Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?
I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..
Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.
I did...
@Horseleech
"Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven???t seen the whole ???net, though."
hahaha. There's still time...
I just mean that I'm guessing anyone who creates images, photos, etc that cares or knows whats up, has taken the easy steps needed to copyright their material. But I would think if you have the opinion that copyright infringement is bad, would practice what they preach. And that's not directed at anyone in particular. Just that if you believe stealing is stealing, you make sure you aren't doing it yourself. I've seen people on here fail to do this. IMO, I think it's hypocritical to take the stance.
Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?
I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..
Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.
I did...
@Horseleech
"Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven???t seen the whole ???net, though."
hahaha. There's still time...
I just mean that I'm guessing anyone who creates images, photos, etc that cares or knows whats up, has taken the easy steps needed to copyright their material. But I would think if you have the opinion that copyright infringement is bad, would practice what they preach. And that's not directed at anyone in particular. Just that if you believe stealing is stealing, you make sure you aren't doing it yourself. I've seen people on here fail to do this. IMO, I think it's hypocritical to take the stance.
Huh?
What does that have to do with "owning" a record if I purchase it?
I had a customer who worked at a large NYC or Northern NJ record store in the 90s.
They sold lots of bootlegs.
One day Prince, himself, walked in.
He brought a huge stack of Prince bootlegs to the counter, along with other stuff he wanted to buy.
My buddy was clerking and quick got in touch with his boss about what he should do.
"Just give him everything free."
While we are on the topic of Prince bootlegs. Who in the 80s-90s had a better bootleg catalog?
The Black Album of course, plus tons of live after party and killer concert recordings.
Far better than Springsteen, IMO.
I also think he always planned to pull the Black Album for the purpose of creating a Basement Tapes type legendary bootleg.
When I said "I did" I meant above... Right before your post.
The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed to you. @Horseleech means I'm talking to someone else.
But here you go.
"Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done."
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
It's something of a myth that you need to formally copyright something by registering it at the Library of Congress or similar. Certainly, doing that would be beneficial in the event of someone else claiming to own or control the copyright in it, but the fact is, the moment you create something original, copyright is yours until such point as you choose to assign that copyright to a third party. This is why copyright laws were established, contrary to what the legions of freetards would have you believe; so as to formally enshrine in law the right of the creator to decide who, if anybody, should be granted the right to make copies of their work.
When I said "I did" I meant above... Right before your post.
The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed to you. @Horseleech means I'm talking to someone else.
But here you go.
"Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done."
Yeah....my bad(RIP Manute).
I didn't see your post.
I'm not aware of anyone in the music industry who doesn't think you own the physical object, just that you don't own the music to do with as you please.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
It's unclear to me if these are your words or Rock's but, either way, go to your crates or your Expedit or whatever right now, and pull a random album from the stack. Doesn't matter which - I've just this second done it with Black Uhuru's 'Anthem'. Now take out the record, and look at the tiny wording around the edge of the label. It reads something like this, doesn't it?
"All Rights Of The Manufacturer And Of The Owner Of The Recorded Work Reserved. Unauthorised Public Performance, Broadcasting And Copying Of This Record Prohibited."
That pretty much covers everything quoted above, especially if the album has a gold promo stamp on the back cover. In other words, 'twas ever thus. Historically, record companies have only ever asserted these rights when they believe that the people infringing them are hitting their bottom line - bootleggers (illegally recording bands who are under exclusive contract), home-tapers (although pirate tapes were a far bigger threat to their profit margins) and now serial downloaders.
It's unclear to me if these are your words or Rock's
That pretty much covers everything quoted above, especially if the album has a gold promo stamp on the back cover. In other words, 'twas ever thus. Historically, record companies have only ever asserted these rights when they believe that the people infringing them are hitting their bottom line - bootleggers (illegally recording bands who are under exclusive contract), home-tapers (although pirate tapes were a far bigger threat to their profit margins) and now serial downloaders.
Not my words.....
In the late 60's/early 70's bootleg 8-Tracks were commonplace in NY....especially at the suburban Flea Markets. Top 100 LP's were completely ripped off, sometimes even with generic artwork.
They were busted regularly, had their stock confiscated and usually wound up paying a fine.
But the profits were so great that this never stopped them....some of the smarter dudes started selling Incense, Posters and other "legit" stuff and didn't display the bootleg tapes.....but it was known that they had them.
The point is the profit was far greater than the consequences......and it was without question, costing the record labels/artists big money.
Now multiply one crusty Flea Market dude 10,000x and you got the Internet.
This is going back, deeper into the thread but I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't lump very different forms of media industries together and apply a blanket statement of "the internet/free digital distribution" killed [fill in the blank.]
The decline of the paper newspaper industry, for example, is the product of multiple kinds of destabilizations in its profit model infrastructure. Even if every newspaper had been able to profit off of their digital editions at the same rate as their print subscribers, they still would have taken massive hits based on (pick your poison):
*The loss of classifieds revenue thanks to Craigslist, eBay, etc.
*Competition for viewer/consumer attention by other forms of media.
*Consolidation/monopolization of newspaper companies following deregulation.
As for the music industry, free downloading has been significant but it's hardly the only problem the industry has had to contend with. The recent book "Appetite for Self-Destruction" outlines the myriad mistakes the record industry made, not just post-internet but beginning with the introduction of the CD. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html
What we've seen in the collapse of the music industry has been a perfect storm created by multiple forces, not simply free downloading.
On the note of downloading: it's pointless, IMO, to debate the ethical merits of downloading/file sharing absent any useful and rational model of enforcement. If file sharing were treated as easily (and harshly) as, say, shoplifting in a store, you can bet your ass downloading would dry up very quickly across the board. But RIAA's approach was a PR disaster that failed to deliver on message. And these days, most are so accustomed to the ease (w/ lack of penalty) of file sharing that it just doesn't logically occur to people that what they're doing is unethical. A legal system is only as effective as people understanding the basic rules and consequences of breaking them. But with file sharing, those rules have never been made rationally clear and with the lack of enforcement, those rules hold even less weight than ever.
It surprises me that itunes continues to hold such a large market share.
Why have the majors not created alternate platforms for distributing their music electronically?
Why have artists, like Prince, AC/DC and the Beatles who have chaffed at or rejected itunes not started something.
cdbaby sells downloads, and I guess Amazon must, but it seems itunes has almost all the market share.
If say, RCA/BMG decided to digitize their catalog, 40% of it, or 80% or 100%, and sell it through their own site I think it would be wildly successful. Their catalog goes back more than 100 years and contains tons of huge hits like Elvis as well as obscure tunes that have never been reissued.
I don't think the greed, stupidity or arrogance of an industry should influence the morals of society.
Technological advances have rendered all kinds of industries irrelevant. I agree its unfortunate, because the pursuit of big sales has fueled a mind boggling amount of creativity. But I don't know if there's any moral responsibility for "society" to fight against the obsolescence of recorded music as a commodity. Everything's promotional now and increasingly, physical copies are basically collectibles..
I don't think the greed, stupidity or arrogance of an industry should influence the morals of society.
Huh? I'm not clear on what point you're making above but I think the morals of a society are completely influenced by greed, stupidity and arrogance of powerful institutions, whether in reaction to or in concert with.
I don't think the greed, stupidity or arrogance of an industry should influence the morals of society.
Technological advances have rendered all kinds of industries irrelevant. I agree its unfortunate, because the pursuit of big sales has fueled a mind boggling amount of creativity. But I don't know if there's any moral responsibility for "society" to fight against the obsolescence of recorded music as a commodity. Everything's promotional now and increasingly, physical copies are basically collectibles..
No offense but that's some ridiculous hyperbole. The death knell of physical media - music or otherwise - has been rung far too early or often. If you look at CD sales, they may suck compared to 8 years ago but in overall units moved, there are tens of millions of CDs sold every year (in the U.S. alone). Adjust for that globally, where internet/broadband penetration lags in most countries, and physical music media still has years of life left.
And recorded music isn't remotely obsolescent as a commodity either.
It's something of a myth that you need to formally copyright something by registering it at the Library of Congress or similar. Certainly, doing that would be beneficial in the event of someone else claiming to own or control the copyright in it, but the fact is, the moment you create something original, copyright is yours until such point as you choose to assign that copyright to a third party. This is why copyright laws were established, contrary to what the legions of freetards would have you believe; so as to formally enshrine in law the right of the creator to decide who, if anybody, should be granted the right to make copies of their work.
That's why I said it's pretty easy to place your copyright on your works. 2 minutes with your camera, DONE... Info is held in the Exif data, etc etc etc...
LMAO at freetards. They can thank you brits for copyright. Damn American bootleggers!! Funny thing is, it's how some American industries got their start.
I'm not of the belief of full out free. But there are a few things I am 100% against (part of sampling laws, copyright lengths, fair use, parody/satire to name a few).
In any case. Back to what I was saying. This is kinda a big deal here in Canada right now. The government is trying to revamp copyright laws. US industries are lobbying to get some drastic changes placed. While the Canadian government has gotten quite a bit of the law right IMO, they completely kill any rights they have given Canadians by making it illegal to break DRM. And fair use rights, etc are completely taken away if a corporation adds any type of DRM. This is causing a bit of a shit storm right now.
As far as in the US goes. It's well known that the RIAA has argued many times that it is illegal to format shift. If you buy a CD, technically it is illegal for you to put it on an ipod, computer, etc.
As far as re-sale goes. I thought it was well known industry was against first-sale. One minute on google brings up this.
It surprises me that itunes continues to hold such a large market share.
Why have the majors not created alternate platforms for distributing their music electronically?
Why have artists, like Prince, AC/DC and the Beatles who have chaffed at or rejected itunes not started something.
cdbaby sells downloads, and I guess Amazon must, but it seems itunes has almost all the market share.
If say, RCA/BMG decided to digitize their catalog, 40% of it, or 80% or 100%, and sell it through their own site I think it would be wildly successful. Their catalog goes back more than 100 years and contains tons of huge hits like Elvis as well as obscure tunes that have never been reissued.
The remaining Beatles have stated they want they want their music in itunes.
In 1993, Garth Brooks, who had criticized music stores which sold used CDs since it led to a loss in royalty payments, persuaded Capitol Records not to ship his August 1993 album In Pieces to stores which engaged in this practice.
I don't mean to "fault" RIAA too much here insofar as technology will likely always evolve faster than regulatory institutions are capable of keeping pace with. That said, RIAA does seem to have been especially lumbering and/or misguided in how they've tried to assert their rules and regulations.
Perhaps one of the few things they (if they can be correctly credited here) managed to get vaguely right is securing payments for radio broadcast (a reaction to massive uproar when radio became commercially viable and started panicking both live musicians and the recording industry). While that process may be invisible to the average consumer, the money is still flowing.
However, RIAA has shown itself incapable of adequately comprehending what constitutes real dangers to its future. The best example is that they overreacted to DAT and totally missed the boat on CD burners. Maybe that was a reasonable misread of the respective technologies but in hindsight, they missed a golden opportunity to leverage their political weight try to squeeze money out of CD drive manufacturers. Likewise, they really really really really fucked up with Napster. Maybe it's because the individual labels simply lacked the cooperative spirit to get together and cartel the hell out of the coming MP3 storm but in choosing to shut down vs. create a mutually beneficial solution, they lost the initiative to control the digital music game and ceded that to Apple and others.
NONE of this was inevitable (except to the degree that any half-wit outside the music industry could probably predict their sluggishness + ineptness would do them in over the long-term). But one solid truth of the recording industry has been that they've long been *reactive* vs. *proactive*. Ironic that for an industry whose content is constantly evolving and changing, as a business, record labels are remarkably slow to adapt.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
mannybolone said:
I don't mean to "fault" RIAA too much here insofar as technology will likely always evolve faster than regulatory institutions are capable of keeping pace with. That said, RIAA does seem to have been especially lumbering and/or misguided in how they've tried to assert their rules and regulations.
Perhaps one of the few things they (if they can be correctly credited here) managed to get vaguely right is securing payments for radio broadcast (a reaction to massive uproar when radio became commercially viable and started panicking both live musicians and the recording industry). While that process may be invisible to the average consumer, the money is still flowing.
However, RIAA has shown itself incapable of adequately comprehending what constitutes real dangers to its future. The best example is that they overreacted to DAT and totally missed the boat on CD burners. Maybe that was a reasonable misread of the respective technologies but in hindsight, they missed a golden opportunity to leverage their political weight try to squeeze money out of CD drive manufacturers. Likewise, they really really really really fucked up with Napster. Maybe it's because the individual labels simply lacked the cooperative spirit to get together and cartel the hell out of the coming MP3 storm but in choosing to shut down vs. create a mutually beneficial solution, they lost the initiative to control the digital music game and ceded that to Apple and others.
NONE of this was inevitable (except to the degree that any half-wit outside the music industry could probably predict their sluggishness + ineptness would do them in over the long-term). But one solid truth of the recording industry has been that they've long been *reactive* vs. *proactive*. Ironic that for an industry whose content is constantly evolving and changing, as a business, record labels are remarkably slow to adapt.
Hey Manny,
This was a very insightful post. You're logic and reasoning are unfuckiwitable. :real_headz: :feelin_it:
It surprises me that itunes continues to hold such a large market share.
Why have the majors not created alternate platforms for distributing their music electronically?
Why have artists, like Prince, AC/DC and the Beatles who have chaffed at or rejected itunes not started something.
cdbaby sells downloads, and I guess Amazon must, but it seems itunes has almost all the market share.
If say, RCA/BMG decided to digitize their catalog, 40% of it, or 80% or 100%, and sell it through their own site I think it would be wildly successful. Their catalog goes back more than 100 years and contains tons of huge hits like Elvis as well as obscure tunes that have never been reissued.
Dan:
1. The iTunes market share was a result of them having both the software (the digital music) AND the hardware (the iPod). The success of each reinforced and propelled the other. Many have criticized Apple for initially selling songs that would only work on an iPod but it's hard to say it was a bad business decision; they hardly seemed to have suffered for it, at least not in the early years.
2. You raise a good question; I think there are any number of answers including: a) lacking the technological infrastructure/know-how to put together an effective digital store, especially when online retailers such as iTunes, Amazon and others were willing to pay for that content, b) most labels were very wary of a singles-focused approach and it's unlikely they would have sold *songs* (thus ceding that more lucrative ground to iTunes and others) and c) I very much doubt they would have claimed much market share regardless. It's like asking why most labels didn't set up their own retail stores. It's not efficient for them and more importantly, the average consumer isn't going to want to go to the Sony/BMG store, the Universal store and the EMI Store to find three separate albums belonging to three different labels.
As far as in the US goes. It's well known that the RIAA has argued many times that it is illegal to format shift. If you buy a CD, technically it is illegal for you to put it on an ipod, computer, etc.
As far as re-sale goes. I thought it was well known industry was against first-sale.
These are perfect examples of RIAA's inability to convincingly sell its policies or the ethical rational behind them.
It doesn't help that RIAA was also unable to muster the kind of enforcement that would have been necessary to drive the point home, especially for the end user.
Either way though, it just doesn't make implicit sense that, if I buy a work of recorded music, I can't convert it into a different format so long as I'm still personally consuming it. Likewise, it also doesn't make sense why I don't have the right to resell that same object to another consumer. RIAA wants us to believe that we're purchasing a "license to listen" but no one outside the music industry believes that for a second, not the least of which is that there's no easy consumer analogy you can use as a point of comparison. In essence, RIAA wants us to forget the basic tenets of private property! Good luck there!
I haven't seen an artist this out of touch since Metallica sued Napster. And even though the heavy metal foursome has been doing mea culpas for years, giving away music, innovating online, they've never been able to erase the taint that came from being out of touch.
Remember when artists were cool? Hipper than the rest of us in the room? We looked to musicians to tell us which way the wind blew, or that the vandals took the handles. Today, we're laughing at Prince.
Actually, the hysteria began yesterday and hasn't ceased yet. Word is bouncing all over the web, from the "Mirror" to "Boing Boing" to "Mashable" to Twitter to e-mail. This is the kind of promotion you don't want. It's the kind that killed Jessica Simpson's singing career and Lindsay Lohan's acting career. Suddenly, you're a laughingstock. And it's doubtful you can ever recover. It's kind of like being labeled a nerd in high school. Your only chance is to start all over again in college. Then again, the old college Facebook is now ubiquitous. Commit career suicide online and everybody knows and it lasts forever.
Forget that Prince is plain wrong. (What's next, is he going to rail against telephones and automobiles? Or tell us to stop using cell phones?) It's the fact that he's so out of touch that has us laughing at him, something no one banking on cool to succeed should ever want.
You can't stop progress. Change happens. And it's not good for everyone. Sure, it's hard being an artist and getting paid in the Internet era, but that doesn't mean you should become a Luddite and sign off. It's not necessary to utilize Foursquare, but when you rail against Twitter and other new media you just look like a square.
So, keep up to date with technology, or shut up!
But it's worse. You build your career online today, it's almost as if Prince were railing against record shops in the eighties, when he broke through. If you weren't in the shop, you don't mean diddly squat, if you're not online, you're out of the discussion.
Giving away his CD with the newspaper was cool the last time he did it, years ago, but now it's a stunt equivalent to spinning a Hula-Hoop in Times Square. Huh? So you get paid and no one listens.
It would be dumb for Prince to follow Radiohead, but if I were the diminutive star I'd trumpet how many people actually downloaded and listened to my music as opposed to how many discs were given away (and ultimately thrown out!) with the newspaper. An old format coupled with a dying medium. How innovative!
If Prince were smart and in touch, he would have utilized new media to deliver buzz about his album.
Or, he could finally realize no one's listening to anything but his hits and if he wants us to pay attention once again, he's got to create another hit, another track so infectious, one listen makes the hair on your arm stand up and your feet run to the dance floor.
I haven't seen an artist this out of touch since Metallica sued Napster. And even though the heavy metal foursome has been doing mea culpas for years, giving away music, innovating online, they've never been able to erase the taint that came from being out of touch.
Remember when artists were cool? Hipper than the rest of us in the room? We looked to musicians to tell us which way the wind blew, or that the vandals took the handles. Today, we're laughing at Prince.
Actually, the hysteria began yesterday and hasn't ceased yet. Word is bouncing all over the web, from the "Mirror" to "Boing Boing" to "Mashable" to Twitter to e-mail. This is the kind of promotion you don't want. It's the kind that killed Jessica Simpson's singing career and Lindsay Lohan's acting career. Suddenly, you're a laughingstock. And it's doubtful you can ever recover. It's kind of like being labeled a nerd in high school. Your only chance is to start all over again in college. Then again, the old college Facebook is now ubiquitous. Commit career suicide online and everybody knows and it lasts forever.
Forget that Prince is plain wrong. (What's next, is he going to rail against telephones and automobiles? Or tell us to stop using cell phones?) It's the fact that he's so out of touch that has us laughing at him, something no one banking on cool to succeed should ever want.
You can't stop progress. Change happens. And it's not good for everyone. Sure, it's hard being an artist and getting paid in the Internet era, but that doesn't mean you should become a Luddite and sign off. It's not necessary to utilize Foursquare, but when you rail against Twitter and other new media you just look like a square.
So, keep up to date with technology, or shut up!
But it's worse. You build your career online today, it's almost as if Prince were railing against record shops in the eighties, when he broke through. If you weren't in the shop, you don't mean diddly squat, if you're not online, you're out of the discussion.
Giving away his CD with the newspaper was cool the last time he did it, years ago, but now it's a stunt equivalent to spinning a Hula-Hoop in Times Square. Huh? So you get paid and no one listens.
It would be dumb for Prince to follow Radiohead, but if I were the diminutive star I'd trumpet how many people actually downloaded and listened to my music as opposed to how many discs were given away (and ultimately thrown out!) with the newspaper. An old format coupled with a dying medium. How innovative!
If Prince were smart and in touch, he would have utilized new media to deliver buzz about his album.
Or, he could finally realize no one's listening to anything but his hits and if he wants us to pay attention once again, he's got to create another hit, another track so infectious, one listen makes the hair on your arm stand up and your feet run to the dance floor.
Easily one of the dumbest things I have read in 2010. DELETE.
Easily one of the dumbest things I have read in 2010. DELETE.
While not the greatest of things to read. It does raise some points. What is Prince stating? Online sales are a lost cause? Brick & mortar stores are dead? The future is giving away your music with a paper? Which he did do a few years ago already. Just seems very short sighted.
While I have no doubt Prince is a musical genius and a shrewd businessman. I do believe he eccentric to say the least. Not that anything is wrong with that.
Like I posted early. I enjoy Kevin Smith talking about dealing with him trying to get a track for a movie.
Prince can say the sky is pink and everyone else would be dead wrong. Fuck the dumb shit. It's fucking Prince, and since he's declared it, yes - "The internet really IS completely over."
Prince can say the sky is pink and everyone else would be dead wrong. Fuck the dumb shit. It's fucking Prince, and since he's declared it, yes - "The internet really IS completely over."
This was my immediate reaction to the headline also. It's a bold statement, no one's said it before (that loudly), and as crazy as it sounds, there is something to it. We were all fine before the internet came along and we'd all be fine if it were gone tomorrow.
Anyway, he's not saying it's literally going to end, he's stating an opinion, like "that's so 5 minutes ago". MTV still exists, but not in any resemblance of what it used to be. In Prince's opinion, it had its day and so has the internet.
I'm gonna go listen to Tacobell's Cannon.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
This is going back, deeper into the thread but I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't lump very different forms of media industries together and apply a blanket statement of "the internet/free digital distribution" killed [fill in the blank.]
The decline of the paper newspaper industry, for example, is the product of multiple kinds of destabilizations in its profit model infrastructure. Even if every newspaper had been able to profit off of their digital editions at the same rate as their print subscribers, they still would have taken massive hits based on (pick your poison):
*The loss of classifieds revenue thanks to Craigslist, eBay, etc.
*Competition for viewer/consumer attention by other forms of media.
*Consolidation/monopolization of newspaper companies following deregulation.
As for the music industry, free downloading has been significant but it's hardly the only problem the industry has had to contend with. The recent book "Appetite for Self-Destruction" outlines the myriad mistakes the record industry made, not just post-internet but beginning with the introduction of the CD. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html
What we've seen in the collapse of the music industry has been a perfect storm created by multiple forces, not simply free downloading.
On the note of downloading: it's pointless, IMO, to debate the ethical merits of downloading/file sharing absent any useful and rational model of enforcement. If file sharing were treated as easily (and harshly) as, say, shoplifting in a store, you can bet your ass downloading would dry up very quickly across the board. But RIAA's approach was a PR disaster that failed to deliver on message. And these days, most are so accustomed to the ease (w/ lack of penalty) of file sharing that it just doesn't logically occur to people that what they're doing is unethical. A legal system is only as effective as people understanding the basic rules and consequences of breaking them. But with file sharing, those rules have never been made rationally clear and with the lack of enforcement, those rules hold even less weight than ever.
To go off on a further tangent related to one of the "multiple forces" Oliver refers to, I'd like to float the idea that, in embracing the CD as its principal format of delivery, the music industry sowed the seeds of its own destruction almost 25 years ago. I speak as someone who remained a defiant CD refusenik for as long as it was practically possible, and who takes only the most rueful of pleasures from being proved at least partially right in my long-held belief that CDs are the work of Satan.
For anyone wanting to know why CDs are (or were, up until recently) so expensive, that's because that's what the industry always wanted to charge for an album, but could never get away with. In the CD, the industry finally had something which could be marketed as A Premium Product and priced accordingly. Unfortunately, one of the dichotomies of the music industry is that it's actually somewhat slow to respond to technological developments, and while they were busy telling everyone that home taping was killing music and (in the EU at least) lobbying governments for a blank tape levy (God, how anachronistic that sounds now, eh?), they completely disregarded the possibilities presented by the CD as cheap, recordable media, almost right up until the point there was a CD burner in every home, effectively.
As for the internet? Forget it. A publisher I once worked for said to me at a party in 2000, and I quote, "the internet is a waste of time". And it wasn't as if the industry at large didn't see it coming, because they did. They were certainly told about it. As long ago as the mid-90s, when P2P was in its infancy, then-colleagues of mine were sitting down with music industry movers and shakers and telling them that the internet was going to completely alter everyone's relationship with music, and they needed to deal with it. All this was long before Apple were giving any serious thought to getting into the music business. Back then, however, nobody in the industry ever seriously thought people would actually want to buy or listen to music using their computer. You can fill in the rest yourselves.
When I was talking about free. I mean the radio. But we could talk about getting a tangible product as well. Anyone who spent their day's heading to labels on servicing days knows the deal.
Commercial radio pays the artist so the music is not "free". It is being paid for by the advertisers who in turn allow the listener to hear it at their cost.
"
Small correction. Commercial Radio in the UK (and most everywhere else) pays the artists (& sound recordings rights holders, performers, session muscians, writers, publisher etc) Commercial Radio in the US only pays the writers and publishers. They've strongly resisted ever paying the sound recording rights holders and performers on the tracks in the same way, as they argue they are providing a promotional value., and have the ear of some powerful dudes.
These guys are trying to change this and bring the Performers & sound recording rights holder rights in line with the writers and publishers.
Comments
I did...
@Horseleech
"Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven???t seen the whole ???net, though."
hahaha. There's still time...
I just mean that I'm guessing anyone who creates images, photos, etc that cares or knows whats up, has taken the easy steps needed to copyright their material. But I would think if you have the opinion that copyright infringement is bad, would practice what they preach. And that's not directed at anyone in particular. Just that if you believe stealing is stealing, you make sure you aren't doing it yourself. I've seen people on here fail to do this. IMO, I think it's hypocritical to take the stance.
Huh?
What does that have to do with "owning" a record if I purchase it?
They sold lots of bootlegs.
One day Prince, himself, walked in.
He brought a huge stack of Prince bootlegs to the counter, along with other stuff he wanted to buy.
My buddy was clerking and quick got in touch with his boss about what he should do.
"Just give him everything free."
While we are on the topic of Prince bootlegs. Who in the 80s-90s had a better bootleg catalog?
The Black Album of course, plus tons of live after party and killer concert recordings.
Far better than Springsteen, IMO.
I also think he always planned to pull the Black Album for the purpose of creating a Basement Tapes type legendary bootleg.
The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed to you. @Horseleech means I'm talking to someone else.
But here you go.
"Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done."
Yeah....my bad(RIP Manute).
I didn't see your post.
I'm not aware of anyone in the music industry who doesn't think you own the physical object, just that you don't own the music to do with as you please.
It's unclear to me if these are your words or Rock's but, either way, go to your crates or your Expedit or whatever right now, and pull a random album from the stack. Doesn't matter which - I've just this second done it with Black Uhuru's 'Anthem'. Now take out the record, and look at the tiny wording around the edge of the label. It reads something like this, doesn't it?
"All Rights Of The Manufacturer And Of The Owner Of The Recorded Work Reserved. Unauthorised Public Performance, Broadcasting And Copying Of This Record Prohibited."
That pretty much covers everything quoted above, especially if the album has a gold promo stamp on the back cover. In other words, 'twas ever thus. Historically, record companies have only ever asserted these rights when they believe that the people infringing them are hitting their bottom line - bootleggers (illegally recording bands who are under exclusive contract), home-tapers (although pirate tapes were a far bigger threat to their profit margins) and now serial downloaders.
Not my words.....
In the late 60's/early 70's bootleg 8-Tracks were commonplace in NY....especially at the suburban Flea Markets. Top 100 LP's were completely ripped off, sometimes even with generic artwork.
They were busted regularly, had their stock confiscated and usually wound up paying a fine.
But the profits were so great that this never stopped them....some of the smarter dudes started selling Incense, Posters and other "legit" stuff and didn't display the bootleg tapes.....but it was known that they had them.
The point is the profit was far greater than the consequences......and it was without question, costing the record labels/artists big money.
Now multiply one crusty Flea Market dude 10,000x and you got the Internet.
The decline of the paper newspaper industry, for example, is the product of multiple kinds of destabilizations in its profit model infrastructure. Even if every newspaper had been able to profit off of their digital editions at the same rate as their print subscribers, they still would have taken massive hits based on (pick your poison):
*The loss of classifieds revenue thanks to Craigslist, eBay, etc.
*Competition for viewer/consumer attention by other forms of media.
*Consolidation/monopolization of newspaper companies following deregulation.
As for the music industry, free downloading has been significant but it's hardly the only problem the industry has had to contend with. The recent book "Appetite for Self-Destruction" outlines the myriad mistakes the record industry made, not just post-internet but beginning with the introduction of the CD. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html
What we've seen in the collapse of the music industry has been a perfect storm created by multiple forces, not simply free downloading.
On the note of downloading: it's pointless, IMO, to debate the ethical merits of downloading/file sharing absent any useful and rational model of enforcement. If file sharing were treated as easily (and harshly) as, say, shoplifting in a store, you can bet your ass downloading would dry up very quickly across the board. But RIAA's approach was a PR disaster that failed to deliver on message. And these days, most are so accustomed to the ease (w/ lack of penalty) of file sharing that it just doesn't logically occur to people that what they're doing is unethical. A legal system is only as effective as people understanding the basic rules and consequences of breaking them. But with file sharing, those rules have never been made rationally clear and with the lack of enforcement, those rules hold even less weight than ever.
I don't think the greed, stupidity or arrogance of an industry should influence the morals of society.
Why have the majors not created alternate platforms for distributing their music electronically?
Why have artists, like Prince, AC/DC and the Beatles who have chaffed at or rejected itunes not started something.
cdbaby sells downloads, and I guess Amazon must, but it seems itunes has almost all the market share.
If say, RCA/BMG decided to digitize their catalog, 40% of it, or 80% or 100%, and sell it through their own site I think it would be wildly successful. Their catalog goes back more than 100 years and contains tons of huge hits like Elvis as well as obscure tunes that have never been reissued.
Technological advances have rendered all kinds of industries irrelevant. I agree its unfortunate, because the pursuit of big sales has fueled a mind boggling amount of creativity. But I don't know if there's any moral responsibility for "society" to fight against the obsolescence of recorded music as a commodity. Everything's promotional now and increasingly, physical copies are basically collectibles..
Huh? I'm not clear on what point you're making above but I think the morals of a society are completely influenced by greed, stupidity and arrogance of powerful institutions, whether in reaction to or in concert with.
No offense but that's some ridiculous hyperbole. The death knell of physical media - music or otherwise - has been rung far too early or often. If you look at CD sales, they may suck compared to 8 years ago but in overall units moved, there are tens of millions of CDs sold every year (in the U.S. alone). Adjust for that globally, where internet/broadband penetration lags in most countries, and physical music media still has years of life left.
And recorded music isn't remotely obsolescent as a commodity either.
I don't disagree with this. I just think over the long term, the business is running on fumes..
That's why I said it's pretty easy to place your copyright on your works. 2 minutes with your camera, DONE... Info is held in the Exif data, etc etc etc...
LMAO at freetards. They can thank you brits for copyright. Damn American bootleggers!! Funny thing is, it's how some American industries got their start.
I'm not of the belief of full out free. But there are a few things I am 100% against (part of sampling laws, copyright lengths, fair use, parody/satire to name a few).
In any case. Back to what I was saying. This is kinda a big deal here in Canada right now. The government is trying to revamp copyright laws. US industries are lobbying to get some drastic changes placed. While the Canadian government has gotten quite a bit of the law right IMO, they completely kill any rights they have given Canadians by making it illegal to break DRM. And fair use rights, etc are completely taken away if a corporation adds any type of DRM. This is causing a bit of a shit storm right now.
As far as in the US goes. It's well known that the RIAA has argued many times that it is illegal to format shift. If you buy a CD, technically it is illegal for you to put it on an ipod, computer, etc.
As far as re-sale goes. I thought it was well known industry was against first-sale. One minute on google brings up this.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/record-shops-used-cds-ihre-papieren-bitte.ars
The remaining Beatles have stated they want they want their music in itunes.
Perhaps one of the few things they (if they can be correctly credited here) managed to get vaguely right is securing payments for radio broadcast (a reaction to massive uproar when radio became commercially viable and started panicking both live musicians and the recording industry). While that process may be invisible to the average consumer, the money is still flowing.
However, RIAA has shown itself incapable of adequately comprehending what constitutes real dangers to its future. The best example is that they overreacted to DAT and totally missed the boat on CD burners. Maybe that was a reasonable misread of the respective technologies but in hindsight, they missed a golden opportunity to leverage their political weight try to squeeze money out of CD drive manufacturers. Likewise, they really really really really fucked up with Napster. Maybe it's because the individual labels simply lacked the cooperative spirit to get together and cartel the hell out of the coming MP3 storm but in choosing to shut down vs. create a mutually beneficial solution, they lost the initiative to control the digital music game and ceded that to Apple and others.
NONE of this was inevitable (except to the degree that any half-wit outside the music industry could probably predict their sluggishness + ineptness would do them in over the long-term). But one solid truth of the recording industry has been that they've long been *reactive* vs. *proactive*. Ironic that for an industry whose content is constantly evolving and changing, as a business, record labels are remarkably slow to adapt.
Hey Manny,
This was a very insightful post. You're logic and reasoning are unfuckiwitable. :real_headz: :feelin_it:
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Dan:
1. The iTunes market share was a result of them having both the software (the digital music) AND the hardware (the iPod). The success of each reinforced and propelled the other. Many have criticized Apple for initially selling songs that would only work on an iPod but it's hard to say it was a bad business decision; they hardly seemed to have suffered for it, at least not in the early years.
2. You raise a good question; I think there are any number of answers including: a) lacking the technological infrastructure/know-how to put together an effective digital store, especially when online retailers such as iTunes, Amazon and others were willing to pay for that content, b) most labels were very wary of a singles-focused approach and it's unlikely they would have sold *songs* (thus ceding that more lucrative ground to iTunes and others) and c) I very much doubt they would have claimed much market share regardless. It's like asking why most labels didn't set up their own retail stores. It's not efficient for them and more importantly, the average consumer isn't going to want to go to the Sony/BMG store, the Universal store and the EMI Store to find three separate albums belonging to three different labels.
These are perfect examples of RIAA's inability to convincingly sell its policies or the ethical rational behind them.
It doesn't help that RIAA was also unable to muster the kind of enforcement that would have been necessary to drive the point home, especially for the end user.
Either way though, it just doesn't make implicit sense that, if I buy a work of recorded music, I can't convert it into a different format so long as I'm still personally consuming it. Likewise, it also doesn't make sense why I don't have the right to resell that same object to another consumer. RIAA wants us to believe that we're purchasing a "license to listen" but no one outside the music industry believes that for a second, not the least of which is that there's no easy consumer analogy you can use as a point of comparison. In essence, RIAA wants us to forget the basic tenets of private property! Good luck there!
Prince's Nonsense
If only they were talking about his music.
I haven't seen an artist this out of touch since Metallica sued Napster. And even though the heavy metal foursome has been doing mea culpas for years, giving away music, innovating online, they've never been able to erase the taint that came from being out of touch.
Remember when artists were cool? Hipper than the rest of us in the room? We looked to musicians to tell us which way the wind blew, or that the vandals took the handles. Today, we're laughing at Prince.
Actually, the hysteria began yesterday and hasn't ceased yet. Word is bouncing all over the web, from the "Mirror" to "Boing Boing" to "Mashable" to Twitter to e-mail. This is the kind of promotion you don't want. It's the kind that killed Jessica Simpson's singing career and Lindsay Lohan's acting career. Suddenly, you're a laughingstock. And it's doubtful you can ever recover. It's kind of like being labeled a nerd in high school. Your only chance is to start all over again in college. Then again, the old college Facebook is now ubiquitous. Commit career suicide online and everybody knows and it lasts forever.
Forget that Prince is plain wrong. (What's next, is he going to rail against telephones and automobiles? Or tell us to stop using cell phones?) It's the fact that he's so out of touch that has us laughing at him, something no one banking on cool to succeed should ever want.
You can't stop progress. Change happens. And it's not good for everyone. Sure, it's hard being an artist and getting paid in the Internet era, but that doesn't mean you should become a Luddite and sign off. It's not necessary to utilize Foursquare, but when you rail against Twitter and other new media you just look like a square.
So, keep up to date with technology, or shut up!
But it's worse. You build your career online today, it's almost as if Prince were railing against record shops in the eighties, when he broke through. If you weren't in the shop, you don't mean diddly squat, if you're not online, you're out of the discussion.
Giving away his CD with the newspaper was cool the last time he did it, years ago, but now it's a stunt equivalent to spinning a Hula-Hoop in Times Square. Huh? So you get paid and no one listens.
It would be dumb for Prince to follow Radiohead, but if I were the diminutive star I'd trumpet how many people actually downloaded and listened to my music as opposed to how many discs were given away (and ultimately thrown out!) with the newspaper. An old format coupled with a dying medium. How innovative!
If Prince were smart and in touch, he would have utilized new media to deliver buzz about his album.
Or, he could finally realize no one's listening to anything but his hits and if he wants us to pay attention once again, he's got to create another hit, another track so infectious, one listen makes the hair on your arm stand up and your feet run to the dance floor.
Easily one of the dumbest things I have read in 2010. DELETE.
While not the greatest of things to read. It does raise some points. What is Prince stating? Online sales are a lost cause? Brick & mortar stores are dead? The future is giving away your music with a paper? Which he did do a few years ago already. Just seems very short sighted.
While I have no doubt Prince is a musical genius and a shrewd businessman. I do believe he eccentric to say the least. Not that anything is wrong with that.
Like I posted early. I enjoy Kevin Smith talking about dealing with him trying to get a track for a movie.
thanks for dressing up, belichick.
If I have to choose sides, I'm going with Prince.
This was my immediate reaction to the headline also. It's a bold statement, no one's said it before (that loudly), and as crazy as it sounds, there is something to it. We were all fine before the internet came along and we'd all be fine if it were gone tomorrow.
Anyway, he's not saying it's literally going to end, he's stating an opinion, like "that's so 5 minutes ago". MTV still exists, but not in any resemblance of what it used to be. In Prince's opinion, it had its day and so has the internet.
I'm gonna go listen to Tacobell's Cannon.
To go off on a further tangent related to one of the "multiple forces" Oliver refers to, I'd like to float the idea that, in embracing the CD as its principal format of delivery, the music industry sowed the seeds of its own destruction almost 25 years ago. I speak as someone who remained a defiant CD refusenik for as long as it was practically possible, and who takes only the most rueful of pleasures from being proved at least partially right in my long-held belief that CDs are the work of Satan.
For anyone wanting to know why CDs are (or were, up until recently) so expensive, that's because that's what the industry always wanted to charge for an album, but could never get away with. In the CD, the industry finally had something which could be marketed as A Premium Product and priced accordingly. Unfortunately, one of the dichotomies of the music industry is that it's actually somewhat slow to respond to technological developments, and while they were busy telling everyone that home taping was killing music and (in the EU at least) lobbying governments for a blank tape levy (God, how anachronistic that sounds now, eh?), they completely disregarded the possibilities presented by the CD as cheap, recordable media, almost right up until the point there was a CD burner in every home, effectively.
As for the internet? Forget it. A publisher I once worked for said to me at a party in 2000, and I quote, "the internet is a waste of time". And it wasn't as if the industry at large didn't see it coming, because they did. They were certainly told about it. As long ago as the mid-90s, when P2P was in its infancy, then-colleagues of mine were sitting down with music industry movers and shakers and telling them that the internet was going to completely alter everyone's relationship with music, and they needed to deal with it. All this was long before Apple were giving any serious thought to getting into the music business. Back then, however, nobody in the industry ever seriously thought people would actually want to buy or listen to music using their computer. You can fill in the rest yourselves.
Small correction. Commercial Radio in the UK (and most everywhere else) pays the artists (& sound recordings rights holders, performers, session muscians, writers, publisher etc) Commercial Radio in the US only pays the writers and publishers. They've strongly resisted ever paying the sound recording rights holders and performers on the tracks in the same way, as they argue they are providing a promotional value., and have the ear of some powerful dudes.
These guys are trying to change this and bring the Performers & sound recording rights holder rights in line with the writers and publishers.
http://musicfirstcoalition.org/
Supporters include the big, bad RIAA