|
|
Posted by Loco Jones on 10/15/51 11:26
"Ted 'practicing for the coast guard' Kennedy" <stfu@microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:fkg9i154vbsslpd2e5o1df3mopf7ngd0f6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:02:28 -0400, "Loco Jones"
> was understood to have stated the following:
> >>
> >> >My point being, this "argument" has been going on for *years*,
> >> >and it still hasn't been satisfactorily resolved - and certainly not
by
> >> >the Courts to date. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft
is
> >> >a criminal matter, and it's the RIAA/MPAA cartels confusing the
> >> >two while trying to bully the judicial system into accepting their
> >> >point of view.
> >>
> >> No arguments there.
> >>
> >> >Anyone can claim that listening to music without paying to do so is
> >> >guilty of "stealing", they can even claim some moral high ground in
> >> >defending their views, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they are
> >> >right and anyone in disagreement is wrong.
> >>
> >> The argument isn't about listening to music without paying for it; the
> >> argument is about possessing music without paying for it, as well as
> >> distributing music for which you do not have the rights to distribute.
> >
> >If the argument is about "possessing music" without paying for it, then
> >anyone who ever taped a song from the radio, or duplicated a library
copy,
> >or made a mix tape/cd for a friend would be guilty of "theft" - that
theft
> >being the *presumed* lost sale of the original product. Prior to the
rise
> >of file-sharing on the internet, the entertainment industry generally
> >regarded such copying as a benign activity, perhaps even beneficial in
> >creating a fan base that could be exploited economically.
>
> The argument isn't about "possessing music" without paying for it;
> the argument is about distribution of music (and/or other IP) for
> which you do not have the right. P2P is capable of a much greater
> distribution of a title than merely swapping/duping tapes or CDs
> among friends.
Well, I quoted *your* statement... "The argument isn't about listening to
music without paying for it; the argument is about possessing music without
paying for it, [...]" - and now you are saying it ISN'T about "possessing
music without paying for it..." - ?
> >Actually, I believe the term "unauthorized distribution" was originally
> >intended to apply to those who would profit from that distribution, not
> >those who merely shared their love of music with like-minded
individuals.
>
> However the term was originally intended is, IMO, applicable to P2P,
> even though there may be no financial reward or motivation for the
> individual sharing up a particular copyrighted title. The result is
> still the same; it is making it possible for individuals to obtain
> commercial material without providing due compensation for the
> producers.
Changes/advancements in technology requires businesses to adapt or perish.
I'm sure the Telco monopolies were frightened by the advance of cell phones
pitted against the status quo of land lines hard wired to your house, just
as VoIP has them scrambling to retain subscribers.
As far as "making it possible for individuals to obtain commercial material
without providing due compensation for the producers", again, this is
nothing new - people have always been able to do that, although perhaps not
with the ease and speed new technology provides. This is the type of
progress which piano roll manufacturers faced with the advent of the
grammophone, for example.
The secret to success for producers of commercial material is for them to
offer something with more perceived value than an "approximation" of the
real thing. Tap water is free - yet bottled water enjoys brisk sales and a
dedicated customer base. Those customers would doubtless maintain that
paying a premium affords them a better "product" (and it's still just
water, after all), while I would argue that it all comes down to the
"perception of value". Some people are perfectly happy with tap water,
others want designer H2O, but I don't see Evian (et al) crying to the
government that their business is suffering because people don't HAVE to
buy something that is abundantly available for free.
> >> >I can claim that it's morally wrong for the RIAA to create one-sided
> >> >contracts which "steal" from the creators of artistic property, or
force
> >> >them to sign away their rights in near-perpetuity, but I doubt they
would
> >> >see it that way. To them, it's simply a matter of how they have
always
> >> >conducted business and how dare anyone question the status quo.
> >
> >> Strange, I didn't realize artists were *required* to sign contracts
> >> with the RIAA. Is the industry holding guns to the artist(s) heads to
> >> force them into coercion?
> >
> >Literally, no, but a very good case can be made for that being
> >metaphorically true. The RIAA member companies have a very complex
> >infrastructure in place to produce, promote, market, distribute and
control
> >content. An independent artist, even one who deplores the RIAA,
understands
> >a major label deal will result in advertising, media coverage, rack
space
> >at retail, concert promotion, cross-licensing arrangements and radio
> >airplay - in which case, such a deal becomes infinitely more attractive,
at
> >least on paper.
>
> And it makes sense; the RIAA companies paid to put and maintain that
> infrastructure in place. Artists benefit from this by seeing greater
> exposure, which results in more sales, which encourages more
> production. Shippers and retailers benefit from moving product.
> Engineers get compensated; equipment gets purchased. People get paid
> to do their jobs. Sharing copyrighted content has the potential to
> bring all of this to a grinding halt (depending on how wide spread it
> becomes). Personally, though I don't like the RIAA, I would prefer to
> pay people for doing their jobs, as I expect to be paid for doing
> mine.
People will always be paid for "doing their job" (providing it's a job done
well), but presuming they have a *right* to be paid, regardless of whether
or not the purchaser decides it's worth the money or not is something only
someone firmly in control of a near-monopoly would dare to suggest.
> >Of course, reading the fine print on that contract will reveal a new,
> >unproven artist to be little more than an indentured servant beholden to
> >the label for a plethora of "costs" which, through creative accounting,
> >may be never re-paid. More than a few "million-selling artists" have
found
> >themselves in bankruptcy, and not all of them through fault of their
own.
> >For an enlightening insight on how the RIAA makes this possible, have a
> >read here:
> >http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
>
> Will follow up later.
Well, that's two urls I've provided so far which you haven't found the time
to explore.
> >> Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago I was listening to a radio show
> >> that featured "up and coming" or "new" artists in the genre I follow.
> >> The spokesman for one band was featured, ironically enough within a
> >> few weeks of my purchasing one of their CDs. He made the statement
> >> that before his band signed a contract with a record label, a friend
> >> of his with a server set up a site for the band to share up some of
> >> their music with. An industry exec found the site, liked the content,
> >> and offered the group a contract. The group obviously signed a
> >> contract. This group used the 'net as an avenue for discovery, and
> >> after their discovery, decided to sign with a label. If the 'net is so
> >> much better for the artist(s), why didn't they stay with a
> >> distribution medium that was in their favor?
> >
> >While the 'net distribution model may be better for the artist in terms
of
> >financial compensation, it quite simply doesn't have the penetration
into
> >the public consciousness which a deal with the label can (or promises
to)
> >deliver. Your independent artist has a much more difficult task getting
> >"known" by the public at large without major label intervention.
>
> Obviously, which is why it would be beneficial to the artists to be
> represented by a major label.
Not quite so obvious, actually. If an independent artist were able to
license his product to more than one record label, and let them bring it to
the marketplace at competitive prices, then perhaps it would be to their
benefit. As it is, they sign with one label, that label sets the price and
there has been clearly demonstrated collusion by the RIAA-member companies
to maintain artifically high ticket prices. I maintain that the only reason
an aspiring artist hopes to sign with a major music conglomerate is because
that's the ONLY game in town. Newcomers play by those rules, or they don't
play at all.
Now, once you are an established artist, with a proven sales track record,
not only are you afforded the opportunity to re-negotiate your contract
but, if you are big enough (Rolling Stones, Madonna to name but two) you
can even create your *own* label, which is then offered in a "distribution
deal" arrangement - invariably going to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, when the "next big thing" hears the words "YOU too, can make
millions", they don't realize that on paper that reads... "U2 can make
millions, but you have to tour incessantly and sell out stadiums around the
world before you will join that select club - and we will let you know when
(if) that ever happens."
> >Will Clear Channel-style radio stations put them in heavy rotation,
> >mainstream music publications review their product, brick-and-mortar
> >operations devote massive display space and POP promotional materials
> >without that corporate muscle? Not likely. Therefore, it may be less of
a
> >"gun to the head" than a "carrot-and-stick" scenario at work here.
>
> It's definitely not a gun to the head methodology; the artists sign
> with the labels because it's in their best interest. The artists
> wouldn't have the resources for such wide spread penetration
> without the labels.
On the contrary, as I said (above), it's the only game in town - so, yes,
in that regard it may as well be a "gun to the head". A good case could
also be made that the reason artists don't have the resources for such wide
penetration is because the entertainment industry has such a lock on those
resources, from the studios, producers, publicity/promotion, advertising,
manufacture of product, product placement, media coverage, and everything
attendant therein.
> >> >The problem is... people *are* questioning an industry that has
> >> >been found guilty (by the Courts) of price-fixing and payola for
> >> >radio airplay (yet again in 2005!), and while copyright infringement
> >> >for profit certainly needs to be addressed, downloading music merely
> >> >to listen to is hardly the felony the **AA member corporations would
> >> >have the news media and the public believe.
> >>
> >> I never said I was a fan of the ??AA; in fact, I dislike them very
> >> much. However, when it comes to rewarding the artist(s) for their
> >> work, the ??AA is doing a *MUCH* better job than the sharers are.
> >> The ??AA is one evil; sharers another. It's just that the latter (IMO)
> >> is the greater of the two evils.
> >
> >The fans are the ones who attend the concerts, buy the tee-shirts,
posters,
> >books, DVD's and related merchandise - including the deluxe "box set"
> >packaging of the CD's, so I would suggest that fans reward the artists
on
> >a level that far exceeds the pittance of a royalty resulting from the
sale of
> >an overpriced compact disc.
>
> *Some* fans do this; since burners became available, I've noticed an
> increasing number of CD-Rs in the various collections of people who
> consider themselves to be fans of particular artists.
Surely, just as in the past, fans engaged in "home taping", which was NOT
the death knell the industry claimed it would be - albums continued to
sell, pre-recorded tapes continued to sell, blank tapes were sold and
tape-dubbing decks became ubiquitous without any measurable impact on the
industry bottom line. It was a knee-jerk reaction then, and with the advent
of mp3 technology, it still is today.
> >It's a matter of perception of value, and a digital download ("legal" or
> >otherwise) has no cachet amongst collectors, even though it may help
> >establish and nuture that market. Sadly, the RIAA chooses to ignore or
> >refute that reality.
>
> This really is such a double edged sword. I personally have
> experienced how a digital download would impact my purchasing.
> As I have written in this group before, I downloaded Metallica's
> "Enter Sandman," (no local station played the material when it came out)
> and after listening to it a few times, purchased the black album the next
> day, and was about to start buying other content from the band.
> Ironically enough, Lars Ulrich (the drummer?) made a public statement
> basically calling downloaders thieves, at which point I developed an
> intense hatred for the band and it's music.
Yes, I am familiar with what you have written previously.
However, as I have gone on record before in stating that "an educated
consumer is the worst enemy of the RIAA", I can only reiterate that this is
what they fear the most - someone will be able to hear the *entire* album
before they pony up the cash, at which point they may decide to NOT
purchase based on one or two over-hyped, overplayed tracks which actually
received exposure.
Now, if that new release were offered at the price of a pack of cigarettes
(for example), many people would probably buy (take a chance) rather than
spend the time:
a) searching for,
b) downloading,
c) checking quality,
d) supplying blank discs/jewel cases,
e) converting/burning,
f) creating packaging, and
g) dealing with potential media failure.
Getting back to "supergroup" U2, while I have been a longtime fan and have
purchased their entire catalogue (in various formats over the years), the
fact Bono stated "we are a business", coupled with copy-protected releases,
means that I am less than eager to support the band these days. I will, of
course, download/audition a new release and, if I decide it's worth adding
to my library, I will buy.
> By the same token, there have been times where I've met people who
> realize I'm a geek, and they would discuss the latest P2P shut-downs,
> if you will. Each person in those conversations was disappointed
> because they thought it was the end of "free music."
"Free music" is nothing new - and it certainly didn't arrive with the
advent of the internet or P2P file-sharing, it's just become more
pervasive, even common-place. Also, there won't be an end to free music,
not as long as people have ears and the wherewithal to copy what they can
hear.
> >Greed and short-sightedness can scuttle even the most profitable of
> >businesses, and could well be what we're witnessing with this Sue The
> >Customer campaign currently underway.
>
> I don't believe the "Sue the Customer" campaign is an accurate
> description of the situation. It's more like "Sue the Sharer", and
> "sharer" and "customer" aren't necessarily synonyms.
The phrase "Sue The Customer" is not mine, nor do I claim authorship -
although it's been widely quoted by numerous anti-RIAA factions. I merely
refer to it because I sincerely believe that's what's happening at present.
If "sharer" and "customer" aren't necessarily synonyms, then neither are
"sharer" and "pirate".
> Loco, thanks again for another insightful and well composed discussion
> on the subject.
You are welcome.
Considering my background in radio/television, print media, public
relations, promotion/publicity and advertising, this is a subject I'm
rather passionate about. I may not have all (or even some) of the answers,
but I refuse to stop questioning the status quo. That, I would suggest, is
the least any of us can do. Otherwise, DRM will be just a minor
consideration in the grand scheme of things.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Stars - Janis Ian)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|