"Bull. Same old Robin Hood philosophy that has so many people walking around with the attitude that they are owed something. As artists [I act] we know what we're in for when we sign up with a "major" [a producer, in my case]. If we don't like the terms, we go elsewhere with our product. It's a free country."

Thanks for the response. As far as I can tell the traditional music industry approach to producing and selling music is different than other industries. In book publishing, for instance, the author is usually given the chance of regaining the publishing copyright of his/her book by the publisher. That demarcation point is set in the origional contract and that transfer happens after certain financial goals have been met. At that point the author can stay or move else where with their work. Traditional Major label recording publishing is not at all similar. Keep in mind I have been involved in a very very small part of the music industry either full or part time since 1985. Independant record labels often work in a different fashion than the majors. But I would say the majority of CD's for sale at your local Target/Walmart/Bestbuy have their recording copyright (not necessarily the song publishing copyrights) either partially or fully controlled by their label. That CD can be sold until 2067 and the artist will never fully own the recording copyright unless they negotiate the transfer. As I have read, many copyright lawyers believe that this is not what was intended when the federal government federalized copyright. And this is the point many have used this to sue the music industry (Courtney Love being one).

What I am trying to say is that the major music labels have been using vague "loop holes" (if you will) in US Copyright law to take partial or full pocession of the recording copyrights of tens of thousands of music artists. They've been screwing artists like Howling Wolf, Tom Petty and countless others. Money and recording contracts were offered to artists who were just trying to pay rent and don't have their own legal department. It's the artist's fault for signing a "bad" deal, but in my mind this is not what I would call a partnership.

The Atlantic had a 20 page article called The Heavenly Jukebox. Sept. 2000 here's the link http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/theatlantic/abstract/58573213.html?did=58573213&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT:PAGE&PMID=29177&desc=The+heavenly+jukebox. You have to buy the article. The article is amazing. It views the idea of music sharing from all angles. They interview copyright attorney's to explain copyright law and how it is used by major music labels. It details everything I have been talking about. As a musician and a sucessful business owner for over 7 years it really pissed me to see the major music label's disregard for music. They interviewed the lead singer of the Assponies and asked him if he felt screwed by Napster or the major music labels. He just chuckeled and pointed to the labels. It was a no brainer answer for him.

My Point, the major music labels up through the late 1990's have been using a publishing and distribution model dating back to the 20's. They have misinterperted US copyright law to the detriminte (?spelling) of many music artist's. They rested on their laurels for too long and digital revolution of the 1990's up-ended their apple cart. When they innovated to a digital format they made it unsecure (the CD). They are now crying fowl by calling music sharing "piracy" when they should instead be crying that their business model has been replaced because they were asleep at the wheel.

Everyone is all bent out of shape by music sharing. If I was Metalica I would be pretty pissed off. However, your average musician that creates music to be sold can only sell their product if they have fans. They can only have fans if listners actually hear their music. Do you really think that a major label will afford them that? Do I buy music? Absolutely. Do I have downloaded mp3's on my computer? Yes about 7gb worth. Have I bought CD's from artist's that I would never have know about if it weren't for downloading it? You bet. Do I buy music from any of the remaining Major Labels (Universial etal)? rarely. Think of it, now anyone can publish and maybe we'll see Amazon taking the place of major labels as far as offering a marketplace for truely independent bands and media producers. Let's face it the digital revolution has changed everthing. Digital distribution of any media will, from now on, be subject to the possibility of unauthorized duplication. We all need to deal with it and realize the established ways of making money with your work may not stand up to this new enviroment. I'm not saying it's right it's just the the truth. I myself am getting ready to self publish some of my music and I believe the benefit of getting my music heard out weighs the risk of unauthorized sharing. As a matter of fact I am going to encourage sharing.

I think blaming codecs for aiding in priacy is a bit short sighted. We have all jumped on the technology bandwagon so we have to take the good and the bad that comes with it. Innovation that changes everthing usually comes out of nowhere.

I'm sorry if I got too off topic here or even a bit militant. This board is fantastic in it's civility and sharing of knowledge. I look forward to contributing in the future (in a more on-topic way). *smiles*

jack

>>"Bull. Same old Robin Hood philosophy that has so many people walking around with the attitude that they are owed something. As artists [I act] we know what we're in for when we sign up with a "major" [a producer, in my case]. If we don't like the terms, we go elsewhere with our product. It's a free country.">>

It's NOT a free country, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. We have freedom of choice, that's all. If you (have to) rely on earning a living, it's not a free country. I think a country becomes free when it shares its resources with everyone equally. That concept is currently hard to attain, but again, Star Trek has the answer...or at least is much, much closer to it.

Let us not forget what Shawn Fanning started with Napster Steve Jobs is continuing with the Ipod. Users are now able to share 20GB of their favorite music with their friend's Ipod. I always wondered why the RIAA has ignored the sneeker net. That may change. Remember when this all started and the RIAA sued Diamond for their Rio? I always wondered why they didn't sue the developer of the MP3, Fraunhofer. That's because the entertainment industry paid for it. I believe MP3 came as a result of the Film industry's work on the MPEG2 codec. Ironic.

Good post Panic, but let's remember that there are plenty of independent and smaller labels out there that give artist's their due. It's really easy to think that the major labels represent the music industry as a whole when you walk into a CD store or listen to radio. I think in reality they are in the minority. It's just the fact that the majors have the clout and money (read "bribes") to get cd's played on the radio and onto store shelves. If the majors represented the majority of musicians out there I wouldn't complain. Then we would have the diversity we so desprately need. Really when you get down to it all the majors do that the artist's can't do themselves is to tell the public what to listen to. That will be the challenge facing independent musicians in the future. How to stand out in a crowd.

jack

JohnnyMac wrote:
"Question: Why is whining [about imagined "evil empires"] so much easier to muster up than to stand on one's own two feet?"

Isn't this how the RIAA is proceeding in it's fight against "piracy". They moan about communities of individuals sharing (not selling) music with each other and then sue them to stop instead of competing in the marketplace and offering a better business/distribution model. Talk about cutting off the face to spite the nose.

BTW I had the chance to work for a major music label in 1988 and I decided against it. I have stood on my own in being an independant artist. My chance of being a full time musician is nill at the moment with a wife and 2 girls but I still write and record and I can publish what I want, when I want on my terms. And you know what, I forsee a time when I will make money off of my music.

jack

"The Atlantic had a 20 page article called The Heavenly Jukebox. ....You have to buy the article. "

C'mon, can't you just email me a pirated copy?

Just kidding.

G

<<"They moan about communities of individuals sharing (not selling) music with each other and then sue them to stop instead of competing in the marketplace and offering a better business/ distribution model.">>

I am one hundred percent sure that if the music industry (or parts of it) had banded up with Napster, and created **the** solution for Internet distribution of music back when it all started, they would have swept any competitors, like todays Kazaa, off the scene for several reasons.

1. Only full, high quality digitalized albums.
2. A way to actually pay for it - which very many "pirates" wish to do, but without buying a CD.
3. A diversity in songs and albums published that no "pirate network" could ever match.

But instead of competing, and just delivering the best solution, they create som half-solutions that aren any good, and sew the companies that delivers solutions that - from the end user perspective - works.

As I said earlier, if someone had given me access to a high bandwidth network of high quality digitalized music (with no BS strings attatched), I'd be more than happy to pay for it.

-P-

Tor wrote: "To use that situation as an excuse for anyone to help themselves to what that partnership is producing is worse than a misunderstanding, it’s a perversion. You’re saying that shoplifters are not thieves, they are concerned citizens making a statement about how workers and paying customers are being treated.
You ought to wash your mouth!"

Fair enough. My origional post did more venting than point making. Here's an interesting metaphor. What happens when a landlord does not keep up his appartment building and has constantly left the doors unlocked and the building untended? Some one breaks in and steals out of the building. Is the theif right to take advantage of this situation? Of course not. Is the Landlord free from blame in the theft? No. In some situations he would be sued for failing to provide proper secuirity. He was neglagent in his duties. If this pattern continues then he will loose his tenents and eventually go out of business. Does he get what he deserves? yes. Is it unfortunate? yes.

What I was trying to say is that the major music labels are getting what they deserve. How big an impact is music sharing on the artist? Minimal. Very few artists who release their music with a major music label truely net any profit. Based on a traditional contract that I outlined above artist(s) have to sell well over 500,000 copies to pay back all of their expences out of their 10-15%. Who does this? a very small minority of musicians. So if you're NOT Britney Speers and you are with a major label and someone downloads your song or album are you really loosing out on revenue?

Theft is wrong. Unfortunately humans need better reasons than that. They need consequences or better yet motivation not to steal. The RIAA just ignored the real issue and sued. The industry didn't want to offer Napster and Audiogalexy users a compelling reason not to steal. I know that sounds warped but we all know the internet was designed to surive a nuclear attack or a totalitarian government. So how does the RIAA expect to beat every single music sharing user on the internet into submission? They want the right to hack into our computers to see if we have unauthorized music. Holy shit. This bill is sitting in comittee in Washington. This whole situation is perverse. Sueing your customers to buy your product. That's really funny. I'm simply amazed that the RIAA is still in denial.

jack

"C'mon, can't you just email me a pirated copy?

Just kidding."

*chuckels* It's worth the $2.95. I have actually give copies to some of my friends to educate them on the finer details of this debate. That article totally blew me away. Thanks for the humor.

jack

Like you, I gave up my art for a long time to make a living. And you know what? I don't regret the decisions I made and I'm in a place now where I have complete freedom (financially and emotionally) to pursue what is otherwise a whacky business [acting]. But like your music and you, acting is part of me and I can't not do it.

Your equality of distribution theory will not work in a world where there is, without question, and huge disparity in individual effort. Again, it's the whining of those who will not work yet find the energy to complain that those who do [work] are holding them down....

>>Your equality of distribution theory will not work in a world where there is, without question, and huge disparity in individual effort. Again, it's the whining of those who will not work yet find the energy to complain that those who do [work] are holding them down....>>

This is interesting. Do you call an artist who creates a hit, then lives off the royalties for the rest of his life someone who is "working?" Some other artists might work hundreds of times harder and still struggle to make a living. The "huge disparity" you refer to is exactly the opposite in the artistic world. Work a little. Earn a lot. Even an artist who produces regularly and still makes money off royalties isn't necessarily "working" while earning those royalties. A smart artist sets himself up so that he never has to "work" again. Then, he can concentrate on being an artist freely and whenever he pleases, some never do it again after the "hit." Getting paid to do a concert, that's work. Getting paid while creating a piece of art, that's work. The other times, well...

I understand that being an artist is not always a consistent gig, but then again, we aren't forced to do it.

Just something to ponder, and this is coming from a hard working (but unpaid) artist.

I just simply have to laugh when I hear people who don't know SH@#! about how the music industry really works and their constant pontification about this, that, and the other thing. Name one artist EVER who made a hit and lived off of the money from it. Just one. Only one. Name that person and I'll shut up.
As a person who has produced several 'hits' and has had every personal album on the Billboard charts, a multi-time Grammy nominee, 1 time personal winner, 1 time producer-shared winner, and 2 time Emmy winner, 11 time nominee, (I tell you all this so you don't think I'm just some whiny college student) I can tell you that you don't know squat about how the industry really works. Otherwise, NO ONE EVER in their right mind can support what Napster is about.
yeah, the industry was caught off guard. So what? So are you when a thief breaks into your home and steals your valuables. You'd react. Just like the industry has done. There are many, many answers out there. The biggest answer is teaching children that by stealing music, (regardless of your politics of free intellectual property) is stealing. No different, none whatsoever, than walking into a 7-11 and taking a candy bar. And stealing, and screaming at the industry, only serves to make for less and less ear time from the labels. Which means less development money. Which means less new music. Which means less outlet for that hardworking garage band. Which means more garbage music cluttering up the world. The web is a great mechanism. No doubt. Like anything good, there is always bad. So, you fight hard to keep the good and kill the bad. And sometimes innocent bystanders (consumers) get hurt. That's the biz. Eventually it will all settle out. But as long as people are allowing children, the biggest perpetrators of theft, to keep it up, we'll all lose.
You think your uploads of the Beatles or Lenny Kravitz gets any record exec in a sweat? Hell no! It's the Eminem's, Brittney Spears music that's the problem. See, it's called "trickle down economics" and it's the way of the entertainment world. Screw with that, and you screw with America's biggest export.
My favorite response to those that defend the use of illegal mp3s? "Those that don't believe in protecting intellectual properties have none." and I believe that with all my heart and soul. I've never met one intelligent person who can defend theft.
Here's my contest for the week.....Can anyone tell me the difference between an album budget in 1998 and 2002? And know what it REALLY costs to make an internationally released record? the person within 20% of the truth wins a free copy of my Vegas 4.0 book. I'll bet I keep that book for myself. And i have the budgets in hand, from several EMI and BMG recordings to prove I'm right.

Spot,

"Can anyone tell me the difference between an album budget in 1998 and 2002?"

I figure you're talking about the fact that for every Britney success, there's 100 flops, making the launching of MTV stars extremely expensive, plus factoring in loss from piracy (and yes, I think any studies showing those millions of CD-Rs don't hurt the industry are just silly).

OK, I'm guessing that the average marketing budget to launch a Britney clone has increased 30 to 50% over those years. From $10 million to $15 or $20 million.

Hmmmm.... a DSE VV 4 book......

G

Spot challenge #2,

"Name one artist EVER who made a hit and lived off of the money from it."

Um, Gary Glitter? :)

Busted for child porn a couple years ago I think....

G

Hm. It's very interesting to finally be able to exchange oppinions about this issue with someone that's actually *in* the business. (I also liked the pun you aimed in my general direction :D )

Anyway, it's clear that we're approaching this issue from opposite sides, SPOT, and if we can both listen to each other, this actually may become very interesting. I have no clues as to how the music industry works in details. But still, I'll make my argument, because I have lots of clues as to how the music industry's customers goes about their business. Because I'm one myself, and my friends are, my girlfriend is, and so is my girlfriend's teenage daughter, and her friends.

And from a custmers point of view, there are a number of key factors that governs their behavior as consumers of music.

1. Availability.
2. Price.
3. The opportunity to "try" out the music before you buy it.
4. What's cool!
5. What music do you know about.

I suppose you (SPOT) have some polls from whenever that you can knock me over the head with, and tell me I am wrong, but this is at least the factors I (and my friends) recognize ourselfs, as customers.

Anyway, let's go through the list without regards to the Internet:

Without the Internet, availability is what your local record shop has. Which is often quite limited. Espesially if you do not live in a big city.

Prices are, well, quite frankly, too high, approaching $20. The music industry has managed to make music buying a luxurie. A CD is a luxurie item - because of the prizing.

If you shall have the opportunity to "try" out new music before you buy it, you'll have to go down to your local record shop, find some records you think you may like, stand in line, and then - finally - you can listen to the records. But - of course - you'll have to ask someone behind the counter to switch the CDs, and if you stay "too long", you'll start to feel uncomfortable... On the upside, you can sometimes get excellent advice from the people that works at the record shop.

Now, what's cool? I suppose that's something the record companies are trying to tell people, through TV commercials and music videos. And it seems to work, because what's cool amongst teenagers are often not even what I'd call music. Very often it's bands and artists that the record companies has "manufactured". But what your friens are listening to is also cool. So if some of your friends give you a record to listen to, and tells you it's "way cool man!", then the chances are high that you'll think so too.

Now, this is actually a bit tricky, and I suppose this is where the record companies put most of their money. Through getting their records played on the radio (and I believe the competition is high.....), bombarding TV viewers with commersials for new albums and "manifacturing" bands and artists that's suppose to be trendy, sexy and cool, they try their best to make their artists stand out of the crowd - simply so we shall have heard about them when we go to buy music. Again, I'msure SPOT can tell me I'm wrong, but this is how I as a customer experiences the situation.

But now, let's include the Internet, and see how it affects the situation.

The availability is vast. It's close to unlimited. That - of course - is an illution, but it's way, way bigger than before the Internet. If you put just a little effort into it, you -will- find most of the music you desire on the Internet.

Price? What price? It's free! Wow, too bad for you guys, or what, SPOT? Does it bother me that it's free? Mostly not, because most of the music I download I end up not really liking, hence not listening to. But when I download songs or albums I really like, I keep thinking that it would be great to litteraly pay the artist a tribute. But do I go to the recors shop and buy the album? Not all that often, since I *really* do not want the CD. I want the music. (Can you see the difference?) But sometime I do. And I'm a living example of the reasearch showing that people that are downloading music from the internet ends up buying more music than before.

With the Internet, you can basically *try* out all the music in the world. And when the music industry seems to think that people should pay for every single album they download, what's actually happening out there, is that people are trying out new music. And very often you have to download a whole lot of music before you find something you really like. But anyway, the posibility to try out new music is allmost infinitly bigger with the Internet than before.

What's cool is still governed by commercials and friends I guess. But since it's so easy to send a friend a song or two per email or by uploading it to your website, you keep hearing about new music all the time. At least I do. But maybe my friends are special...?



And by now I'm ready to make some conclutions, that may feel like a slap in the face for people like you SPOT. The "ease of use" that the Internet provides us (the consumers) with, is someting we treasure. It's so easy to get music you know about and find new music you didn't knew existed, that going back to the way it was before is quite simple out of the question. If the music industry wants us back as customers, they will have to come up with something that is equally easy to use, or better, easer to use.

One big misstake that the record companies does, is labeling people that are downloading music as thieves. They ar not. They are customers that just found a better way to access music. There are ways to get them back, but you can't beat them into submission. You must offer them something that is better than what they've got. And if you do, they'll pay. I will. My friends will. But as of yet, NO such competitor to the free file sharing networks exist. And the attempts that have been made are just not good enough.

You may think they are, SPOT. Or you may think they SHOULD be good enough, and the reason they arent breaking through is that people are thieves. But if so, you're wrong. And you have some nerve to call your most promising group of potential high-spending customers thieves...



The music industri's biggest problem - the way I see it - is their lack of ability to work together. Not that people has embraced the Internet as their primary source of music. Actually, the Internet could be turned into the record companies best friend. Think of all the money you can save on distribution and production, if you could toss the CD and the record shops out the window...?

I can draw you a picture:



You start by bringing all the record companies together (which will be the most difficult tasks of all tasks required to complete this project). You make them digitalize *all* their music, and put it on super-high bandwidth servers, and you craft a system for dividing money between the record companies and the artists based on the songs downloaded.

Then you make a program that resembles Napster or Kazaa. You have a "tab" for organizing your music, a "tab" for searching and downloading, a "tab" for chatting with music interested people, advisors from the record companies, and maybe even chatting with the artists, and a "tab" for payment. To start using this program, and accessing the record companies network of digitalized music, all you have to do is downloading the program, and registring yourself.

Ok, say you let the first 500 og 1000 megabytes of downloading be free. Let people have the get hooked before you start to charge them money ;) In that time you have to prove that your system is the best. The best interface, the best help and advice, the best technical quality of the music and the fastetst downloads!

Then, when the free credits are used, you have to sign up for a monthly payment to access the network. How this is done may be the critical point in having this procjetc be a hit with the customers. You can't charge too much, bacause then people wont buy it. But you can make a ladder based system, where you price according to how much you download. But remember, dont make people pay so it hurts. Here is an example:

- $10 monthly payment.
- $5 extra if you downloaded more than 2 GB.
- $10 extra if you downloaded more than 4 GB.

...and so on. But don't be greedy! People don't like that. Remember, 1GB isn't very much. You can easily download 1GB of music without finding anything you like.

Then, at the end of each payment period, you will be presented (in the program you use to download the music) with a list of all the artists you have downloaded music of, and asked to check the check boxes next to the artists that you liked, and that you think should resieve a bonus.

The money you pay each month COULD be devided like this:
10% goes to managing the network and the digitalized music.
50% goes to the record companies.
20% is spilt amongst the artists that you downloaded.
20% is split between the artists you checked on the "I liked"-list at te end of the month.


Are you all getting the general idea? This system would not work if you couldn't bring in all or at lest most of the record companies. But if they could agree to work together, I strongly believe that such a system could capture the interest of most people that download music off the Internet.

What do you guys think?

-P-

<<"...and yes, I think any studies showing those millions of CD-Rs don't hurt the industry are just silly.">>

Uh, ok? Like the NRA thinks that report that says that owning a gun increases the possibility for dying from a gun shot is silly?

Come on, there have been MULTIPLE studies that has come to this conclution. Why would they lie? It's not like "pirates" around the world has the money to "fix" such studies - unlike, let's say...the record companies.....

There ought to be a tax on words.
Tor

You wouldn't happen to be working in the music industy, would you Tor?
I thought I recognized the attitude :p

Take a look around this forum. See how much people usually write in their posts. Take that into consideration when you write your own. That is the attitude.

Tor

"What do you guys think?"

Well... Since you asked.
As a consumer, I have to disagree with you. You really do sound like a lawyer for Napster and others. Basically, people download mp3s because they're FREE, they can't be bothered to think about the money they're taking out of Celine Dion's pockets...Hell, she's got Millions!!
If your theory worked, Napster would still be alive SELLING mp3s. Didn't Mp3.com almost close up shop awhile ago for lack of revenue??
My (totally unresearched) idea...Record companies should consider selling singles instead of albums. People don't want to spend the $$ for 14/15 songs when they only like 1 or 2; not at CD prices. But hey, that's just my opinion.
As far as downloading songs, we've probably all done it. Myself, well, I couldn't think of another way to find "Nineteen" by Paul Hardcastle. If you're out there Paul, I owe you a buck.
Don't kid yourself, if it wasn't for the fear of viruses, there would be even more people doing it.
You're defending the minority of people who only download a song to listen to it, then delete it after listening to it(yeah, right!), then go out and buy the CD.
I agree that the record industry needs to find a solution that will not alienate it's customers. But man...I wouldn't want to be in charge of that job!!

¢¢

Policing the internet is never going to work. Music and other digital media will eventually have to be free. That's it. There are too many good hackers out there now. It's going to have to go the way of prohibition. Also, the internet is a GREAT way to distribute digital media. Therefore we can phase out distribution companies.

Artists (and record companies) need to re-evaluate their earning methods, at least until the need to earn money is no longer an issue (which might not happen for a few hundred years). They should really stick to ways that are not easily digitally reproducible. Let the digital copies of the music be free. Earn your money in other ways. Artists should negotiate good reasonable salaries for their initial artistic efforts and for doing live concerts. Is it unreasonable for an artist to ask for say $250,000 to produce 10 songs? To me that's no small chunk of change, but a drop in the bucket for a producer to shell out. And, if I dare say so, most people would be able to live decently off $250,000 over the course of a year. But now, the producer has to have a way to get paid (back) too. Live concerts. The producer takes back the original $250k off the top, then a certain percentage of the profits. I'm sure there are other ways (besides straight record sales and what I just mentioned) to earn a living. Also, if the music itself were free, then the salaries paid to the artists (to produce it initially) can be based on their actual work, not their popularity. Why should Eminem be paid 10x more to do the same physical labor than lesser known artists? He shouldn't. The concerts would determine who is popular enough to get the "extra" cash. THAT money is the "icing" on the cake. The more popular you are, the more you earn thru your concerts.

Again, I only suggest this because I feel that digital piracy is here to stay. This is what the people want. Not that they want to steal per se, but that they are telling us that being able to have pleasure by listening to music should be free. I agree. But my opinion doesn't really matter, just look at what's happening. We have to be flexible to the changing environment.

Many artists really just want to create, they are not necessarily doing it for money, and those artists probably also just want to be seen and heard.

"Just something to ponder, and this is coming from a hard working (but unpaid) artist."

I'm in that boat too, but I'm not whining about my situation, I'm working through it. I just accepted [not that use of "accepted"] a fairly low, one-time payment for playing JFK in a documentary for the Discovery Channel. After paying my agent and Uncle Sam, I have enough for a decent dinner. You know how much else I will see from that job? Zilch. And it can [and probably will] run on the Discovery Channel for the next ten years. But I went in knowing all this and did I did my job as professionally as I could. So much so that the producer called the casting director to thank her for hiring me.

I could have whined about the low pay, lack of dialog [MOS job] and a bunch of other things, but that doesn't help the producer with his task of producing a good product or get me any closer to my ultimate career goals. If you're in it purely for the money, perhaps your in it for the wrong reasons.

What's that cheezy saying: "Do what you love and the money will come." Well, I love acting and things seem to be going well for me ... I'm right where I think I should be and where I want to be in my career [this is my second career -- one I waited a long time to pursue]. If you don't love your art for the art, you should ponder that.