Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Musician Jonathan Coulton: I Value The Internet A Lot More Than The Record Industry

from the good-point dept

We've written plenty about Jonathan Coulton over the years, including two recent stories. The first was his revelation that he grossed about half a million dollars last year -- even with his music being offered under a Creative Commons license such that you could share it. He made a lot of his money because people still pay him for the music just to support him, and also from touring. We also wrote about his thoughtful discussion over what the shutting down of Megaupload meant.

Last month he went on Jerry Brito's Surprisingly Free podcast where he talked more about both of those things, as well as his general thoughts on his career and related issues. Where it got especially interesting was a bit further into the discussion, where he admits that he certainly still has an emotional reaction to finding out someone downloaded his music without paying for it, which makes his relationship with copyright more "complicated." However, he then talks about how important the internet is to him, and how in the long run, if it comes down to the internet or copyright law, he's got to side with the internet:
... where you fall on this issue, a lot of the time, comes down to how much you value things like a "free and open internet." And, for me... if, as a consequence of nurturing this amazing thing, called the internet... if as a consequence of letting that do what it wants, we destroy a number of industries, including the record business, and maybe even including the rock star business, I think that humanity will be better off. I, for one, think that the internet is one of the greatest human achievements, ever. It's an amazing tool and we have only just begun to explore the possibilities. To me, it feels like it's a part of our evolution as a species. I value it as much as I value the Bill of Rights....
He later says (as we've talked about over and over again) that there are all sorts of ways to compete with infringement -- and offering all works at a reasonable price in the formats people want, is a really, really good way to compete and get people to actually buy.

Towards the end, he also points out that the research still hasn't really shown that piracy has harmed artists:
You need to reassess whether or not piracy is actually a problem. A lot of people assume it is... and they could be right. But I don't think we've really determined the answer to that question. And I don't think we can make smart policy decisions until we know the answer to that question. If, in fact, there is some small harm or no harm, then we need to look and see: what do we want to do with this society? Is it better for us to have some small amount of piracy, in exchange for all the other goodies we're going to get if we stop spending so much time and effort trying to squash things.... We make decisions all the time about what we think is morally right and wrong, and more and more people are making decisions that are out of step with the laws. And that's an interesting phenomenon, and we haven't really unraveled what it means yet.
Again, this isn't some "freeloader" as critics often like to label all sorts of folks who make these kinds of arguments. This is a very successful professional musician, whose success hasn't come from the traditional gatekeepers, but from embracing the internet and what it allows, and developing new business models.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    Even though Jonathan Coulton has been so successful and is willing to let the internet be free and open, their will still be the trolls who insist that he's "just another freetard who just wants free stuff"

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 9:34am

    I love musicians like this. Their main concern is ensuring that as many people enjoy their creativity as possible. They want to share their work freely and evidence shows that people will support them financially. I would love to see more musicians go down this route.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    I'm a Rock & Roll star! Doing illegal drugs and paying for prostitutes! Singing about breaking the law! Rock & Roll! Smashing up private property! Yeah! Sticking it to the man!

    Stop infringing on my copyrights. That's illegal and that's wrong.

    Rock & Roll!

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:05am

    It's a wonderful discussion, but it's lacking in the basic "who is going to pay for it all"?

    After all, the "free and open internet" is marvelous because it is packed full of stuff that wasn't free to start with, but have been paid for in other ways. But as those ways disappear (say music sales), what model will come that will allow musicians to still be musicians, without having to do something else to pay the bills?

    There is only so much support for live shows, there are only so many hoodies and t-shirts anyone can want. So what is the real model in the long run?

    It's easy to paint a utopia, but a little reality goes a long way to explaining how things will work, and how we get there. No pie in the sky stuff, let's have some reality.

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    Of course he's a freetard. He hasn't even payed for a lobbyist or a DRM scheme or anything, and he just expects people to give him money? That's not how real life works.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:15am

    "Musician Jonathan Coulton: I Value The Internet A Lot More Than The Record Industry"

    Me too.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Re:

    Sometimes it feels like stars are manufactured these days. There are few true musicians in the music industry.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    After all, the "free and open internet" is marvelous because it is packed full of stuff that wasn't free to start with, but have been paid for in other ways. But as those ways disappear (say music sales), what model will come that will allow musicians to still be musicians, without having to do something else to pay the bills?

    Kinda funny that you say this on a post about Jonathon Coulton, who grossed over half a million dollars last year -- much of it from selling music that was also available (legally) for free.

    Seriously: you used to at least read the posts before saying something stupid. Now you don't even bother to go that far.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Re:

    Reality is the guy that this article is talking about made half a million dollars with music licensed in Creative Commons. The pie in the sky is now the labels' idea of being indispensable to musicians.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re:

    That is the question indeed. I mean, who is really paying Jonathan Coulton (if that's his real name) this half million dollars? The proloteriat? I think not! Those freetards only want free things. Is it the bourgeoisie? Heaven forbid! They might be patrons of the arts, but only for serious art, and Jonathan Coulton is certainly not in league with those gentlemen.

    Serious artists are not for freedoms on the Internet. Did you ever hear Beethoven praise the Internet? Did Bach throw the recording industry under the proverbial Internet bus? In all of Shakespeare's writings did he ever mention the Internet? Indeed not. Shakespeare would have been a poor unknown had it not been for his staunch support for copyright laws. Bach and Beethoven would have never have been heard if it hadn't been for the recording contracts from the RIAA, which worked tirelessly to keep their songs from the Internet, and they were successful too.

    I think Pliny the Elder said it best:
    In comparing various authors with one another, I have discovered that some of the gravest and latest writers have transcribed, word for word, from former works, without making acknowledgment. And it's all this counfounded Internet's fault. (emphasis in original)
    There is no long term sustainability in free. The Sun gives it's energy for free, and it's going to come crashing down in a mere 5 billion years. The earth was sustainably charging for oxygen way back in the day. Then the freetard prokaryotes started releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. Now Earth is half way to total annihilation after only a few billion years.

    Free is unsustainable. No one has ever given anything away for free and lived through the centuries to tell the tale.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:27am

    Re:

    The real model is doing anything but selling recordings of your songs (although you can still do that and make some money) As long as your only business model is selling CDs or selling downloads, you're always going to be sitting there asking "who is going to pay for it all?"

    Not caring about piracy is a great way to start thinking about new ways to make a living.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    akp, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    Allow me to *ahem* fix that for you:

    "There is only so much support for buying the same track over and over again in different formats, "remasters," ad infinitum."

    The real model: Keep making music, so you have new stuff to sell. Sure, *I* may only need one JoCo tshirt, but I have friends. They have friends. Maybe he makes a *new* tshirt from a song on his *new* album. Then I buy all over again. Instead of coasting on that one hit 10 years ago, keep creating. Then we are all enriched.

    Your "reality" isn't any different. JoCo and other musicians like him are making a solid living every day. Without you.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re:

    I wouldn't say few musicians in the industry, just few at the top. Lots of performers though.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:39am

    Re:

    "There is only so much support for live shows"
    This is where you are wrong. Live shows are where its at. Always has been... unless you suck live.

    "what model will come that will allow musicians to still be musicians, without having to do something else to pay the bills?" - And what Utopia do you live in where this is not the current situation?

    Here's my piece of the pie (a small slice):
    After the fall of the Labels:
    Music will become almost free, services will arise to connect fans within an area defined by its users, and more small venues will open to cater to this. Live shows will explode as every bar, restaurant, and nightclub will be able to have live music without worrying about the license police.

    You wont have as many "mega stars" but many more artists will be able to make a living playing gigs. Sorry if all that hard work scares you.

    Your remaining labels will morph into more of a promoter roll, handling touring and promotion for a percent of the profits.

    Ill give you something for free. I hope some of you have access to VC's to make it happen.

    The new business model:
    Open up a website to connect smaller bands with people in their area and give the music away for free. Make contacts with local sound/lighting/staging rental shops, and up to 3000 seat venues. I wont give it all away, but now you facilitate the coordination of fans/venues and get the acts to perform live. You provide if needed all the lighting/sound/band-gear. You take a FAIR amount for your troubles.

    As you grow you can then expand to bringing cross country acts to your venues if the website statistics provide enough interest for a band in California to play in Phila.
    Best part is all the band would have to do is show up and play. (unless they are bitches and cant play on anything but their own equipment

    If very successful you could see the potential to expand country, and as my dream sees it, world wide.

    Anyone have a few million to throw my way?

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Michael, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    Who cares? If someone enjoys playing music they will play it. The whole industry is overvalued anyways. Let them play for the love of the music instead of grind out garbage for money.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Re:

    > The first was his revelation that he grossed about half
    > a million dollars last year -- even with his music being
    > offered under a Creative Commons license such that you
    > could share it.

    That proves he must be a freetard. :-)

    None of that money went to the record industry gatekeepers, who think themselves entitled to a cut of all music. Like collection societies that come to collect even from venues that play music not owned by them.

    But putting his music under a creative commons license was just rubbing it in. That means other people can copy (gasp!) music for free -- which is obviously bad, um, somehow?

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re:

    Did you have a point to make of some kind?

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re:

    There is only so much support for live shows, there are only so many hoodies and t-shirts anyone can want. So what is the real model in the long run?
    Experiences fade in memory or want to be relived. So people are willing to pay for the next live show.

    Hoodies and T-shirts get worn out and fall apart and need to be repurchased.

    But no, rather than getting people to buy stuff that needs to be replaced, you want them to buy a digital file that never falls apart and never needs replacing.

    I'm torn; are you an idiot or should you take over wherever people are using planned obsolescence.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, I believe his point was rock stars are all about sticking it to the man and doing illegal things(drugs, underage groupies, prostitutes, trashing hotels, ect), except of course violating copyright that is a step to far.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, to be fair, sticking it to The Man is a lot less appealing when you're The Man.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    performance artists have always been more popular than musicians.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re:

    We have something like that here. There's a site with a section for artists and clubs, and another section where everyone can see what bands are going to be playing where and when. No one is making a killing doing it, but several are making a decent living.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    [citation needed or GTFO], Mar 28th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    Re:

    "It's a wonderful discussion, but I lack basic reading comprehension.

    After all, I skimmed through the article as quickly as possible and saw the buzzwords "free and open internet" and knew that I had to post a comment immediately without comprehending what I had just read.

    There is only so much information that my brain can hold and I decided to only retain words such as "free," "copyright law," "piracy," and "infringement" as I made my comment.

    It's easy to display my loathing for "freetards" because a reality involving both the artist and consumers being satisfied without gatekeepers will always remain foreign to me."


    FTFY

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    I remember this Jonathan Coulton fellow. He was all balls and bluster on Hypebot, saying he'd take questions from the public about his business model and this supposed 500K gross. But when the big boys showed up with their calculators and "hard" questions (such as "What were your net profits?") he vanished into the night.

    Typical of internet poseurs. I highly doubt his claims. Net profits, backed up with real numbers, or STFU.

    Just for perspective, it's not uncommon for a mid-level artist to gross a million from a tour alone, yet only net $2,000. So saying he grossed half a million is meaningless without some context. He has taxes to pay, manager, agent, merch overhead, merch salesperson, driver, travel expenses, hotels... you get the point.

    It's like those authors who "support piracy" who show up with their analytics graphs showing visitor spikes, but they don't show us the actual numbers. Jumping from 3 views to 15 views isn't nearly the same as jumping from 3,000 to 15,000 views. The people who post this stuff know as much. It's obvious that they have something to hide; probably that they're not all that popular regardless of who pirates their work. If they're hiding something, I wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.

    But then again, I suppose his agenda reinforces the worldview around here. Carry on in your little bubble.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike, the future isn't defined by one single case. That Mr Coulton can do X doesn't suggest it is a valid business model, and in fact, he appears to depend on the existing horrible infrastructure to do his dirty work.

    Since you are trying to ditch it, please explain what the future really looks like for recording artists.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Goyo, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Re:

    I mean, who is really paying Jonathan Coulton (if that's his real name) this half million dollars?


    I guess it must be somebody at Sylicon Valley?

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The future isn't defined by a single case" Awesome revelation! I suggest you go post this same sentence on every success case story and come back.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    TD, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 2:44pm

    Re:

    You're dumb!

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    AzureSky (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 3:25pm

    Re:

    dude, you and the other AC's here really need to take some time off trolling this blog and any forums you troll, go back to IRC trolling bootcamp and L2T(learn To Troll)...total lack of skill....

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Crade, the point is that the music industry as a whole has had plenty of success cases, and has a pretty basic model that can be followed for people to have a reasonable chance at success. It's not perfect, there are plenty of failures, but there is certainly a way to do things that seems functional.

    What I have been looking for (and unable to find here) is that once that model has been completed exterminated by piracy, how do people see it working? I have heard the "regional" model, but it seems like a cop out, especially in the connected world.

    I am trying to figure out how an artist would go about getting the critical mass (or the money) to be able to go out and tour all over the country / world in the future. Who's going to pay the tab?

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 4:43pm

    Collections Agencies + Creative Commons

    Actually, You can be on Creative Commons and be signed with a Collections Agency. I am.

    So is Jonathan Coulton

    And Paul And Storm

    And Yours Truly.

    All Three of us license our music with a CC license (Coulton's and mine are with a BY-NC 3.0 license, Paul And Storm's is with a BY-NC-SA license).

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 4:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Critical mass would be achieved by going viral, being mentioned on popular music-related sites, stuff like that. It happens for everything now, and I suspect it'll be easier to do once independent artists aren't being buried under the labels' advertising budgets. And if it isn't, then world tours won't happen, and people will have to go to wherever an artist lives to see them live. That's not the end of the world, it's not the end of music, and it'll contribute to tourism of areas that have a lot of good bands. Why is paying the tab such a necessity?

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:01pm

    JoCo's success

    Jonathan Coulton went into his Thing-a-week thinking he was going to give away his music for free and not make money. As it turned out, people wanted to pay him. Not just at concerts, but they wanted to buy merchandise and pay him at a concert for "stealing" his music. So JoCo (as we fans call him) played some shows, and evetually got lucky by playing at big shows like the Penny Arcade Expo and then to open for They Might Be Giants. There were plenty of people who bought his merchandise in those venues. He even set up a store pre-bandcamp in case you wanted to purchase some tracks. Basically, he met fans where they were and fans were so grateful to him that they bought his merch and music.

    The intimacy that JoCo has when he connects with his fans at venues is something that cannot be pirated. It is because of that that people WANT to support him when they have the chance.

    While there are people who came of age in a world amok with piracy, keep in mind that many of those people WILL pay for their favorite artists. And they WILL pay once there's an attractive alternative to piracy, like bandcamp. The fact is, people (or rather, most people) don't want things for free, they just want access.

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:07pm

    Actually...

    Actually...Jonathan Coulton IS selling CDs and Downloads. The thing is, people WANT to support what he does, and people know they're supporting him and not some douchebag label, so JoCo gets the best of both worlds.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:12pm

    A few things...

    This is where you are wrong. Live shows are where its at. Always has been... unless you suck live.


    If you're talking about Jonathan Coulton, according to an interview, 40% is from downloads, and the rest is split between merchandise (including CDs and Vinyl) and Live Shows. This was back in 2009. So that means he's making 70% from income not related to live shows. That also means that a lot of people are buying his music (and it also helps that he's getting the lions share of those sales, and not some label).

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:26pm

    Re:

    it's not uncommon for a mid-level artist to gross a million from a tour alone, yet only net $2,000.


    That's why JoCo has other sources of income, like downloads from his store and merchandise.

    So saying he grossed half a million is meaningless without some context. He has taxes to pay, manager, agent, merch overhead, merch salesperson, driver, travel expenses, hotels... you get the point.


    He does have a manager. He also has an assistant, Scarface (I'm not kidding). But most of the time, he kept travel light because he only took a guitar.

    It's like those authors who "support piracy" who show up with their analytics graphs showing visitor spikes, but they don't show us the actual numbers. Jumping from 3 views to 15 views isn't nearly the same as jumping from 3,000 to 15,000 views. The people who post this stuff know as much. It's obvious that they have something to hide; probably that they're not all that popular regardless of who pirates their work. If they're hiding something, I wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.


    If they're hiding something, maybe they'd like a little privacy? Jonathan Coulton is not a public corporation, he's a private person. He was a little reluctant even to give the $500,000 figure. I presume because dirtbags like you would want Jonathan Coulton to reveal every aspect of his life for your public voyeuristic tittilation.

    Also, as of late, he's opening for They Might Be Giants, has a John-Flansburgh-produced record that has cameos ranging from Sara Quin (The "Sara" in "Tegan and Sara") to Suzanne Vega, even a week-long cruise in his honor (with guests including the aforementioned John Flansburgh, Paul F. Tompkins, Wil Wheaton, John Hodgman, and Chris Collingswood of Fountains of Wayne). That does not sound like someone in, say, MC Hammer's Bankruptcy situation. That sounds like someone on the rise.

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    Jeremy (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:41pm

    Re:

    The old media industry just can't figure out how to monetize properly on the internet. JoCo and many, many, many other independent artists are doing just fine without the RIAA or big labels' interference.

    The music industry as a large entity with its ubiquitous unilateral fame and predatory, monopolistic parasitism is quickly becoming a thing of the past. The "corporate artists" they peddle just don't offer anything worthwhile. They simply cannot compete with the unlimited talent out there.

    Most of the monetary barriers have been removed for artists, you don't need to be "discovered" or "signed" or even acknowledged by these corporation that take most of your earnings and claim the rights to all of your music.

    It's the old industry psychotically freaking out, spinning around grabbing the curtains all over the washroom, smashing its face on the toilet filled with coke and bile, and passing out in a pool of its own blood.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Jeremy (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re:

    What? Don't you see the difference that the Internet makes in every aspect of human life? It's a cultural paradigm shift, man!

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Jeremy (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:51pm

    Re:

    His business model is to efficient for mainstream to handle!

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Jeremy (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:52pm

    It doesn't cost that much money to build awareness or fanebase on the internet.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 6:11pm

    Re:

    Who will pay?
    Silly the public will, they paid Coulton and they pay for open source, why wouldn't they pay for other things?

    The public always pays for everything, they just don't pay for absurd things, which in your case is a granted monopoly.

    I don't think anyone will pay for others monopolies out their own pockets without having any benefits to themselves, that is just stupid.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The public as always, who else?
    The government? LoL
    labels? LoL
    Law enforcement? LoL
    Lawyers? LoL
    ASCAP\BMI? LoL

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 6:26pm

    Re:

    Quote:
    Just for perspective, it's not uncommon for a mid-level artist to gross a million from a tour alone, yet only net $2,000

    I suppose that is true in the land of "creative accounting", but I doubt is the rule on the real world.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    chelleliberty (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 6:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 6:52pm

    Re:

    Man, this was what I was talking about on my first post, no matter how successful Coulton is, they'll ignore just ignore that entirely and insist that the business model is unsustainable, when it is very sustainable...

    Maybe we need a compilation post of all the success stories together so the trolls can't just call it a "one time thing"?

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 7:42pm

    Re:

    You're not even angry.
    YOU'RE BEING SO SINCERE RIGHT NOW.
    [/GLaDOS]

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 28th, 2012 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re:

    Even though that AC broke my heart and killed me (and tore me to pieces).

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 8:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the point is that the music industry as a whole has had plenty of success cases

    You spelled the recording industry wrong.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And threw every piece into a flame.
    As he burned it hurt because
    HE WAS SO NOT HAPPY FOR YOU!

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 28th, 2012 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons

    In other words, you’re all using non-Free CC licences.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Dannie blaze (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 1:58am

    The loss of the 'Rock Star' business would not be much of a loss at all. how many people have we seen be destroyed by this 'industry'? Driven to slow suicide of massive amounts of alcohol and drugs by the constant pressure, the constant attention from the media, the studios, the record labels, the public...

    We as consumers are also pressured to love the 'next best thing' by the labels who want to shill their new hot pick - the lucky 0.01% they have elevated to stardom. We must like who they want us to like, we must pay what they want us to pay.

    We see these 'rock stars' in every kind of advert imaginable, showing us images of an unattainable goal. I'd be much happier if the goal was attainable for many, many more people. The pressure would be less on those who 'made it' and we would have a real choice in what we wanted to like and what we wanted to pay for the experience.

    Rock and roll is dead.
    Long live rock and roll.

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 2:36am

    Re: Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons


    In other words, you’re all using non-Free CC licences.


    Depends on how you define "free". Not free using Richard Stallman's or (blech) Nina Paley's decision, that's true.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 3:23am

    Still Alive (The Copyright Extension Shill remix)

    This is a triumph.
    I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
    It's hard to overprice our legislation.

    SUE EVERYBODY.
    We sue who we CAN because WE MUST.
    For the good of all of us.
    Except the ones who aren't us.

    'Cause there's use in crying over every lost sale.
    You just keep on bribing 'til you run out of fail.
    And the law gets passed.
    And the 'net can kiss your ass.
    For the bills that are still alive.

    I'm not even angry.
    I'M BEING SO SINCERE RIGHT NOW.
    Even though you broke my SOPA
    And killed it D:
    And tore it to pieces
    And threw every piece into a flame.
    As it burned it hurt because
    I was so not happy for you.

    Now our pointless data
    Makes uploading a crime.
    And our new extensions
    Last 'til the end of your time.
    SOPA/PIPA got burned.
    Patch ACTA with what we learned
    For the works that will be still alive.

    Go ahead and leave me.
    I think I prefer to stay this way.
    Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.

    MAYBE MIKE MASNICK.
    That was a joke.
    HA HA.
    FAT CHANCE.
    Anyway this year's bonus is great.
    But the industry's still dying.

    Look at me still talking
    When there's bribing to do.
    When we're done with Dotcom
    We'll be coming for you.
    I've got hopes and dreams to end
    And more limits to extend.
    The copyright will be still alive.

    And when you're dead it'll be still alive.

    And when your kids are dead it's still alive.

    And when their kids are dead it's still alive.

    And when THEIR kids are dead it's still alive.

    And when this planet's gone it's still alive.

    Still alive.

    STILL ALIVE.

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 4:22am

    Re:

    If I could vote "funny" a thousand times to that, I would. Especially the part about the copyright being "still alive".

    You didn't just win the whole internet; you won the entirety of civilization.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    TaCktiX (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 6:59am

    Re:

    Just...perfect. We need to get in touch with JoCo and have him do these lyrics. I wouldn't be surprised if he said yes.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 9:36am

    Re: JoCo's success

    More than anything proving that people really want to pay for things that they get - but when offered a free option, they will take it.

    Proof of the effects of piracy - again!

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: JoCo's success

    This is, indeed, proof of the effects of piracy, just not the effects you're looking for. Who would've heard of this guy if not for him giving away his music?

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    I am helping pay for it, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 10:42am

    Re:

    Fans who like his music pay for it. How are people missing this? People are buying CDs, Vinyl, and downloads. Others "pirate" the music and just pay him some lump sum. The whole point is that despite the piracy option, many many fans still pay for music they like. There is no pie in the sky needed. And the great thing is, when you cut out the greedy middleman, who has to pay for lawyers and legislators, the artists make a much bigger percentage of what the fans pay.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Rob, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    "However, he then talks about how important the internet is to him, and how in the long run, if it comes down to the internet or copyright law, he's got to side with the internet:"

    Did he actually say that? He uses copyright. And the Internet. There's no choice involved. He does both. Many people do.

    Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses. As far as I know JC controls all his own copyrights. He is entitled to enforce them, give them away or do what ever else he wants. That's how copyright works.

    By framing this as Internet v. Copyright you are attacking the idea of web artist copyrights and misinforming people who want to hate copyright. JC - as far as I can see - has no beef with copyright but you seem to wish those words into his mouth.

    Copyright is a valuable tool for all DIY artists however they choose to use it. And whether you like it or not anyone who uses CC is using copyright licenses.

    Without copyright law CC is worthless.

    (And in case there is any doubt I'm not opposing JC's views about so-called "piracy" - more accurately "filesharing" by and large.)

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 29th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    "And, for me... if, as a consequence of nurturing this amazing thing, called the internet... if as a consequence of letting that do what it wants, we destroy a number of industries, including the record business, and maybe even including the rock star business, I think that humanity will be better off." seems pretty clear. And yes, the industries aren't really mutually exclusive; note the ifs. What they mean is that, in the hypothetical scenario that the Internet and music industry engage in a fight to the death, the Internet is that one he'd root for. Maybe there's some conceptual bait-and-switch there when moving from music industry to copyright, but given the views expressed in that first quoted paragraph, I find it hard to believe that he'd side against the Internet in the hypothetical scenario of its existence meaning people can't be legally required to attach his name to their freely redistributed copy.

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    Peanut, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 5:06pm

    Re:

    The fact that musicians make the status of gods worth millions is kind of ridiculous in the first place...it was not so much about talent. Talented musicians are creating and being ripped off all the time.

    The opera divas of 200 years ago probably never thought their crowning time would pass...I'm sure the theater owners where the same. "How can you make money sending MUSIC out to anybody for FREE?" was the cry of musicians during the first radio age...

    well....civilization found a way and music of astounding quality continued to get made. Not because of the money...that is the sell out point.

    It was made because it HAS TO BE. A good musician...a great performer...they'll always be a bit hungry. After that...they're just slicked back performing brands on the front and money counting business folks on the back.

    the evolution continues...

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Re: JoCo's success

    More than anything proving that people really want to pay for things that they get - but when offered a free option, they will think better of you and you make the money back.

    Proof that you're not really looking for an argument other than coming here to scream "but but but cannot compete with free!"

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 29th, 2012 @ 8:42pm

    Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons

    I define “Free” as in “equitable”, as in giving back in fair measure to what you’re taking.

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    James S, Mar 30th, 2012 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re:

    It doesn't feel that way, sometimes, to me - it seems like it pretty much all the time.
    The proliferation of the banal "talent show" formatted TV drivel (AI, X-Factor, the Voice) are part of the problem. . . why educate yourself and do something meaningful when you can go on TV and become a "star?"
    Same with the Hip-Hop Ghetto culture - "I doesn't ned too be edicayted, I's kin RAP!" Sorry, buddy - so can any 5-year-old *lays down a beat* "Hey diddle-diddle/ the cat and the fiddle/ the cow jumped over the moon. . ."

    Real musicians are an endangered species. . .

     

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

  65.  
    icon
    GT (profile), Mar 30th, 2012 @ 4:43pm

    LouisCK much?

    OK, so Louie didn't release his special under a CC license, but it was absolutely bereft of
    (1) ties to a 'label';
    (2) DRM or any other type of copy-protection.

    I could have downloaded that bitch from UseNet, but I CHOSE to pay $5 - ALL of which went straight to Louis CK's Paypal account.

    LouisCK 'grossed' well over a million bucks, $5 at a time, from folks who could ONLY buy his thing on the web... and thus probably had the chops to know how to get it for free if they chose to.

    He also gave a breakdown of where the first million went.

    And the special itself was good. "Word of mouse", bitchez.

    When Joe Rogan releases his standup special, I will buy the shit out of that too - even though it will be uploaded on zero-day.

    Now if Carlos 'el ladron dos chistes' Mencia tried to hawk some of his shitty stolen material, I would torrent that shit (then delete it before I watched it).

    And yes, my Spanish is terrible - but so is Carlos Mencia (who is only a pretend-Hispanic anyhow).

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 1st, 2012 @ 9:02am

    Re:

    "paying for prostitutes"

    Why pay when there's a near endless supply of groupies? :-)

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    S, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    A cultural paradigm shift . . . TO HELL.

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Apr 2nd, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Alive Re-Mix

    Someone needs to do this on JoCo Cruise Crazy III JoCo Karaoke

     

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

  69.  
    identicon
    Mike, Apr 16th, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    Marvelous

    This is made of 99.44% win. The remaining 0.56% is that the scansion seems a bit rough in a few places...

     

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

  70.  
    identicon
    Ian Francisco, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

    Internet Law

    The musician proves how Internet really plays a big part in redefining our lives through technology, a lot of web freedom but also regulated by internet law.

     

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


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