Another LONG rant about people not paying for music

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

How much has Jessica Black made from "Friday"? How much should she have made from it? Is her success stealing from "real" artists?

I'd still like to know: what should an artist make? Who decides how much they should make? Do reggae artists deserve more than blues guitarists? Or vice versa?

The discussion around David Lowery's rant isn't what X artist should make relative to Y artist, but only that they should both be paid.

That "should" in your statement is very dangerous. Who provides the money for Artist X and Artist Y? If that money isn't provided willingly, it is slavery. If it is provided willingly, then by what right does Artist Y demand a living wage from his/her efforts if the audience isn't willing to pay it?

Throw another straw man into the fire, eh?

Your comments seem to imply musicians want to be rid of the concept of supply and demand altogether, and they all MUST be paid an equal amount regardless of quality. No one is suggesting poor product will be rewarded under ANY system. Let's assume artist X makes a great song and artist Y makes a bad song. They're both paid equally for their efforts in that they each receive $0.25 for each legal download. The song by artist X is downloaded four million times, putting a cool mil in his pocket. Artist Y's song only reaches four thousand downloads, netting him a paltry $1k for his efforts.

The market is this example is completely consumer driven, there's no slavery (not sure where that even came from), and the artists are being paid an amount relative to their worth, as deemed by the customer. If you want to relate it to slavery, the closest example in this debate is expecting artists to provide music without our needing to pay for it.

But again, the OP and the link weren't trying to address RELATIVE worth, only that there IS worth.

I'm not the one complaining that artists can't even make as much as schoolteachers. I'm saying the market should decide what artists' efforts are worth.

Last time I checked, iTunes and Amazon seem to be selling a whole bunch of legal downloads, yet artists and potential artists are still complaining.

Are we actually on the same side of the issue but arguing slightly different points?

I'm not supporting illegal downloads. I am saying that the demand for illegal/free downloads can be undercut by artists doing a better job marketing and adding in value-added aspects (like autographs). One aspect of marketing is the personal touch: I'd never download an illegal copy of Generic Hustle, because I know and like Brooks. Even as little as I know him (only through online contact), I have a social incentive to help him make money.

Is that too hard for artists to do? They don't increase that social commitment by whining, I can tell you. Lars Ulrich probably hurt Metallica's bottom line with his advocacy more than he helped. That's being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[cynic]

I face the downsides of the digital revolution as much as Aimee Mann, so my money is where my mouth is.

This is only true if your fan bases are equal. Assuming hers currently dwarfs yours, she stands to lose much more.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

Another aspect on the horizon:

3D printing.

Before too long (20 years?), it is going to be possible to print out a functional guitar that sounds as good and lasts as long as a USA Hamer. Some will still buy wooden guitars. Most will not (due to economics). After another generation, wooden guitars will become a curiosity. Guitar makers will go bankrupt.

People will be online complaining about guitar designs being stolen and printed. Another industry will end up on the dust bin of history. Many people will be sad. Other people will be happy about cheaper but still excellent quality guitars.

Or look at an older issue:

Japanese imported guitars copied US guitars.

US guitars sued.

The result was certain terms couldn't be used (Stratocaster) and certain headstock shapes couldn't be used.

But was it the headstock shape that sold the copies?

Or was it that equal quality could be acquired for lower cost?

I have no problem with the lawsuit forcing the imports to change their headstock shape.

But you can't copyright quality.

And the angle of an outer contour of wood had little to do with how a guitar plays and sounds.

Yet Gibson and Fender had built up their brand enough that some people still swear by them and pay a premium to have the name on the headstock.

The point of bringing up these other issues is I think they are all related: how to make money by providing a good or service, and how to keep that good or service unique enough to command premium prices in the face of cheaper (or free) competition.

Looking at illegal music downloads in a vacuum hampers understanding, in my opinion.

[zorrow]

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO

this is a great point. somehow i don't feel like i'm stealing a king diamond or twisted sister tune off the youtube/mp3 converter, because i'd never pay to download 'em (plus the quality sucks from youtube rips).

Maybe Internet providers should pay "a royalty tax" to support every artist whose art might be "consumed" through the Internet?

In fact, they did this with writable CD's and DVD's, right?

So, if you offer (or manufacture) some kind of device (mp3 player, PC, CD player...) or media (writable CD, hard-disks, USB sticks...) or service (Internet, broadcasting program...) that might serve to reproduce/distribute/copy music, you should pay that extra tax -or if we as consumers buy some, we should pay that extra tax.

I guess governments could enforce this kind of policies, and the collected money should go directly to artists (those whose main source of income is art -or music, in our specific case).

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

I face the downsides of the digital revolution as much as Aimee Mann, so my money is where my mouth is.

This is only true if your fan bases are equal. Assuming hers currently dwarfs yours, she stands to lose much more.

Perhaps. But she has also already earned much, much more, under the old model. Perhaps she should consider that artificially-reduced-supply era income as an advance on what she is "losing" now.

She only had to convince maybe one record company exec to sign her, and perhaps one or a handful of people at MTV to put her video in heavy rotation, and then she was set for life. I will have to work 300 times as hard as she ever did to make 1/300th of the money.

If she doesn't have enough money to live on, it is only because she wasted her earnings from before.

So from that perspective, I have more to lose in the game than she does.

If someone posted my name in a blog, and her name in a blog, whose would get recognized? What is she doing with that name recognition to enhance her earnings?

[Cary]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

[cynic]

Last time I checked, iTunes and Amazon seem to be selling a whole bunch of legal downloads, yet artists and potential artists are still complaining.

Are we actually on the same side of the issue but arguing slightly different points?

I'm not supporting illegal downloads. I am saying that the demand for illegal/free downloads can be undercut by artists doing a better job marketing and adding in value-added aspects (like autographs). One aspect of marketing is the personal touch: I'd never download an illegal copy of Generic Hustle, because I know and like Brooks. Even as little as I know him (only through online contact), I have a social incentive to help him make money.

Is that too hard for artists to do? They don't increase that social commitment by whining, I can tell you. Lars Ulrich probably hurt Metallica's bottom line with his advocacy more than he helped. That's being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

We are absolutely not on the same side of the argument A need to be coddled by an artist in order for you to feel like they deserve your money in return for their product is silly. The cost of marketing required to give everyone that warm fuzzy would likely more than negate any revenue increase seen as a result.

Just for fun, do you know how many copies of Adele's Rolling in the Deep were obtained illegally vs legally? Of course you don't. But until you do you can hardly keep pointing to how many copies are selling legally in iTunes and Amazon as a basis for your argument.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

My bottom line is basically:

The new digital medium is reality. Reality sometimes sucks.

Light a candle, or curse the darkness. Your choice. I choose to light a candle, and urge everyone to do the same.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

Last time I checked, iTunes and Amazon seem to be selling a whole bunch of legal downloads, yet artists and potential artists are still complaining.

Are we actually on the same side of the issue but arguing slightly different points?

I'm not supporting illegal downloads. I am saying that the demand for illegal/free downloads can be undercut by artists doing a better job marketing and adding in value-added aspects (like autographs). One aspect of marketing is the personal touch: I'd never download an illegal copy of Generic Hustle, because I know and like Brooks. Even as little as I know him (only through online contact), I have a social incentive to help him make money.

Is that too hard for artists to do? They don't increase that social commitment by whining, I can tell you. Lars Ulrich probably hurt Metallica's bottom line with his advocacy more than he helped. That's being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

We are absolutely not on the same side of the argument A need to be coddled by an artist in order for you to feel like they deserve your money in return for their product is silly. The cost of marketing required to give everyone that warm fuzzy would likely more than negate any revenue increase seen as a result.

Just for fun, do you know how many copies of Adele's Rolling in the Deep were obtained illegally vs legally? Of course you don't. But until you do you can hardly keep pointing to how many copies are selling legally in iTunes and Amazon as a basis for your argument.

Arguing that artists need to be coddled by society is even sillier.

Do you know how many illegal copies obtained would have been sales if the illegal download weren't available?

Of course you don't.

But until you do, you can't really use the number of illegal downloads as a basis of your argument.

[RichRS6]

Blow out the candle, embrace the darkness................

[cynic]

Arguing that artists need to be coddled by society is even sillier.

Do you know how many illegal copies obtained would have been sales if the illegal download weren't available?

Of course you don't.

But until you do, you can't really use the number of illegal downloads as a basis of your argument.

I'm not suggesting we coddle artists, only pay them the same way we pay for other products we choose to own.

I also don't need a number because I'm not suggesting that since "some" consumers are paying the artists should quit complaining. I'm suggesting every song that is downloaded should be paid for, so the number of illegal vs legal doesn't make or break my position as it does yours.

[bcsride]

That video is fantastic.

Some thoughts on recorded music.

Music has value. A song has value. You value it. You should be willing to pay for it. The artist should receive some (if not the bulk) of that money. I don't see it as

that complicated in terms of the value stream. The marketing, distribution, and similar are sort of necessary evils - but I don't really "value" them. When

I buy a CD, I want the music. In some rough order of my value preference and how it relates to the product, I want to pay for the song writer, the performing artist (s), the mix engineer, the recording engineer, the producer, and the mastering engineer (with some recognition that all of the recording/production elements are hard to separate out). There are other elements, but I think that creative talent stream is responsible for most of what I value and pay for.

I'm not sure where this fits in with most of this thread, but to say that we should be happy to pay for music. If that 3 minutes of magic isn't worth $.99 to you,

spend 3 minutes doing something else.

This is why Aimee is upset...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7aTfyEfgA8

[zenmindbeginner]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views.

[jwhitcomb3]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views.

You said you stole the music and then rationalized it by saying it was okay to steal it because you didn't have money, so...are you saying it's not okay to steal?

FWIW, Cary and I have exactly the same politics.

[zenmindbeginner]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views.

You said you stole the music and then rationalized it by saying it was okay to steal it because you didn't have money, so...are you saying it's not okay to steal?

FWIW, Cary and I have exactly the same politics.

Again, I am making a point that a lot of the downloading does not actually impact the artist's income. It was money that they weren't going to get in the first place.

We are talking about downloading affecting artist's royalties, not debating whether or not file sharing is illegal. I see your not jumping down Brooks' throat because he is ripping off of youtube but choosing to single me out because I don't agree with you politically.

Go ahead, give Brooks the same shit you gave me... oh wait, he's respected on this board and I guess you have no respect for me because wait...

You don't agree with me politically because you have inferred from my posts that I am a lefty.

Fuck you.

FWIW, Cary and I have exactly the same politics.

Good for you, maybe you two can form a duo together.

[Cary]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views.

Did you read YOUR OWN post?!?!? You are saying that it's okay for YOU to download music for free, because you don't have the money to buy it. I don't HAVE to put words in your mouth, IT'S RIGHT THERE.

As far as my politcal views, you'd be surprised at my political views these days, but I really don't care either way.

[Cary]

FWIW, Cary and I have exactly the same politics.

Wait, what?

[zenmindbeginner]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views.

Did you read YOUR OWN post?!?!? You are saying that it's okay for YOU to download music for free, because you don't have the money to buy it. I don't HAVE to put words in your mouth, IT'S RIGHT THERE.

As far as my politcal views, you'd be surprised at my political views these days, but I really don't care either way.

Cary, i said that my downloading doesn't impact them financially... not that file sharing is okay or somehow legal. Stealing music is stealing music.

I know you seriously want to believe that I think that stealing is not illegal because that will enforce your view that liberals are all piles of shit.

ALL i am saying is that the illegal file sharing that I participated in did not effect anyone in the pocketbook... and so the usual shrinkage cost does not apply.

Nobody got robbed even though a theft occurred. Is that better?

[jwhitcomb3]

So perhaps you are merely borrowing music from the artists, and will purchase a legitimate copy sometime in the future when you have the money, regardless whether you ever intend to listen to that music again?

Rationalize it any way you want. Stealing music has a real and tangible effect on the people you steal from. Even some of us lefties think so.

Criminal laws are generally not enforced based upon the direct effect on the victim.

[zenmindbeginner]

So perhaps you are merely borrowing music from the artists, and will purchase a legitimate copy sometime in the future when you have the money, regardless whether you ever intend to listen to that music again?

Rationalize it any way you want. Stealing music has a real and tangible effect on the people you steal from. Even some of us lefties think so.

Criminal laws are generally not enforced based upon the direct effect on the victim.

Really, I don't need the legal lesson... I have been explaining the VERY fact that stealing music does NOT always have a tangible effect on the people that were stolen from.

But that would take actually reading what I typed instead of assuming what I meant... you seem to be a little full of jwhitcomb to actually accomplish that task.

[jwhitcomb3]

I read your words, and am merely pointing out that they are incorrect. Clearly, you do need a legal lesson. The US constitution grants Congress the power to protect intellectual property. Your assertion that theft of intellectual property does not have a tangible effect on the owner you are stealing from is naive and self serving.

[zenmindbeginner]

I read your words, and am merely pointing out that they are incorrect. Clearly, you do need a legal lesson. The US constitution grants Congress the power to protect intellectual property. Your assertion that theft of intellectual property does not have a tangible effect on the owner you are stealing from is naive and self serving.

Tangible means something that is clearly defined and not vague or elusive.

Wouldn't financial impact be considered tangible?

In legal terms when discussing theft, tangibility usually means financial impact.

When there is no financial impact upon the institution that was stolen from... tell me what is the tangible effect you are speaking of?

[jwhitcomb3]

The very premise of your argument is flawed. You say that you would not have purchased the music you stole anyway, so therefore your theft has no tangible effect on the owner. This is simply untrue. Your theft and use of the music deprives the owner of his lawful rights to prevent unlicensed use of his property. The owner has a right to restrict use of his music to those he grants a license to (and yes, legally downloading a track or buying a CD is obtaining a license). So your illegal download deprived the artist of the money he was entitled to when you illegally obtained his music. That is a real and tangible effect, as would be recognized in any court in the country.

Since its inception, the United States has recognized that stealing intellectual property is equivalent to stealing real property. Your inability to grasp this basic fact does not make it any less true.

If you like, you can confirm this with an intellectual property attorney.

[LordOfTheThighs]

[zenmindbeginner]

The very premise of your argument is flawed.

No it is not.

Your theft and use of the music deprives the owner of his lawful rights to prevent unlicensed use of his property. That is a real and tangible effect.

Unlicensed use of property... hmmm... good point, but you are presenting a straw man argument because we are talking about financial impact to the artist, not unauthorized use of a record label's property.

I understand you are a man of law and I'm not trying to challenge your legal intelligence, but you have yet to prove how an artist is financially hurt when someone who is penniless illegally downloads their music.

I mean, you're a lawyer... prove how they are financially hurt instead of presenting straw man arguments and sidetracking the issue.