of doing business.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:03pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also

                  Make sure to ignore the majority of examples in US history when debating. Except of course, the outliers that support your view. It's so effective.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Jay (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 8:46am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also

                    What, that copyright law hasn't changed for the worse?
                    That there's been major changes to US law in 235 years?
                    How about major changes to business in the last 235 years?

                    You're not even trying. The artists are finding their own success despite copyright laws. You should find a better argument.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:21am

        Re: Re: Also

        So it is okay for you to jump between physical property and intellectual property but not others. On the same comment section of this post mind you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        chris (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 7:30am

        Re: Re: Also

        If everyone could steal cars, would we stop having cars?

        if you could make millions of copies of a car, at zero cost, and the practice was so wide-spread that there was no way to prevent it from happening, then everyone would already have cars and there would be no reason for a business to try and sell them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:27am

    Barlow, labels and services

    The intellectual property Barlow makes money on, as many people know, is his lyrics for the Grateful Dead. So you might assume that his bandmates agree with his disregard for labels, right? Wrong. A few years ago, the Dead signed a deal with Warner Music to provide a broad array of services - merchandising, sales, and representation, in addition to selling the Dead albums the label controls.

    They didn't need to do this - their original contract with Warner in 1970 only covered a few albums and ran out decades ago. They did it because they thought it was a smart thing to do. They did it because they presumably don't see Warner as making money FROM them but rather making money FOR them.

    While the Dead freely allowed fans to trade their concert recordings, they carefully guarded the intellectual property rights they needed to sell merchandise (not sure if this is copyright, trademark, or a mix of both). Barlow isn't telling the whole story. And musicians who might otherwise heed his advice should realize that those who know him best don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:40am

      Re: Barlow, labels and services

      Thumbs up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:39am

      Re: Barlow, labels and services

      "While the Dead freely allowed fans to trade their concert recordings, they carefully guarded the intellectual property rights they needed to sell merchandise "

      so they gave away music and made money selling t-shirts....never heard that idea before

      and you use that as a point against him? Sounds like they understand it. Control the right to your work but do your best to provide people with the content for free and give them other ways to support your so you continue making content that they like.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:04am

        Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

        Exactly.

        I've never heard of Grateful dead using DMCA takedowns on videos that fans did.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

        >>>so they gave away music and made money selling t-shirts....never heard that idea before

        Yes. And in order to do so they had to maintain a monopoly over selling T-shirts with their trademarked and/or copyrighted images. Which they sold for a relatively high price, in order to make up for the fact that they (sort of, a little) gave away (some) music.

        The Dead _always_ made money on intellectual property - they just did so by incorporating it into merchandise. If they hadn't had this "monopoly," fans would have bought "bootleg" T-shirts.

        So Barlow was complicit in limiting your freedom to sell T-shirts with dancing bears on them! But my real point was that Barlow's own bandmates don't agree with him. That's pretty damning.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

          "they (sort of, a little) gave away (some) music."

          Sort of, some? Now who is playing ignorant. The dead released 20ish studio albums, including their best ofs. Every dead show ever was recorded and released for free. Before Jerry died the dead had performed roughly 2300 shows. So twenty compared to 2300 is not some/sort of, a little. Its over 100 times more free music than studio albums.


          If the internet had been around in the 70's I guarantee there would be a lossless digital copy of every concert ever. It would look like this: http://www.owlandbear.com/wilco-archive/

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

            It's true that they gave away some music. What I meant by sort of - and I should have been more specific - is that they didn't say you could do anything you wanted with it. As I recall - and please tell me if I'm wrong - the Dead allowed fans to tape their concerts and trade those tapes. But I don't think they allowed anyone to *sell* those tapes, or remix their songs or concerts. Hence, sort of. Maybe not the best choice of words - sorry.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

          "The Dead _always_ made money on intellectual property - they just did so by incorporating it into merchandise. If they hadn't had this "monopoly," fans would have bought "bootleg" T-shirts. "

          They were pretty damn lax on the bootleg shirts too. I have a couple fan made ones I bought at shows still. They are falling to pieces now because they were not the highest quality but they were cool looking and you could buy them about 10 feet from the official merch tables.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      D. Hope-Ross (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:54am

      Re: Barlow, labels and services

      And they we able to do it all within the constructs of current IP and copyright law. Remind me again why we need more IP protectionism?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 10:51am

        Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

        >>>And they we able to do it all within the constructs of current IP and copyright law. Remind me again why we need more IP protectionism?

        Well, the Dead got start-up funding from Owsley Stanley, a major LSD dealer. Labels are usually a better source of seed money.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:01am

          Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

          Just to be clear, when I say start-up funding, I mean that Stanley gave or lent them money before they signed to Warner Brothers. (I've heard this described in various ways - if you were there, dude, you probably don't remember - but he definitely provided financial support.) This helped the band get going - it's the kind of funding labels usually provide.

          If anyone cares, Stanley's nickname - "the Bear" - seems to be the origin of the dancing bear graphic. Which is trademarked.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 11:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

          So, he says "the Dead did fine under old copyright laws so why do we need new stricter laws" and your response is "well they were originally funded by drug dealers"?

          So are you saying if they had got their start up money from a label the current IP laws wouldn't have helped them make money? I guess I can see where you are coming from if they had label funding they wouldn't have been able to let people tape their shows and encourage trading. They wouldn't have been able to focus so much on providing fans what they want cause the labels tend to restrict that stuff.

          So I think I get it, for a band to succeed they need to think outside the box and seek funding from someone other than the major labels, but if a major label band wants to make money they have to make sure the label has ridiculously rigid control of their IP so they can make money despite pissing off their fan base and refusing to adapt. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

            I was pointing out that many bands need money to get going. Labels are one source of that money. And copyright, because it can be granted, becomes a way to make that happen. (ie, an artist can essentially borrow money against his copyright.) There are many flaws with this - it's one way of doing things.

            >>>Of they had label funding they wouldn't have been able to let people tape their shows

            That's simply untrue. Both Warner and Arista signed the Dead knowing about their taping policy. And plenty of other major label bands allow taping: Phish, Dave Matthews Band, and I think (anyone know for sure?) Wilco, Robert Randolph Band, the Black Keys, and - interestingly enough - Metallica.

            There are many sources of funding. But a major label was the one *the Dead chose* - first in 1970, then in the mid-'70s when they signed to Arista, and then a few years ago when they signed a multi-rights deal with Warner. That was *their* choice. I don't know if was a good choice, but they must have thought so because they kept doing it.

            And that's what I'm saying: Barlow hates major labels but the band he was in doesn't. They seem to have no use for his advice. I think this is interesting. Doesn't anyone else?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

              "Barlow hates major labels but the band he was in doesn't. They seem to have no use for his advice. I think this is interesting. Doesn't anyone else?"

              I think you are making quite a stretch. There is quite a difference in the world, especially as it pertains to recording and selling music, since the 1970s. A major label was the only way to get that kind of exposure in the 70s today it certainly isnt. Also physical media was the only way distribute music in the 70s it is not anymore.

              I would say there is a good chance the Dead and Barlow would not have signed with major labels if they were coming up right now, but thats a silly argument because it is of course unprovable.

              What you can say is Barlow is man that was happy to use the major labels when they were a necessary part of success but he has seen the changes in the market and watch the industry refuse to change with it. He recognizes that the way they are fighting the changes in the market have a great possibility to stifle innovation, creativity and technological advancement. He realizes that the industry has for a long time made its money off the content created by others because it was the only way for those creators to spread their content globally. The industry is no longer the only way to to produce your content on a global scale anymore. Rather than accept this and adapt they try to force the world to revolve around the way they used to make giant sums of money 2-3 decades ago.

              Of course I am projecting myself onto him but my point remains that the actions of his band 20-30 years ago does not mean they wouldn't share his viewpoint today.


              Also in my last comment I mentioned I would like to see you respond to Mr. Wilson. I know realize, mostly because of your ability to express a well thought out point of view, retract a statement that may have been misconstured, and discuss without insulting people or dodging the issue at hand, that I had you confused with another AC. I am sorry but your snowflakes appear very similar to me. I reiterate that I am sorry because I would be greatly offended if I was mistaken for that guy.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

                I concede that I had lost track of the entirety of the argument and you had raised the point that the dead continues to resign. I would say maybe this is because they are almost 70 and don't know/ don't feel the need to find a new way to do things. Sure they could take most of their records back and innovate and sell and connect with fans but really they dont need to. They already have a rabid connected fan base and millions of dollars. What they have has worked for them so no need to mix it up now.

                Im sure that the Dead has a better contract with Warner than most bands. The Dead have that fanbase and back catalog to bargain with that few others do.

                I will concede that he certainly has the ties and probably the money to start his own anti-label label and it is a possibility that people he once worked closely with don't like/agree with him.

                Does anyone remember the address for the website that was nothing but artist's response to being asked "how do you feel about piracy"? There was a quote I wanted to use but couldn't find the site.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

                  found it:
                  http://pirateverbatim.com

                  awesome site, interesting to see all the opposing viewpoints.

                  Here is the quote I love, and from an older artist. (it seems the longer you have been in the business the more likely it is you hate piracy, at least based on the responses on this site, although there are definitely still some who get it)

                  Mick Jagger:

                  It’s all changed in the last couple of years. . . I am quite relaxed about it. But, you know, it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don’t make as much money out of records. But I have a take on that – people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 4:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

                >>>I would say there is a good chance the Dead and Barlow would not have signed with major labels if they were coming up right now, but thats a silly argument because it is of course unprovable.

                But that's the thing: The Dead signed a multi-rights deal with Warner Music in *2006*
                http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/business/media/10rhino.html

                They signed a very different deal than a new band would, but they seem to value what Warner can do for them. They have rights and they want to monetize them. They happen to believe that the best way to monetize some rights is to give away others, but that's just a question of execution.

                You can think copyright has gone too far and still think Barlow is nuts.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services

                  "I would say there is a good chance the Dead and Barlow would not have signed with major labels if they were coming up right now, but thats a silly argument because it is of course unprovable"

                  I would suggest looking at some of the newer bands and how they've exposed themselves.

                  OKGo comes to mind and how they battle EMI in regards to their expression.

                  Other performers on either Jamendo/Magnatune/DMusic might be able to compare to Grateful Dead in disregarding copyright, but perhaps signing on a label for certain aspects, such as CD production (which labels are good at)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    d_mat (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:34am

    Speak up!

    I agree that it is not constructive to keep people like John Barlow from such events. If we only let the politicians and the companies talk then that is all the public will hear. Yes, media reporting is biased and largely did not mention his talk, but some people read the articles that did come out, and if you read the article this one is based one you will see that numerous people in the crowd applauded Barlow's comments. That would not have happened if he hadn't gone and those people would have felt more alone as opposed to finding out that they are definitely not alone... even in a conference like the e-G8!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AJBarnes, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Two internets

    There should be two internets. One should be run by the gub'ment. It should protect people whose feelings get hurt, or are easily offended. It should filter all content and a panel of gub'ment types will vote to approve what is 'fair' and 'just' and allowed to be seen. It should be financed and run by the big business interests who own the politicians.

    Then, there should be the internet for the rest of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:54am

    Why are you people so anti-choice? Yes, the internet provides a way to DIY if you choose, but labels and studios provide services and opportunities if you don't.

    Nobody here is saying that artists cannot choose to work with a label. They are simply pointing out that other methods of distributing music might provide better results for the artists. The labels don't like the fact that the artists now have alternatives, and are trying to get the internet DIY shut down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:10am

    it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem

    FTFA: “Speech has to be free but movies cost money,” he said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn’t see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films.

    you can't take the stuff that hollywood makes and put it on the internet and expect to earn what it earned on TV networks and theaters because the revenue online just isn't there.

    this isn't because the internet won't work for distribution, but because the product that hollywood makes just costs too much to produce.

    the business models are there. the distribution channels are there. it's the product that isn't there. the current cost structure just isn't sustainable.

    a film that costs $100 million to make has to make $100 million just to break even. those numbers just aren't possible anymore.

    all the protectionism in the world can't stop the relentless march of progress. the market has decided how it wants to consume media. it's time for the producers to change their products to match that change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:06am

      Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem

      "a film that costs $100 million to make has to make $250 million just to break even"

      FTFY :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:50am

        Re: Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem

        Not true. If a film costs $100 million to make, and makes $500 million, it still isn't profitable.

        Just ask those who's royalty payments are tied to the profit.

        Hollywood accounting.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          chris (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:43am

          Re: Re: Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem

          Not true. If a film costs $100 million to make, and makes $500 million, it still isn't profitable.

          Just ask those who's royalty payments are tied to the profit.


          increased competition will reign in a lot of those bad practices.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JMT, May 26th, 2011 @ 7:37am

    "a film that costs $100 million to make has to make $100 million just to break even."

    You fail at Hollywood accounting. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    keith (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    born this way?

    This topic is very interesting to me (much to friends dismay) and we have many heated conversations about it.

    Ultimately, they have decided that there are no major differences between an "idea" and a "chair", and the two should be treated as the same.

    They literally told me that the only difference between a song and a chair is that you can make infinite copies of the song cheaply. Else, they are the same (property of an owner) and should be treated as such.

    My view is that difference IS the point! My friends trivialize this amazing property of a song/idea/text and miss how this makes them fundamentally different from a physical, tangible good.

    The disagreement is a fundamental differing view based on how an individual sees the world. Much like a faith based belief, it is nearly impossible to change someones mind once they start building their arguments/model around these assumptions. They simply have too much intellectual investment in their view to change it regardless of the data.

    It's interesting because the argument will typically come back to: "An artist deserves to get paid", "How else will people make money?", or "We need to protect the little guy ... without a patent, what stops a big company from stealing from you?" .... it amazes me the cognitive dissonance in these statements, because it ignores all the data that disputes their belief. Like most, they choose to only look at the data that supports their position.

    It's frustrating because what seems like pretty concrete evidence gets dismissed outright simply because it doesn't mesh with their belief on the topic.

    So Mike, it's more like your trying to convert people to a new Religion than teaching them Geometry. Which is probably why logic and facts don't get you very far. You are literally turning their world upside down.

    Knowing its a religious debate, how might you change your tactics?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:29am

    "On a separate note, the article points out that other digital thought leaders and activists urged Barlow not to go to the e-G8, because of concerns about how it was set up as a way for governments and companies to come together to regulate the internet to protect old business models and to stomp out speech they don't like. "

    That's because IP maximists are interested in censoring free speech as much as they can. and they also want to censor free speech on the Internet too, just like they try to do it here (and just like they've managed to accomplish this everywhere outside the Internet, ie: over broadcasting spectra and cableco television, communication channels that don't mention the many bad things about IP laws but only parrot pro-IP propaganda, thanks to the govt imposed monopolies that keep non-monopolists out).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 12:24pm

    No one sold the tapes for profit, but thats mainly cause they were dead fans not because of legal threats. If you didn't have a tape to trade people would often sell you a copy for the cost of the tape. Fans definitely remixed the order of shows and made their own best of tapes as far as sampling goes I know of plenty of people having sampled it and never heard about the dead having issue with it. But I don't know if there was any licensing going on, thought I am aware of a few bands releasing albums with Dead covers on them with no licenses.

    But enough of this thread I would love to see you address Mr. Wilson's remarks under "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 12:56pm

      Re:

      >>>No one sold the tapes for profit, but thats mainly cause they were dead fans not because of legal threats.

      Yes. But the Dead were not shy about suing companies that ripped off their intellectual property for T-shirts. So they might have sued companies that used their music.

      >>>I am aware of a few bands releasing albums with Dead covers on them with no licenses.

      You don't need a license to record a cover - you just need to pay a mechanical royalty.

      >>>I would love to see you address Mr. Wilson's remarks under "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

      I'm not a copyright maximalist, but it would take more time than I have to explain my views. My point is that Barlow's own bandmates don't trust him, and I think that's interesting.

      In addition, Barlow often compares pirates to "electronic Hezbollah." If I were one, I'd be offended by this. Since I'm not, I just think it's dumb.

      To be clear, there are some copyright critics whose views I respect. Barlow is not one of them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:10pm

        Re: Re:

        "You don't need a license to record a cover - you just need to pay a mechanical royalty. "

        Just a thought, have you seen how many licenses you need under copyright law?

        This is music licensing

        I don't want to get into movie licensing, which adds about two more dimensions, such as actor royalty payouts and movie sampling.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Adrian, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

      Re:

      Grateful Dead didn't grant anyone a license to sample their music until Animal Collective in 2009.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This