The statement "open website that anyone can visit" is so completely and plainly false, that's just not legitimate journalism.
A site that requires registration and provides terms of service is NOT open! In order for you to like, subscribe, or any other 'social feature requires a registered (and authenticated) user... That's the whole justification of the legal assertion that someone has done Twitch wrong.
We can arm wrestle about trademark and copyright and all that, but the real issue here is that folks are automating the registration process (and use of the site), completely in violation of the terms of service, and using that to profit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with comedy and everything to do with human nature and commercialism.
To simplify, telling jokes was perfectly fine until people started making money off of telling them. At the point of commercialization, THEN we had a problem. Same goes for stories, books, music, movies, software, whatever.
What needs to happen is a clear understanding to ALL what happens when someone wants to create something, and then give it away in a commercial context (which I thought was copyright). It is rather asinine to assume that 'hey, I can burn this on my own CD, therefore it should be free" - and that is the main complaint from the people that are trying to commercialize their work.
Ironically, the GPL does the exact same thing to software, "you can have this, and you can have this for free, all you gotta do is comply with these restrictions here" and those restrictions clearly define how you CAN and CANNOT redistribute that software. The fact that it is usually free as in beer doesn't mean you can just ignore the license of the creator.
This is all about copyright, and usually that only seems to matter when someone is trying to make a living off of (whatever it is that they do).
Please don't equate music to buggy whips. That's simply absurd - buggy whips are obsolete, but music is FOREVER, baby!
Second, and lastly, I totally agree with your philosophy that new, unknown bands should give away their music to grow their fan base as quickly as possible. That is a common approach, and thanks to the Internet it is possible for the bands to bypass the labels by going directly online where they can touch the fans. This is the biggest weapon we have to defend ourselves against the label cartel.
It's important to me that you at least understand that I don't totally disagree with your ideas.
Now excuse me while I search bittorrent trackers for a crack of Adobe Creative Suite, I gotta go design some "Annoyed Musician" toilet paper. Something tells me it would sell.
Hey Mike, I'm critical of your article and even quote some of the stuff you wrote verbatim. Other people have chimed in, some of which I've responded to as well.
You don't need to insult my reading level. You don't have to insult my understanding of economics. And you don't need to insult my intelligence or emotional condition (whether that is a good place or bad place is none of your business).
And from what I've written, I don't think I've personally insulted you either. I'm pointing out that your article espouses some theories that simply don't work in the real world. What's the saying? "In theory, theory and reality are similar. In reality, they are quite different." or some such.
I'm a MUSICIAN. I don't want to start a clothing line, I am not into the idea if custom designed picnic napkins or whatnot, nor do I want to live out of a stinky 1972 school bus that requires constant repairs to the hydraulic systems just so we can go to the next hole in the wall. I just want to make music. People paying to listen to that music is a simple exchange, one that shouldn't be any different from eating in a restaurant, watching a movie, or getting a cab ride across town. That's not a silver platter, not a selfish demand. I should be able to make music and ask that people pay for it if they want to listen to it.
Look at the title of your article, please. Now think about that for a second.
I'll cut to the chase and move on here. I make music, and that's it. If you're too CHEAP to pay for it, then there's nothing I can do to stop you from putting it online for free. However, you're "my way or the highway" arrogance is using two wrongs to make a right. I've tried to point that out, and feel that some folks here at least understood my points - even if they disagreed they understood. I suppose that's all I should ask for. Thanks for allowing me to comment here, and apologies for getting you all worked up as that really wasn't the intent.
I see a lot of "it has to be free, you're sticking your head in the sand" but I'm still not getting legitimate, logical, plausible examples of alternate sources of income. Other than that, this is a great discussion ;-)
Let's get something straight here, right off the bat. I'm not a major player. I actually just came out of semi-retirement, as I've spent the last seven years as an open source developer instead. Yes, I come from another industry where everyone just assumes you live on freaking AIR. But I digress.
I live in a major metropolitan area, so I can gig without having to tour. The gigs on such a small scale typically don't even cover the costs of having a place to rehearse. And you know what? I'm just like thousands (millions?) of other musicians out there, working a real job while trying to find a way to survive doing what I love.
You say "I'm not sure why you keep repeating the false claim that there aren't other business models out there. We've pointed out plenty of examples, and explained the economics at work. It's not hard to come up with plenty of other ideas if you didn't want to blame everyone else for not handing you money on a silver platter." but fail to respect the cold hard reality that in order to produce music you burn time, effort and money. "Music" doesn't just spring out of the rear end of the Music Fairy?. The creation of music requires years of effort, significant investment in equipment, and dedication.
So to you that has no value. To me that is a slap in the face. All of this is worthless, and what I really need to do is sell t-shirts?
Let's flip this discussion around where it belongs, as musicians are still making music like they always have. In a sense, the musicians and their music isn't what is causing all the upheaval. The internet has made it possible for the bands to connect directly to the fans, leaving the distributors and middle-men scrambling for alternatives.
However, this universal hatred for the labels is now being forced on the bands themselves, as folks are switching from the "getting reamed by EMI" realities of decades past to "getting a free ride". Telling the bands they have to find other ways to get paid for their work - when everyone really was screwed by the labels (including the artists) - is a case of decapitation for dandruff.
Knowing that I spend a couple thousand dollars on a decent rig, another couple thousand dollars on recording equipment (or equivalent studio time), and countless hours creating this music, can someone succinctly and intelligently justify that you are entitled to enjoy those efforts without needing to pay for it?
Maybe I'm not the one sitting around making demands, expecting things on a silver platter. I'm not demanding anything for free. I'm not telling people their time, effort and investment is worthless. I've spent thousands of hours of my time over the past years giving away for free, volunteering my time to help others, and making a difference in this world - and not expecting anything in return but the occasional hand shake or pat on the back.
How about you? Does having an MP3 player somehow entitle you to a lifetime supply of free music from people that put significant effort into creating it for you?
Jase just perfectly illustrated my point. Jase, I'd like you to talk to my landlord, as well as the grocery store, the electricity company, phone company, and a few others... Because they need to do their thing for the "shear love of doing it and not expect anything in return" just like you said.
I'll shut up now, as I'm not trying to start a fight but just cannot sit here quietly and read all these non-musicians prescribing the perfect scenario that benefits the consumer, the user, the lover of the music, and provides a big fat zilch to the people that work so hard to create it. I hate the labels just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean musicians need to become musical monks who have to sleep in boxes just so they can practice their craft. And if you're not willing to tour, that's exactly the scenario staring you in the face if this "logic" prevails.
Perhaps I come across as "trashing" - if that's the case then so be it, as this article is simply out of touch with reality; and as a musician I find it terribly frustrating for the situation to be so trivialized. That said, I'm not commenting on the links you provide, but on your own article:
"In other words, more bands are recognizing exactly what a bunch of folks knew was inevitable at least a decade ago. Unshackle the music, give it away free, and use it to make a lot of other stuff a lot more valuable, and there's plenty of money to be made. The only sad part in all of this is that the record labels have been not just blind to the idea -- they've actively tried to discredit anyone who pointed it out to them."
I gave up making a living on music decades ago, as I got tired of sleeping on people's couches while the labels pillaged with reckless abandon. So you're preaching to the choir here. But your message is just plain silly, the holes in this logic are massive.
If you're not able to tour to support your music, and you're supposed to give it away for free, then where is the income supposed to be? It simply doesn't add up, and I do find it infuriating to see people spout off what appears to be half-cooked fantasies about business models for musicians. Nothing personal against you, but most of these ideas make it painfully obvious that the folks with all these great ideas aren't even musicians.
If I was as big as radiohead, or as big as trent reznor, then sure - I don't need to tour. Other than maybe being slightly taller than trent, the rest is not true. Under your concept, the only option for me as a smaller fry would be to tour. Where else am I to look for income, when all I got is the music itself, and apparently should give it away for free?
As a musician there must be a way to make music and earn a living at it. Right now there does not seem to be a way, and so far I'm seeing a lot of silly conjecture - and not necessarily you personally, but usually from people who have absolutely no idea how hard it is to be a musician and try to survive.
To quote the time-honored .com business model:
1) start band
2) give away all music for free
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
"Musicians are raking in record revenue from concerts -- and the artists are realizing that the free music only helps generate more interest in those concerts."
Congratulations, you've just assassinated all adult musicians from ever being able to make money from their art, while having a private life too.
Some day you will find yourself being 39 years old, and STILL kick major ass on the bass guitar, love current and emerging sounds, and want to be a part of it. The only problem is that the business model you so valiantly fought for as a youngster makes it impossible for you to participate now that you have a wife, kids, and responsibilities that arise when you become an adult.
Baby, you ain't going on tour.
So now only young people get to make money off of their music, as the only way to do it is while touring? Something tells me this is either a non-musician dreaming up this crap, or someone that never thinks past step number one.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by spacemonkey.
Just stop. Please.
The statement "open website that anyone can visit" is so completely and plainly false, that's just not legitimate journalism.
A site that requires registration and provides terms of service is NOT open! In order for you to like, subscribe, or any other 'social feature requires a registered (and authenticated) user... That's the whole justification of the legal assertion that someone has done Twitch wrong.
We can arm wrestle about trademark and copyright and all that, but the real issue here is that folks are automating the registration process (and use of the site), completely in violation of the terms of service, and using that to profit.
You're missing the real issue here, open those eye
This has absolutely nothing to do with comedy and everything to do with human nature and commercialism.
To simplify, telling jokes was perfectly fine until people started making money off of telling them. At the point of commercialization, THEN we had a problem. Same goes for stories, books, music, movies, software, whatever.
What needs to happen is a clear understanding to ALL what happens when someone wants to create something, and then give it away in a commercial context (which I thought was copyright). It is rather asinine to assume that 'hey, I can burn this on my own CD, therefore it should be free" - and that is the main complaint from the people that are trying to commercialize their work.
Ironically, the GPL does the exact same thing to software, "you can have this, and you can have this for free, all you gotta do is comply with these restrictions here" and those restrictions clearly define how you CAN and CANNOT redistribute that software. The fact that it is usually free as in beer doesn't mean you can just ignore the license of the creator.
This is all about copyright, and usually that only seems to matter when someone is trying to make a living off of (whatever it is that they do).
One quick last thing
Please don't equate music to buggy whips. That's simply absurd - buggy whips are obsolete, but music is FOREVER, baby!
Second, and lastly, I totally agree with your philosophy that new, unknown bands should give away their music to grow their fan base as quickly as possible. That is a common approach, and thanks to the Internet it is possible for the bands to bypass the labels by going directly online where they can touch the fans. This is the biggest weapon we have to defend ourselves against the label cartel.
It's important to me that you at least understand that I don't totally disagree with your ideas.
Now excuse me while I search bittorrent trackers for a crack of Adobe Creative Suite, I gotta go design some "Annoyed Musician" toilet paper. Something tells me it would sell.
I fear Mike's head is going to pop
Hey Mike, I'm critical of your article and even quote some of the stuff you wrote verbatim. Other people have chimed in, some of which I've responded to as well.
You don't need to insult my reading level. You don't have to insult my understanding of economics. And you don't need to insult my intelligence or emotional condition (whether that is a good place or bad place is none of your business).
And from what I've written, I don't think I've personally insulted you either. I'm pointing out that your article espouses some theories that simply don't work in the real world. What's the saying? "In theory, theory and reality are similar. In reality, they are quite different." or some such.
I'm a MUSICIAN. I don't want to start a clothing line, I am not into the idea if custom designed picnic napkins or whatnot, nor do I want to live out of a stinky 1972 school bus that requires constant repairs to the hydraulic systems just so we can go to the next hole in the wall. I just want to make music. People paying to listen to that music is a simple exchange, one that shouldn't be any different from eating in a restaurant, watching a movie, or getting a cab ride across town. That's not a silver platter, not a selfish demand. I should be able to make music and ask that people pay for it if they want to listen to it.
Look at the title of your article, please. Now think about that for a second.
I'll cut to the chase and move on here. I make music, and that's it. If you're too CHEAP to pay for it, then there's nothing I can do to stop you from putting it online for free. However, you're "my way or the highway" arrogance is using two wrongs to make a right. I've tried to point that out, and feel that some folks here at least understood my points - even if they disagreed they understood. I suppose that's all I should ask for. Thanks for allowing me to comment here, and apologies for getting you all worked up as that really wasn't the intent.
I see a lot of "it has to be free, you're sticking your head in the sand" but I'm still not getting legitimate, logical, plausible examples of alternate sources of income. Other than that, this is a great discussion ;-)
Let's get something straight here, right off the bat. I'm not a major player. I actually just came out of semi-retirement, as I've spent the last seven years as an open source developer instead. Yes, I come from another industry where everyone just assumes you live on freaking AIR. But I digress.
I live in a major metropolitan area, so I can gig without having to tour. The gigs on such a small scale typically don't even cover the costs of having a place to rehearse. And you know what? I'm just like thousands (millions?) of other musicians out there, working a real job while trying to find a way to survive doing what I love.
You say "I'm not sure why you keep repeating the false claim that there aren't other business models out there. We've pointed out plenty of examples, and explained the economics at work. It's not hard to come up with plenty of other ideas if you didn't want to blame everyone else for not handing you money on a silver platter." but fail to respect the cold hard reality that in order to produce music you burn time, effort and money. "Music" doesn't just spring out of the rear end of the Music Fairy?. The creation of music requires years of effort, significant investment in equipment, and dedication.
So to you that has no value. To me that is a slap in the face. All of this is worthless, and what I really need to do is sell t-shirts?
Let's flip this discussion around where it belongs, as musicians are still making music like they always have. In a sense, the musicians and their music isn't what is causing all the upheaval. The internet has made it possible for the bands to connect directly to the fans, leaving the distributors and middle-men scrambling for alternatives.
However, this universal hatred for the labels is now being forced on the bands themselves, as folks are switching from the "getting reamed by EMI" realities of decades past to "getting a free ride". Telling the bands they have to find other ways to get paid for their work - when everyone really was screwed by the labels (including the artists) - is a case of decapitation for dandruff.
Knowing that I spend a couple thousand dollars on a decent rig, another couple thousand dollars on recording equipment (or equivalent studio time), and countless hours creating this music, can someone succinctly and intelligently justify that you are entitled to enjoy those efforts without needing to pay for it?
Maybe I'm not the one sitting around making demands, expecting things on a silver platter. I'm not demanding anything for free. I'm not telling people their time, effort and investment is worthless. I've spent thousands of hours of my time over the past years giving away for free, volunteering my time to help others, and making a difference in this world - and not expecting anything in return but the occasional hand shake or pat on the back.
How about you? Does having an MP3 player somehow entitle you to a lifetime supply of free music from people that put significant effort into creating it for you?
Re: Uh, hello, McFly?
Jase just perfectly illustrated my point. Jase, I'd like you to talk to my landlord, as well as the grocery store, the electricity company, phone company, and a few others... Because they need to do their thing for the "shear love of doing it and not expect anything in return" just like you said.
I'll shut up now, as I'm not trying to start a fight but just cannot sit here quietly and read all these non-musicians prescribing the perfect scenario that benefits the consumer, the user, the lover of the music, and provides a big fat zilch to the people that work so hard to create it. I hate the labels just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean musicians need to become musical monks who have to sleep in boxes just so they can practice their craft. And if you're not willing to tour, that's exactly the scenario staring you in the face if this "logic" prevails.
Re: Uh, hello, McFly?
Perhaps I come across as "trashing" - if that's the case then so be it, as this article is simply out of touch with reality; and as a musician I find it terribly frustrating for the situation to be so trivialized. That said, I'm not commenting on the links you provide, but on your own article:
"In other words, more bands are recognizing exactly what a bunch of folks knew was inevitable at least a decade ago. Unshackle the music, give it away free, and use it to make a lot of other stuff a lot more valuable, and there's plenty of money to be made. The only sad part in all of this is that the record labels have been not just blind to the idea -- they've actively tried to discredit anyone who pointed it out to them."
I gave up making a living on music decades ago, as I got tired of sleeping on people's couches while the labels pillaged with reckless abandon. So you're preaching to the choir here. But your message is just plain silly, the holes in this logic are massive.
If you're not able to tour to support your music, and you're supposed to give it away for free, then where is the income supposed to be? It simply doesn't add up, and I do find it infuriating to see people spout off what appears to be half-cooked fantasies about business models for musicians. Nothing personal against you, but most of these ideas make it painfully obvious that the folks with all these great ideas aren't even musicians.
If I was as big as radiohead, or as big as trent reznor, then sure - I don't need to tour. Other than maybe being slightly taller than trent, the rest is not true. Under your concept, the only option for me as a smaller fry would be to tour. Where else am I to look for income, when all I got is the music itself, and apparently should give it away for free?
As a musician there must be a way to make music and earn a living at it. Right now there does not seem to be a way, and so far I'm seeing a lot of silly conjecture - and not necessarily you personally, but usually from people who have absolutely no idea how hard it is to be a musician and try to survive.
To quote the time-honored .com business model:
1) start band
2) give away all music for free
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Uh, hello, McFly?
"Musicians are raking in record revenue from concerts -- and the artists are realizing that the free music only helps generate more interest in those concerts."
Congratulations, you've just assassinated all adult musicians from ever being able to make money from their art, while having a private life too.
Some day you will find yourself being 39 years old, and STILL kick major ass on the bass guitar, love current and emerging sounds, and want to be a part of it. The only problem is that the business model you so valiantly fought for as a youngster makes it impossible for you to participate now that you have a wife, kids, and responsibilities that arise when you become an adult.
Baby, you ain't going on tour.
So now only young people get to make money off of their music, as the only way to do it is while touring? Something tells me this is either a non-musician dreaming up this crap, or someone that never thinks past step number one.