Whoa, lets all take a step back here. I don't always agree with your positions Mike, but I've always had a lot of respect for how calmly and rationally you've argued it. I've never seen you call people names before.
Pandora's position is they want a level playing field, which is not an unreasonable position for any business to take. You might not agree with their acceptance of the rates imposed upon them, but they clearly feel this is the only option left to them.
As for the argument over artist compensation for FM radio play, as I understand your position it is that radio play is promotional, and historically this has always been compensation enough.
But what I don't see why you are trying to make an historical argument in today's climate; so much is changing it hardly seems relevant. It made sense when so much of the industries revenue came from selling units; anything which encouraged unit sales was complimentary. These days album sales are not what they were, and radio is shrinking in importance as a promotional platform next to new technologies.
If a big chunk of artist income in the future is going to come from licensing content to businesses to leverage for profit to the public, it makes sense to bring FM Radio into line.
There is a good reason publishers are so nervous about investing in original titles; it is very difficult to turn a profit on them. The gaming landscape is littered with the corpses of brilliant and original titles like Phyconaughts, which while critically acclaimed never made any money.
You see, the problem really isn't with the suits, annoying as they may be. Its that the vast majority of gamers are hype-monkeys, flocking to the latest Halo game like...flying hype-monkeys, but rarely spending a penny on anything that can't be easily classified for their ADD-addled minds.
So the artistic developers tend to release indie titles, like World of Goo. But making the transition from indie-devs to development studio is no easy thing, despite how successful your indie games are (see Introversion).
But gaming has its rockstars already, people like Gabe Newell and Eskil Steenberg. They might not look quite so good on TV, but they have a lot of influence in their own way.
'Again, the VAST majority of the comments that were on her site were incredibly well thought out and reasonable. Not the sort that you mention at all. Yes, there were a couple of idiots, but they were definitely in the minority. I don't believe for a second that it was that sort of thing that made her shut down the blog.'
Can't say I read many of them Mike, but everything I saw was abusive or contained rudeness of some degree.
But then is anything Ms Allen wrote that surprising? We've seen it all before, in some form.
What is more notable is the wider support she received in her position from other young artists, so many in such a short space of time. 'Making it' as a young act has always been hard, yet it seems that piracy has become a scapegoat for everyone's problems. Didn't make the cut? It wasn't because no one liked you, it was because they all pirated your stuff. It softens the blow to the ego.
I've done a little work with developing artists and know some of the frustrations they labour under on a day-to-day basis. It isn't surprising that some see piracy as the feather that's breaking the camels back. But piracy is but one problem the industry faces in the digital world, and shouldn't be considered the root of all evil.
The other trend seems to be the blame they all place on ISP's. While that seems deserved to a degree, they seem to be labouring under the misconception that internet providers are making huge revenues that can be shared with artists. That simply isn't true. The ISP market is as competitive as any other, and prices would have to go up wholesale to start paying off artists.
Can't help but think he has a point somewhere in there. Rockband might not 'encourage kids not to learn', but it certainly doesn't do anything to encourage them to learn. By giving kids a shortcut to the thrill of playing a great song, perhaps it will have a negative effect on learning.
On the other hand, perhaps it will just lead to less rubbish guitar players bothering to learn in the first place.
If you look at the big collection body in the UK, the PRS (something Mike has covered in the past) then you get a similar picture.
To determine how to distribute royalties the body gets the major radio stations to submit full lists, but it only does random sampling of the playlist of the smaller regional stations, clubs, bars and licensed premisses.
These methods made sense in an analogue world where it was impractical to collect such comprehensive data, but not in a digital one.
The problem with random-sampling methods is that its not likely to pick up the one-off plays of smaller artists, and their share goes to the big artists instead. That makes it hard for a new artist to get much return from royalties even if he's getting some airplay.
In PRS's defence they do give a proportion of the cash to charities that support young artists, but it does seem like their methods could do with updating.
"But, the point that I was making -- which I thought was more interesting -- is that it shows how the interests of the labels and the artists often diverge."
My problem with this is I disagree on it being interesting; it almost seems like stating the obvious. Such interests can diverge just as they do in every form of business contract.
But perhaps this isn't what really bugs me. I think that might be the title, and a comment-threat full of people gloating over the 'evil record companies'.
Not to get short with Mike, but is there really much of interest to this story?
That two parties that undertake a contract together want different things is part of a contracts purpose. That afterwards the two parties fight over how the resulting assets are split is hardly unusual.
A label and an artist having 'unaligned interests' should be obvious; so do many people who enter into contracts. It doesn't mean there is anything sinister or unusual to it.
I think your reasoning is flawed in the same way the capitalist thinking that got us into this mess is flawed; you believe that people will behave rationally.
In light of the bailouts it makes perfect sense that bankers will start to take huge risks with the assumption of a Government safety-net, but in reality the precise opposite of this is true.
In the current climate people are worried that a recovery will be delayed due to the risk-adverse culture that has been created in the business world as a result of the meltdown.
But back to the central issue...the immediate problem is one of restoring growth and stability to the economies of the world. For that I don't think too many Governments are going to regulate very heavily in the short-term, but rather focus on what can be done in the long term.
The danger is that a lot of people in the financial industries are desperate to return to how things were, and will fight desperately to resist the needed reforms that might increase regulation to prevent systematic problems.
I don't think its a case of them not knowing what their customers want, rather its a case of them knowing what they want but having no idea how to make money from it.
The problem isn't leveraging 'as much money as they can', rather getting as much money as they used to make with analogue sales. EMI was bought by a private equity firm; if they have to shrink the company significantly to return it to profitability they risk ever making a decent return on their investment.
Pandora is doing what it needs to do to survive. If the only route to that is to work with the system (and don't try and tell me they haven't pursued every other possibility), then so be it.
Mike's stance is hopelessly idealistic. Pandora are arguing for a level playing field on which to compete. Web radio is never going to be able to fight the RIAA alone, but if FM radio is forced into the same position we'll see a lot more lively discussion of the issues.
This has me suspicious too. People who just think labels are greedy and evil don't appreciate the very real costs involved in recording and promoting music.
It is good that a band will be getting more influence (an artist who signs away their copyright for life really has no leg to stand on in future dissagreements), but there isn't any such thing as a free lunch.
'50% share of profits' could mean any number of things; publishers are deviously clever with numbers when they need to be.
"However, sites like popurls, Digg, Slashdot and Metafilter regularly led me down very weird paths full of new learning and the best part is I can just bookmark it and come back to it later. I never have to return the link like a library book."
Indeed, but such sites are ultimately the product of their communities, and for voteup/votedown models (as Reddit and Digg use) the content that comes up to the top of the pile is what has the best general appeal for that community. It becomes this self-reinforcing loop where all descent is quickly voted out.
Indeed, Mike didn't cover that part of the article. But it was the message Bradbury was trying to get across.
"We live in a society that is driven by money. If libraries die its because they couldn't make money. Not because internet goons came over and burned all the books."
This isn't about those with money deciding what has value in society, as libraries are nearly always publicly funded services. Libraries exist to elevate those without any money as much as anything else.
I can't really follow your moral argument here Mike, are you saying its funny, so it doesn't matter?
What if the band in question wasn't one that most of the internet hates, and the group mocking them wasn't a baseball league but a rival records company (or band), could you still justify it in quite the same manner?
I don't mean to undermine the right of use of media in satire, but if the future of music artists is to turn themselves into brands (as Matt Mason suggests), won't it become even more crucial for bands to have a tight control over the way their creations are used?
RSS
Twitter
There's an election coming up soon... (as SteveD)
...an election no one expects the current Government to win, regardless of what they do.
Now would be the time to make unpopular decisions.
Re: Re: I see. You are a fool. (as SteveD)
Whoa, lets all take a step back here. I don't always agree with your positions Mike, but I've always had a lot of respect for how calmly and rationally you've argued it. I've never seen you call people names before.
Pandora's position is they want a level playing field, which is not an unreasonable position for any business to take. You might not agree with their acceptance of the rates imposed upon them, but they clearly feel this is the only option left to them.
As for the argument over artist compensation for FM radio play, as I understand your position it is that radio play is promotional, and historically this has always been compensation enough.
But what I don't see why you are trying to make an historical argument in today's climate; so much is changing it hardly seems relevant. It made sense when so much of the industries revenue came from selling units; anything which encouraged unit sales was complimentary. These days album sales are not what they were, and radio is shrinking in importance as a promotional platform next to new technologies.
If a big chunk of artist income in the future is going to come from licensing content to businesses to leverage for profit to the public, it makes sense to bring FM Radio into line.
Re: well.... (as SteveD)
Laptops too make great umbrellas, until they get too wet to prove useful. :P
(as SteveD)
Hey, it worked in the Shawshank Redemption...
Is risk aversion a bad thing? (as SteveD)
There is a good reason publishers are so nervous about investing in original titles; it is very difficult to turn a profit on them. The gaming landscape is littered with the corpses of brilliant and original titles like Phyconaughts, which while critically acclaimed never made any money.
You see, the problem really isn't with the suits, annoying as they may be. Its that the vast majority of gamers are hype-monkeys, flocking to the latest Halo game like...flying hype-monkeys, but rarely spending a penny on anything that can't be easily classified for their ADD-addled minds.
So the artistic developers tend to release indie titles, like World of Goo. But making the transition from indie-devs to development studio is no easy thing, despite how successful your indie games are (see Introversion).
But gaming has its rockstars already, people like Gabe Newell and Eskil Steenberg. They might not look quite so good on TV, but they have a lot of influence in their own way.
Re: Re: (as SteveD)
'Again, the VAST majority of the comments that were on her site were incredibly well thought out and reasonable. Not the sort that you mention at all. Yes, there were a couple of idiots, but they were definitely in the minority. I don't believe for a second that it was that sort of thing that made her shut down the blog.'
Can't say I read many of them Mike, but everything I saw was abusive or contained rudeness of some degree.
But then is anything Ms Allen wrote that surprising? We've seen it all before, in some form.
What is more notable is the wider support she received in her position from other young artists, so many in such a short space of time. 'Making it' as a young act has always been hard, yet it seems that piracy has become a scapegoat for everyone's problems. Didn't make the cut? It wasn't because no one liked you, it was because they all pirated your stuff. It softens the blow to the ego.
I've done a little work with developing artists and know some of the frustrations they labour under on a day-to-day basis. It isn't surprising that some see piracy as the feather that's breaking the camels back. But piracy is but one problem the industry faces in the digital world, and shouldn't be considered the root of all evil.
The other trend seems to be the blame they all place on ISP's. While that seems deserved to a degree, they seem to be labouring under the misconception that internet providers are making huge revenues that can be shared with artists. That simply isn't true. The ISP market is as competitive as any other, and prices would have to go up wholesale to start paying off artists.
Encoraging not to learn (as SteveD)
Can't help but think he has a point somewhere in there. Rockband might not 'encourage kids not to learn', but it certainly doesn't do anything to encourage them to learn. By giving kids a shortcut to the thrill of playing a great song, perhaps it will have a negative effect on learning.
On the other hand, perhaps it will just lead to less rubbish guitar players bothering to learn in the first place.
Similar situation in the UK (as SteveD)
If you look at the big collection body in the UK, the PRS (something Mike has covered in the past) then you get a similar picture.
To determine how to distribute royalties the body gets the major radio stations to submit full lists, but it only does random sampling of the playlist of the smaller regional stations, clubs, bars and licensed premisses.
These methods made sense in an analogue world where it was impractical to collect such comprehensive data, but not in a digital one.
The problem with random-sampling methods is that its not likely to pick up the one-off plays of smaller artists, and their share goes to the big artists instead. That makes it hard for a new artist to get much return from royalties even if he's getting some airplay.
In PRS's defence they do give a proportion of the cash to charities that support young artists, but it does seem like their methods could do with updating.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as SteveD)
I will concede that.
Re: Re: (as SteveD)
"But, the point that I was making -- which I thought was more interesting -- is that it shows how the interests of the labels and the artists often diverge."
My problem with this is I disagree on it being interesting; it almost seems like stating the obvious. Such interests can diverge just as they do in every form of business contract.
But perhaps this isn't what really bugs me. I think that might be the title, and a comment-threat full of people gloating over the 'evil record companies'.
What has Techdirt become?
It's a contract dispute, then? (as SteveD)
Not to get short with Mike, but is there really much of interest to this story?
That two parties that undertake a contract together want different things is part of a contracts purpose. That afterwards the two parties fight over how the resulting assets are split is hardly unusual.
A label and an artist having 'unaligned interests' should be obvious; so do many people who enter into contracts. It doesn't mean there is anything sinister or unusual to it.
Re: Hey, wait a minute (as SteveD)
I think your reasoning is flawed in the same way the capitalist thinking that got us into this mess is flawed; you believe that people will behave rationally.
In light of the bailouts it makes perfect sense that bankers will start to take huge risks with the assumption of a Government safety-net, but in reality the precise opposite of this is true.
In the current climate people are worried that a recovery will be delayed due to the risk-adverse culture that has been created in the business world as a result of the meltdown.
But back to the central issue...the immediate problem is one of restoring growth and stability to the economies of the world. For that I don't think too many Governments are going to regulate very heavily in the short-term, but rather focus on what can be done in the long term.
The danger is that a lot of people in the financial industries are desperate to return to how things were, and will fight desperately to resist the needed reforms that might increase regulation to prevent systematic problems.
Re: If you don't know, ask! (as SteveD)
I don't think its a case of them not knowing what their customers want, rather its a case of them knowing what they want but having no idea how to make money from it.
The problem isn't leveraging 'as much money as they can', rather getting as much money as they used to make with analogue sales. EMI was bought by a private equity firm; if they have to shrink the company significantly to return it to profitability they risk ever making a decent return on their investment.
Speaking of which, the latest rumours are that the EMI owners are looking to write-off a significant portion of their debt to CityBank: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/07/is-emi-in-deep-fiancial-trouble.html
This is no time for idealists (as SteveD)
Pandora is doing what it needs to do to survive. If the only route to that is to work with the system (and don't try and tell me they haven't pursued every other possibility), then so be it.
Mike's stance is hopelessly idealistic. Pandora are arguing for a level playing field on which to compete. Web radio is never going to be able to fight the RIAA alone, but if FM radio is forced into the same position we'll see a lot more lively discussion of the issues.
Re: I wonder about other aspects of the contract... (as SteveD)
This has me suspicious too. People who just think labels are greedy and evil don't appreciate the very real costs involved in recording and promoting music.
It is good that a band will be getting more influence (an artist who signs away their copyright for life really has no leg to stand on in future dissagreements), but there isn't any such thing as a free lunch.
'50% share of profits' could mean any number of things; publishers are deviously clever with numbers when they need to be.
Re: Re: some people are making money (as SteveD)
Indeed, games like Battlefield Heroes have been advertised as 'free2play' for some time now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQP-uBijWg
Re: Re: (as SteveD)
"The internet has been one of the best tools ever developed to find books... lol"
Indeed, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Re: Re: The Internet UR doing it wrong. (as SteveD)
"However, sites like popurls, Digg, Slashdot and Metafilter regularly led me down very weird paths full of new learning and the best part is I can just bookmark it and come back to it later. I never have to return the link like a library book."
Indeed, but such sites are ultimately the product of their communities, and for voteup/votedown models (as Reddit and Digg use) the content that comes up to the top of the pile is what has the best general appeal for that community. It becomes this self-reinforcing loop where all descent is quickly voted out.
Re: Re: But we never said kill the library... (as SteveD)
"But we never said kill the library..."
Indeed, Mike didn't cover that part of the article. But it was the message Bradbury was trying to get across.
"We live in a society that is driven by money. If libraries die its because they couldn't make money. Not because internet goons came over and burned all the books."
This isn't about those with money deciding what has value in society, as libraries are nearly always publicly funded services. Libraries exist to elevate those without any money as much as anything else.
All publicity is good publicity? (as SteveD)
I can't really follow your moral argument here Mike, are you saying its funny, so it doesn't matter?
What if the band in question wasn't one that most of the internet hates, and the group mocking them wasn't a baseball league but a rival records company (or band), could you still justify it in quite the same manner?
I don't mean to undermine the right of use of media in satire, but if the future of music artists is to turn themselves into brands (as Matt Mason suggests), won't it become even more crucial for bands to have a tight control over the way their creations are used?