Dewy Bradford 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (54)
-
On the post: Music Publishers Join In The Fun Of Suing XM
-
On the post: Scarcity Isn't As Scarce As You Might Think
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2007 @ 09:17amSecond thought
And in response to the industries cry to enforce artificial scarcity onto non-scarce goods, I want to suggest humbly you are trying to hold back the tide with palm leaves.
Script a program to limit plays, and folks will write a patch for it. Encode music, fans will decode it. Shut down 1 fileshare company/program and three will open in its place.
You see... its human nature, not criminal actions.
Drop a $10 bill on the ground, and wait for someone to pick it up. Then approach them with malice and accuse them of stealing it. They will defend their actions.
Now replace it and approach the next test subject with gratitude and thank them profusely for helping you recover your lost money...
When you accuse "Us" of being pirates and thieves indiscriminately... you lose our support. When you appeal to our basic nature to be helpful, most will respond in kind. No, you won't always get your $10 back... but if a product is what you sell, you might get a customer.
Non-Scarcity should be a benefit, a boon to all, not a problem to be legislated and limited. -
On the post: Scarcity Isn't As Scarce As You Might Think
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2007 @ 08:08amAgreed
I have to agree with everything Poster #3 Darok said.
I am grateful to have had my scarce good, attention, directed to this series of articles among the host of non-scarce articles on this topic.
I too am an artist, as well as a musician (different beasts often), and an entrepreneur who would like to make a living with my art. I have no desire to be a ROCK GOD, or Business tycoon. The music should be free, and the experience sold. Profit should never come from the exploitation of the fan, or the art.
The RIAA has only represented its own best interests, and serves itself once again with the insertion of software designed to limit the exposure of the music.
The digital era heralds a wonderful time for Artists, Art, and Consumer alike. Profit should not hamper this growth, but should be folded into it seamlessly, and painlessly for the benefit of the Main Three parties first... and industry second. -
On the post: FCC To Delay Flight Of Cell Phones
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2007 @ 10:32am9/11
I am reminded of someone who was ridiculed when they pointed out the "cell calls" from the hijacked aircraft (on 9/11) could not have taken place. Probably not relevant to your story... but noteworthy just the same.
-
On the post: File Sharing Putting CD Counterfeiters Out Of Business?
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2007 @ 02:30pmArrghh, we not be pirates
Even the Supreme Court has agreed, filesharing is not Stealing or Piracy.
No money is exchanging hands... no one is being deprived of their right to market in any fashion they like... and where does the industry gets off feeling like its entitled to charge me multiple times for media I have already paid for or are using as an educational resource (bar band... gotta learn new tunes).
How many times shall I be charged for viewing the Mona Lisa, or applying it as a wallpaper on my desktop? I have even heard rumors of bands and clubs being charged for the performance of cover tunes... the nerve of some rich folk!
When I can be assured I will only be charged Once for my "license" to own a copy of "Back in Black" (which I bought on Lp, Cassette and CD), then I will CONSIDER their right to "control" something they have released for personal consumption.
Until then they have every right to pursue copyright infringement against use for profit with my blessing. They can make sure their song is not associated with any products or practices they do not endorse... thats fine... its "their art, their decision.
But as far as I am concerned... and feel free to hunt me down and sue my broke heiny out of existence... Artists create art for the public to consume. Musical and visual arts lose nothing in their consumption, and only gain from the exposure. Once they have "released" something for public review... there is no going back. No fee per ear can be applied, no "pay per veiw" after the moment of creation and release.
How they market and control the commercial and political use of said art is entirely up to them, but once they expose their art, it is part of the public's conscious. -
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Knowing What Broadband Providers Offer Will Kill Coffee Shops?
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2007 @ 02:04pmFree market rules
I would guess that this would fall under some sort of "Freedom of Information" act that would govern how businesses can operate in a free market.
Perhaps part of the "Digital Revolution" will be signs that read "FREE THE DATA" and "DATA TO THE PEOPLE".
Damn shame Corps and Governments can't read the writing on the wall and follow suit. Money to be made here folks... votes to be won... just need someone willing to stand up and shout out loud "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"! -
On the post: The Shift From CDs To Downloads Is So Much More Than A Format Change
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2007 @ 12:11pmPFF
I just went and read through some of the articles on the PFF, and some were well presented, others seemed a little biased against the consumer... while others spoke of "harsh" tactics by the RIAA.
Biggest thing I see about the PFF is they are closed to opinions. No replies or comments sought. This suggests to me they are a mouthpiece, not really weighing the impact on the consumer.
It ultimately comes down to simple economics and a determination of our government. Do we promote an Free market economy, or do we subsidize obsolete technology. Considering the RIAA and ADM's standing in congress, I fear we are witnessing the end of America as a "Free Market", and heralding the onset of Corporate Led Bureaucracy.
Its often said here "IF Congress wants to do the right thing", and I submit this is folly. If the propping up of the sugar prices to make the production and sale of High Fructose Corn Syrup profitable is any indication of how congress will act on the behalf of Free Market Economy and to benefit the American citizen and eventual consumer of said goods, then we're on our own.
Do not blindly obey a law because some corporate or government goon says not to. Read the fine print, ask artists and check out the story. Download a Brittney Spears tune and see if you feel like knocking over a liquor store... ultimately decide for yourself.
100+ years ago artists made money and along came the phonograph... Free markets worked it out.
50 years ago Radio was born and everyone seemed to work it out without undoing the fabric of the universe (or criminalizing fans).
25 years ago recordable tape became affordable to the masses and the industry lept up and created a fee to pay itself and criminalize the manufacturers.
Now they have Digital reproduction to fatten themselves with. How will we respond. Will we be sheep and continue to pay for gold plated humvees, bling bling and trashed motel rooms?
Or will will we live our lives as best we can with the enrichment of music and digital media, and let the artists and fat cats figure out how to make money off of it.
As an artists I speak for myself when I say "Let them eat CD's if they think they're worth $18" I'll deal with independents. -
On the post: The Importance Of Zero In Destroying The Scarcity Myth Of Economics
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2007 @ 08:55amIt will work
Automatically, this creates a huge problem -- the content creator now has to design their work to be palatable to advertisers. For the most popular and most innovative creative works, that simply fails -- it fails society and the artist.
..............................................................................
No, that is the creators choice now, and then... and even when that is the goal of the creator it does not ensure success. Take the song Back in Black by AC/DC... recently used on a Razor commercial... song was written BEFORE cell phones, and was being used for its recognition value... they paid for use of the song because they made money off of it.
Now lets pursue this Idea a little further... No one is saying AC/DC should just release this and future content for free because that will be the eventual price the market will bear, or release all IP rights associated with it.
Rather I (and I think Mike and others) are saying that AC/DC should release lower quality releases to the public domain, with higher quality releases including additional content for a higher price. Include something they CANNOT get elsewhere, access to the band via club membership, opportunities to select shows... ect...
They will find that greater exposure helps push sales of "Scarcer" content, and generates a greater and friendlier fan base.
As a musician I come back to this topic again and again... but it can apply to a great many products that are digital in nature. Release the prequel or first in a trilogy series and you have fans clamoring for the next release.
And to clear up a point I see many people making an arse of themselves over... and Mike has to repeat himself about...
The point of marginal costs DRIVING price TOWARDS zero has nothing to do with the INITIAL costs... or the costs required to produce INITIAL batches which will be SCARCE and thus subject to that economic theory. Just simply that the EVENTUAL price must reflect the marginal drop in price as availability increases (i.e. SCARCITY DECREASES = COST REDUCTION).
In the digital domain you have an unusual precedent... reproduction costs are ALMOST ZERO. We're not reproducing McBurgers here and having to continually purchase beef and buns to turn out a consumed product that will have to be purchased 3 times a day. Or a Book that my wife can't read while I am reading it. Nor are we talking about a book that once I read it and pass it on to a friend I no longer can reference it.
We are talking about the closest thing to IDEAS that mankind has ever been able to distribute.
...............................................................................
ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition
no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine
..............................................................................
So AC/DC really loses nothing when their song is "pirated" by an individual user. They wouldn't have purchased it without some exposure, and now a new fan is itching to purchase more of that bands material... and come see them in concert.
Their notoriety has grown with the increase of the fan base and the additional "share" on the internet... while their costs to market and distribute have reduced.
New fan= word of mouth advertising as well as a dedication of electricity, bandwidth and computer resources to share the release in the digital domain.
I see the clouds gathering... I warn the crew doing chalk art on the sidewalk of impending rain... and they lobby the weatherman for a sunny day so they can continue business as usual. Its not that their IP rights are fixing to be violated... just their monopoly on the sidewalk is coming to an end. No argument they can make will negate the fact that it is going to rain.
No argument the IP monopolies make will negate the fact that digital distribution costs have DROPPED. They APPROACH zero... and assuming we're criminals is a dangerous path they take, when embracing the fact will probably set them ahead in their game. -
On the post: A Lack Of Scarcity Has (Almost) Nothing To Do With Piracy
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2007 @ 08:39pmLove this Debate
If any of us are musicians we know the price of recording is plummeting thanks in large part to cheaper and better quality recording gear. A demo recording to get your band into clubs would have cost $2000, but now for $899 you can buy a nice digital recorder and make an infinite supply of 3rd rate recordings.
I'd also like to point out a couple of fundamental flaws I see in this discussion from time to time.
piracy vs scarcity:
Piracy implies someone "lost" something in the transaction. A sale or royalty... or are being denied "control" over the distribution of said works. What we are debating here is the SCARCITY issue... its no longer difficult to distribute large "works" of art... that bottleneck of the market is opening up. This takes us to our next source of confusion...
"Laws":
There are laws set into place by governments or industries that are often changed, modified, or even struck down for various reasons. these should never be confused with the laws of economics. The Laws of economics are INDEED like the laws of physics... and amoral. If I release a rock above your head the result may have moral implications... but morality has nothing to do with the rocks reaction to gravity.
Mike is sharing with us a fundamental law of economics here... when the cost of distributing something (water) reaches zero, the market changes. Now either business changes with the market... or is left behind as consumers vote with their wallets and pay business models that do.
The only thing I have seen Mike advocate here is that the industry accept and react accordingly these facts. His Argument may be useful to those among us who choose filesharing and need to help others understand that filesharing is NOT thievery... but he is speaking to the industry, not the consumer.
I'd like to once again point out, music was never intended for a bottle... it was never intended as a single use commodity. Music is a gift of the spirit from musician to affeciando... and anything inserted between is vile and insufficient. There is no fee I can pay David Gilmore to compensate the suffering and weathering that was required for him to record Comfortably Numb or distribute that recording.
And yet the industry that "represents" him has shaken me down 3 times for the cost of the cassette and once for the CD. (actually, when I bought the CD they were still enforcing the 12 song limit per CD, and its a double CD set...) Shall I continue to pay for this song every time I play it, and again for every device I choose to play it on? How about my friends, must they purchase a license to listen to it with me, or if I decide to show them the guitar or bass lines?
I've seen him in concert twice, and purchased other recordings he has made... but I think I've paid them for Comfortably Numb, and they've paid him. -
On the post: Recognizing That Just About Any Product Is A Bundle Of Scarce And Non-Scarce Goods
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2007 @ 07:10pmtrue, perfectly true
Since part of the value of a luxury brand is its exclusivity, it seems incorrect to describe BMW's brand as non-scarce. If BMW's were ubiquitous, the value of the brand would probably fall significantly.
................................................................................
Perhaps a better example of what Mike is trying to point out would be Harley Davidson. They have long since Set aside the Bike as their primary product... they now sell products with their licensed image... including bikes. They are applying a "Standard" that is associated with the "non scarce" good... the well known trademark... with many scarce goods.
The movie that was mentioned in the first post has upfront costs that are artificially created by the current model and industry... those are what will change. No reason for Tom Cruise to make $30 million a movie... no need for production assistants having an assistant and a hairdresser, and a trailer on the set.
Someone will come along and produce a movie that shatters expectations and cuts production costs thus proving a sow's ear is not a silk purse.
We've faced this dozens of time in recorded history... button makers, printing presses, recording technology, wireless transmission... nothing new here. The industry must adapt... or wither and die as new tech replaces old.
And a side note... they are attempting to criminalize a pursuit of happiness... the pursuit of art, enlightnement and creativity. No one is "Stealing" anything. No "product" is being denied to any other person. Filesharing and CD-R's are highly inferior to "owning" a legit copy of a CD for archival purpose and that is where they need to direct their efforts. Not persecuting Tab sites and College kids swapping dance remixes. -
On the post: Preventing Video Game Addiction… With Subliminal Noises?
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2007 @ 07:43amuseless
Video Games can be addictive... but its up to the individual to use them responsibly.
No manufacturer is going to add something to its game to limit use. -
On the post: Google Will Start Removing Identifying Data From Search Logs
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2007 @ 07:38amPrivacy
Anonymity is not like a pregnacy... it has layers. Some data about you can be tracked and your identity not be revealed.
Google needs data to make their engines and ads track better, its why today's internet uses google rather than alta-Vista. Thats why they keep data in the first place... not to track you, but to track searches... ip's are needed in this to determine how geography influences the searches.
Purging that data after use is prudent, and when is just a matter of diligence.
Ultimately... if your doing something wrong, then your either dumb and need to be caught, or using the various tools available to mask your identity anyway...
As to "trains to Gulag"... if and when the government decides to purge a particular demographic, just know it'll be the next day before you find out, and it'll be too late to stop it. You just have to speak out before they come to get you.
i.e. War on Drugs (really... war on drugs we don't profit from), or War on Terror (meaning, war on terrorists we no longer sponsor), or My favorite... War on Poverty (while we cut taxes for the rich and slash welfare spending) -
On the post: Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2007 @ 07:18amsomeone to hate
I'd say the RIAA/MPAA has fulfilled an important role in this industry... they're doing the dirty work. Artists do not want to be taken for granted, nor their work reduced in value to pennies on the dollar for what it brought yesterday.
Yet I'd also say they have overstepped their mandate and failed by criminalizing fans and failing to embrace the benefits of new tech.
Someone above said Karma prevails... and it does, just as economic forces will prevail. The "cost" of distribution has dropped significantly... and they want to convert this into a NEW revenue stream... rather than embrace the advance and pass on a reduced cost.
I think the term "Piracy" has been abused here. Consumers are not pirates... Most consumers purchase products...have full time jobs, and generally are fans. Pirates redistribute material for profit, and this is not the case with fileshare.
Fileshare is fans sharing access to their favorites... thus contributing (read PROMOTING) to the access of the artwork by a wider audience. I know something is a better product by the number of "fans" (shares) it has.
Somehow the "guardians" of the industry that creates this media have mistaken fileshare for "owning" the product... and failed to see its benefits for the industry, and mistaken fans for pirates.
It WILL backfire on them, they are biting the hand that feeds them and making general asses of themselves, Fans and artists alike see this and are watching quietly.
With every newscast denouncing piracy and announcing harsher actions against fans, more and more turn to fileshare, and away from the thugs.
I join in Mike for wishing success to all parts of the industry representing artists, as I am Fan... and grateful to the industry for its quality product.
I do hope the RIAA/MPAA quickly realize the error of their ways before the artists they protect slit their throats. The fans are already quietly doing that. -
On the post: Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention
Dewy Bradford ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2007 @ 09:49amMusic
Its interesting to see how what was "old" is new again.
The time was when musicians were paid for play... not for some "concept" of a recording. When that changed with the invention of the phonograph, new business and economic models had to be developed. Live music did not "Die" nor did musicians starve.
What did happen was a bunch of businessmen inserted themselves into the pay (read food) chain and made themselves wealthy off of the labor and creativity of the musicians.
They're "contribution" was in the production and distribution of the content created by musicians... and more often than not the musician was paid pennies on the dollar for his creation.
Now that the costs and availability of production and distribution are dropping with new technology, these FatCats are crying foul and lobbying the government for restrictions to protect their "investment".
I am going to agree with the above poster who says we're paying for the packaging here. Plastic, Paper, fuel... these things still have significant expense. To hold a CD in your hand is to hold all of those expenses... and you pay for that.
To listen to a song you are left with nothing tangible. There is no "Product"... you didn't buy a hammer and drive a nail to have a hammer left over. You listened to a song... and it is ethereal... it is a moment in time gone with nothing tangible left over but the memory. without the backup CD we are all 1 virus or hard drive crash away from having nothing... so we own nothing.
Lets also review how the RIAA have also gone at the music education industry. They are trying to shut down Tablature sites that help other musicians learn to play, claiming the works being interpreted are stolen and used without permission.
Copyrights may have been intended to serve the creator, but have been perverted by the industry to hold us all hostage. Now their house of cards begins to crumble... musicians and listeners all begin to rebel against the manipulation-for-profit of something that is intended for the listening enjoyment of everyone.
I also agree with the original poster of this thread (Mike) that the industry will adapt and change to work... and that its inevitable... no one will stop the forces at work here... all they can do is adapt or die.
Screams from a dying industry
I'm still waiting for polling numbers on artists views of RIAA actions. They can't be representing the artists... must be the recording industry.
Its dying... let them enact laws, and enforce them... let them throw more money down the Drain of holding back the digital tide.
When they figure out that the new generation of artists won't give them the time of day, they'll wither and die.