Illegal music downloads...once mo...

[Ed DeGenaro]

here's some very intersting thoughts on the subject by Gary Willis...
http://garywillis.com/blog/

[wsaraceni]

cool read. while im sure there are some downloaded song on my computer. i'll gladly say that either I or my girlfriend have paid for 99.9% of the music on our computers.

[rooster]

:AOK

rooster.

[iaresee]

Am I going to regret saying anything about this at all? Maybe...

He's got some good points but I think Gary, like the record labels, has made the same mistake: he has set the price of his music...
The direct loss of the income from one encoded CD download is 10 Euros (almost $14).
...rather than ask the market what his music is worth. He thinks he's losing $14 because that's what he feels his CD is worth. But is it worth $14? If your customers would rather steal your product than pay your asking price you have to ask yourself: maybe I've priced myself out of the market?

I think Amie Street (http://amiestreet.com/) is proving to be a very interesting experiment in consumer-driven pricing in music. Your tracks start off free and after a few downloads jump up to a few pennies (I think the first jump is $0.00 -> $0.09/track after 12 downloads). After that they can go up $0.98/track if the songs get really popular. The amount you have to give away to get the ball rolling is small enough to be insignificant if indeed people end up liking your music. If the tracks end up not being downloaded at even $0.09 you've got yourself the classic artistic dilemma: figure out what the public wants and give them that so you make money, or be content with what you get when you do exactly what you want with your art.

Here's an interesting follow-on to all of this: HOWTO Earn an artist's living in the 21st century (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/howto-earn-an-artist.html). Very interesting article. 1000 true fans -- can you do it?

[Ed DeGenaro]

Am I going to regret saying anything about this at all? Maybe...

He's got some good points but I think Gary, like the record labels, has made the same mistake: he has set the price of his music...
...rather than ask the market what his music is worth. He thinks he's losing $14 because that's what he feels his CD is worth. But is it worth $14? If your customers would rather steal your product than pay your asking price you have to ask yourself: maybe I've priced myself out of the market?

I think Amie Street (http://amiestreet.com/) is proving to be a very interesting experiment in consumer-driven pricing in music. Your tracks start off free and after a few downloads jump up to a few pennies (I think the first jump is $0.00 -> $0.09/track after 12 downloads). After that they can go up $0.98/track if the songs get really popular. The amount you have to give away to get the ball rolling is small enough to be insignificant if indeed people end up liking your music. If the tracks end up not being downloaded at even $0.09 you've got yourself the classic artistic dilemma: figure out what the public wants and give them that so you make money, or be content with what you get when you do exactly what you want with your art.

Here's an interesting follow-on to all of this: HOWTO Earn an artist's living in the 21st century (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/howto-earn-an-artist.html). Very interesting article. 1000 true fans -- can you do it?
Well lets see I can't afford a 2 Rock Sterling...I guess I will steal one since they're priced too high...see how that doesn't work. All this entitlement of people is what I don't get. It's really simple...don't like the price-don't buy it. But I don't see the logic in don't like the price-steal it.

[Cody]

If your customers would rather steal your product than pay your asking price you have to ask yourself: maybe I've priced myself out of the market?
I'm more or less resigned to the fact that some people will bend themselves into pretzels to justify thievery, and nothing I say will change their minds.

How do you offer thieves a better deal than "free"?

[iaresee]

Well lets see I can't afford a 2 Rock Sterling...I guess I will steal one since they're priced too high...see how that doesn't work. All this entitlement of people is what I don't get. It's really simple...don't like the price-don't buy it. But I don't see the logic in don't like the price-steal it.
I'm not trying to justifying the stealing. Look at it a little differently. Lets say I create a new amp that is amazing. And I try to sell it for $50,000 -- but its not selling. Do I keep trying to sell it from $50,000? Is it the market that is nuts for not wanting to buy my amp? Or am I nuts for wanting $50,000?

It's unfortunate that free is readily available, but it's telling that so many people think it's okay, don't you think? If you're looking at things rationally you have to ask: why is it they don't want to pay? Am I asking too much? Is my product inferior? Is it unsaleable? It's too easy to just say that all your customers are just a bunch of thieves. If you give the people what they want they will happily part with their hard earned cash in exchange for it.

[Cody]

If you give the people what they want they will happily part with their hard earned cash in exchange for it.
How'd that work out for Radiohead?

[iaresee]

How do you offer thieves a better deal than "free"?

I think this is the problem: you're calling them thieves. Give them a chance. Call them disgruntled consumers. Mis-guided customers. And try to figure out how to get them to pay for it instead of stealing it.

The dialog ends as soon as you start to say their thieves. Because then you can't sell to them. You can only punish them.

[iaresee]

How'd that work out for Radiohead?
They're not saying.

But they've definitely done the 1000 True Fans theory (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) some serious support. They have a good legion of people willing to pay >$80 for a box set of the same thing they could have download for nothing.

[Cody]

Give them a chance. Call them disgruntled consumers. Mis-guided customers. And try to figure out how to get them to pay for it instead of stealing it.
How'd THAT work out for Radiohead?

[iaresee]

How'd THAT work out for Radiohead?
Brilliantly. They figured out how to get people to pay >$80 for the boxed-up, glitzed-up version of something they could have downloaded for free.

[Cody]

Here's what a quick spin of Google tells me regarding Radiohead:

"According to a study (by a third party, comScore), only 38% of downloaders paid something while the 62% majority paid nothing. And of those paying, most paid less than $4."

[lutelover]

I took a look at the article recommended above, and I think it is a provocative idea. I have come to believe that the "portal to the world" for musicians of all stripes is the Internet; it simply is no longer through record companies and recording contracts -- that's all become a "distribution-related" activity, not an artistically-related one.

I think another factor in the equation for an artist's ability to build "sustainability" (defined loosely here as "making a viable career" in music) is a willingness to wear numerous hats: recording person, distribution person, networking with other musicians, etc.

This seems to be the case, too, with all kinds of musicians, not only musicians doing the popular music scene. Cultural and artistic organizations of all stripes -- including orchestras, bands, and church choirs -- are simply vanishing, especially here in America, where there is essentially zero public or government support for serious artistic endeavors. In Canada, for example, if you are a very good singer you are still able to make a living off of your art -- and that is basically thanks to governmental support for cultural activities in that country. Same thing in much of Western Europe.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why someone would go throw away $100 at a smoky casino when that same money would buy a couple tickets to a high-quality musical or theatrical event.

Here's a toast to all the unsung artists among us!

[iaresee]

Here's what a quick spin of Google tells me regarding Radiohead:

"According to a study (by a third party, comScore), only 38% of downloaders paid something while the 62% majority paid nothing. And of those paying, most paid less than $4."

And here's the response to that analysis from comScore: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071111-radiohead-controversy-shows-limits-of-knowledge-in-an-information-age.html . Two quote the article:
Just one problem: Radiohead says that the numbers aren't true. In a statement (http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/08/radiohead-comscore-totally-inaccurate/) later in the week, the band called the figures "purely speculative" and "wholly inaccurate." The group claimed that no outside organization could possibly have truly accurate information. Of course, they didn't bother to tell us what the real numbers were, either.

[Cody]

It is cause for pause that Radiohead won't divulge the "wholly accurate" count... if it were a raging success, wouldn't it make everyone involved look like a genius?

[iaresee]

It is cause for pause that Radiohead won't divulge the "wholly accurate" count... if it were a raging success, wouldn't it make everyone involved look like a genius?
Radiohead just isn't a "we need to look like geniuses" type of band. From this month's MOJO with Radiohead on the cover:
Although they profess little knowledge -- or interest even -- in the financial implications of the download approach, the band are fascinated by the art/commerce debate it's stirred up. (PP84, MOJO Issue 171, February 2008)
Speculate how you choose. It doesn't change the fact that it's a complete guess.

[Cody]

Radiohead just isn't a "we need to look like geniuses" type of band.
Which is why I said "everyone involved". There are plenty of people with a lot at stake who know the figures, and would benefit GREATLY from others knowing too. Until I hear different - with corroborating stats - I will assume that ComScore hit pretty close to home.

Why do I insist on posting in threads that are doomed?

[iaresee]

Which is why I said "everyone involved". There are plenty of people with a lot at stake who know the figures, and would benefit GREATLY from others knowing too. Until I hear different - with corroborating stats - I will assume that ComScore hit pretty close to home.
And I will assume that I can't possible know how it did either way. How is either of our assumptions related to the discussion at hand?

Why do I insist on posting in threads that are doomed?
It doesn't have to be. We can talk about ways to survive, ways to convince people not to steal. Instead of just complaining about it.

[David h]

The true problem with "free music downloads" is that it is teaching a generation of music "lovers" that music has no value. The article touched on music becoming "disposable", and when people can download more music than they can listen to, it is disposable. What are things going to look like in ten years? Are the masses really going to start paying for what has been "free"?

________________

And I don't see the point of the Radiohead discussion. They are an established act.
Give me 10 million fans and I should be able to turn a buck too.
Give me 10 hundred fans and I'm not so sure anymore.
And remember, Radiohead got those fans from the "corrupt old system".

The point is that piracy is destroying your and my ability to follow our muse and put bread on the table, at the same time. And I don't see things getting better any time soon.

[Garbanzoman]

Hmm....$14 for a CD is pricing it out of the market? A Gary Willis Cd is easily worth $14. Of course, I wouldn't pay 10 cents for most CDs put out by major labels.

I don't know where this is going, but illegally downloading music is....well....illegal. Don't know many other ways to say it. There is no justification for it.

[iaresee]

What are things going to look like in ten years? Are the masses really going to start paying for what has been "free"?
Both great questions. I'd like to brainstorm ways to convince them music has value. That it's something they should pay for. We could solve the problem right here and now. The 1000 True Fans idea is one approach. I'm sure there are others.

The point is that piracy is destroying your and my ability to follow our muse and put bread on the table, at the same time. And I don't see things getting better any time soon.
I disagree that piracy doesn't let you follow your muse -- not because I think piracy doesn't hurt artists -- but because I don't think it's every been the case that you can just create freely, without regard to what people like, and expect to eat, put a roof over your head, etc. There's a point where you do what you want, and you do what other people want to buy that you have find. If my muse is one note songs played at ear bleeding volumes well, I better like dumpster diving, right?

[Cody]

And I will assume that I can't possible know how it did either way. How is either of our assumptions related to the discussion at hand?
Well, I can only tell you about MY assumption.

I base my assumption on the idea that ComScore didn't wildly guess or consult a Magic Eightball.
And if my assumption is even within shouting distance of the truth, it relates to this particular discussion because it shows that the majority of "misguided consumers" think that Radiohead's output is worth zero dollars and zero cents to them.

If you have any suggestion as to how to offer consumers (see, I'm trying) a better deal than "free", I'm all ears. Really.

[KCWM]

His statement wasn't that it simply didn't allow him to follow his muse. His point was piracy doesn't allow him to follow his muse AND put bread on the table. Address both points instead of the point that best suits your argument.

I'll admit it. I've downloaded music years ago, though most of the songs were CDs that I owned before they were stolen from me. I don't personally know anyone who hasn't. From discographies of bands long past to recent albums of bands comprised of starving artists.

[iaresee]

If you have any suggestion as to how to offer consumers (see, I'm trying) a better deal than "free", I'm all ears. Really.
I don't think it's about giving them a better deal than free. Like David h said: it's about convincing them that your art has value. It's about making them patrons again, not thieves. The 1000 True Fans theory says set your sets a little smaller: you don't need to convince the world that your art is valuable. You just need to convince 1000 people. That'll get you safe, comfortable. And then you work from there. It's also realistic. As Garbanzoman points out:
A Gary Willis Cd is easily worth $14.
Unfortunately he probably won't convince many 10 year olds of that. It's a subjective statement. But he seems to be one of Gary Willis' True Fans. Chalk one up for Gary. Only 999 more to go.

[David h]

Point taken, iaresee. I probably shouldn't have used "follow our muse" and instead spoken about career opportunities.

[iaresee]

His statement wasn't that it simply didn't allow him to follow his muse. His point was piracy doesn't allow him to follow his muse AND put bread on the table. Address both points instead of the point that best suits your argument.
Alright, I'll rephrase it: you can still put bread on the table. You just need to convince a few people that your muse-inspired art is worth something. That's the 1000 True Fans theory. Rather than worrying about all the revenue you are (or are not) losing to piracy, worry about how you can reach one more person who might become a True Fan.

I'll admit it. I've downloaded music years ago, though most of the songs were CDs that I owned before they were stolen from me. I don't personally know anyone who hasn't. From discographies of bands long past to recent albums of bands comprised of starving artists.

So, from your experience, what was it that led you download? What could have convinced you to pay for the music? Nothing? Something? If it's nothing maybe I'm too naive in thinking we can convince people our art has value...

[iaresee]

Maybe there's some extra lead leaching into my water tonight but I'm feeling hopeful and optimistic that we can have our careers in the arts. That we can work around the piracy and survive.

[JohnM]

Since the medium has moved from a tangible piece of plastic (cd,tape,record) to a virtual medium (digital), the geniuses will be the ones that figure out a new way to control it I guess.

Retail stores have little magnetic security chips on everything from T-shirts to sunglasses, and nobody says they are in the wrong for doing it.

Among other things, one tricky part about applying a similar approach to digital media is that if someone buys a song or collection of songs, and they want to have a copy of it (for their own use), the same security that prevents stealing could also limit copying, etc...

It all boils down to some sort of control, which just feels icky, but unfortunately the geniuses haven't showed up yet.

[klemguitar]

The true problem with "free music downloads" is that it is teaching a generation of music "lovers" that music has no value. The article touched on music becoming "disposable", and when people can download more music than they can listen to, it is disposable. What are things going to look like in ten years? Are the masses really going to start paying for what has been "free"?

Nail on the head.

I wish that I could "argue" (I use argue because I can't think of a better
way to put it) as calmly as iaresee. Instead of being dragged into a "who's
right" fight he calmly states his view point. And has some excellent points
to boot. I know I could learn a lot from him.

[David h]

For the record, iaresee, I prefer your view of things to my own. :D
Your optimism is a wonderful gift. Thanks.

[yellowecho]

<highly opinionated>
I think free downloads are a blessing in disguise.
Music has become so commercial that it's lost it's value and credentials as an art form. I think that free downloads are empowering the "guy next door" and giving him the ability to be just as influential as anyone else.

And I don't think that it hurts professional musicians because it enables more people to be able to listen to their music, so more people can attend their shows. What it IS doing is making it so a band cannot make a living off a one-hit-wonder...which should be a good thing.

I'm in the minority but I don't care.
</rant>

[JohnM]

I'm all for opinions, but I must ask a few questions...


Music has become so commercial that it's lost it's value and credentials as an art form.

With all due respect, do you feel this way about your own music?


And I don't think that it hurts professional musicians because it enables more people to be able to listen to their music, so more people can attend their shows.

What if they don't tour much, and just like to make records? Does that theory still hold?


I'm in the minority but I don't care.

:AOK

[yellowecho]

With all due respect, do you feel this way about your own music?
Honestly, I'd feel flattered if millions of people were listening to my songs. I just like playing, creating, and expressing myself. I'm SO pleased of the attention bedroom players are getting on youtube. Real people now have a chance to be heard instead of Paris Hiltons and Hinders making millions of dollars off their "music".

What if they don't tour much, and just like to make records? Does that theory still hold?Then I think there needs to be a realization that the person may not or should not be a "professional musician"; instead just a hobbyist. And there's nothing wrong with that-- that's what I do. I look forward to my weekends recording tracks and playing guitar for people in the park!


:AOK

[DrSax]

the key is for musicians to not put music out in any tangible form (mp3, cd's) and only have their music heard at shows.

I'm being cheeky.

It really sucks that musicians have to put up with this.

Could you imagine if painters periodicly had their studios broken into, all their paintings stolen?

People think it's different merely because it's so easy, and well, people already do it (downloading illegaly).

A sad state indeed.

[JohnM]

Honestly, I'd feel flattered if millions of people were listening to my songs. I just like playing, creating, and expressing myself.
That wasn't my question...I asked if you think your own music has no value.


Then I think there needs to be a realization that the person may not or should not be a "professional musician"; instead just a hobbyist. And there's nothing wrong with that-- that's what I do. I look forward to my weekends recording tracks and playing guitar for people in the park!


you do realize people do this for a living, right? Just like the guy mowing the grass so you can hang out in the park...

[DrSax]

you do realize people do this for a living, right? Just like the guy mowing the grass so you can hang out in the park...

Exactly!

"I don't care if my stuff is stolen. Therefore, you shouldn't care if your stuff is stolen."

Are you kidding?

[pbradt]

I'm more or less resigned to the fact that some people will bend themselves into pretzels to justify thievery, and nothing I say will change their minds.

How do you offer thieves a better deal than "free"?

Hunt them down like dogs and sue them into poverty.

In May, when we put our record out there, I will personally do my best to expose, discredit and otherwise destroy the reputation of ANYONE I find giving it away. Hell, our keyboard player wanted to give 10 away to his friends and I beat him down like a dog.

The people who've invested in our record (a small but distinguished group) deserve to be repaid and make their dividend. One of the investors is J, my partner and I took it VERY personally when he wanted to give away $100 of product.

It may be we're overpriced but, as I noted in a similar post on another forum, it's a TON of work to make a record, far more than anyone who's never been involved in one can imagine. We're doing it utterly bare bones with the exception of mixing and mastering, which we're paying for and is the reason we needed investors.

We WILL have promo copies which will go to a select few critics, radio stations we think might play our music and festival organizers as a gig demo.

We each get two copies, one for a comp. If a band member wants to give them away, he has to pay the band for the copies he gives away. Each person who was involved in making the record be they a mixing engineer, mastering engineer or guest artist, gets one copy, marked as "Promotional" so it doesn't count against royalties.

Bottom line is, stealing is stealing. No matter how you try to justify it, you're hurting the artist, in doing so you are a criminal. If you're ok with that, there's nothing I can do about it but if I find out, I'll never have anything to do with you.

If you want to "stick it to the labels," make a record people want to buy, and sell it outside the typical business model the labels adhere to.

[yellowecho]

That wasn't my question...I asked if you think your own music has no value.
My music has emotional value to me but not a fiscal value. I do it because I like to do it, not because it makes me money. I think I'm a drop in an ocean and there are probably billions of people that can do what I do and do it better.


you do realize people do this for a living, right? Yes, but I fail to see the validity.

Everyone hates the devil's advocate :o

[pbradt]

Then you are a criminal.

[pbradt]

I think this is the problem: you're calling them thieves. Give them a chance.

No. Thieves don't deserve a chance.

[cram]

this problem will never be solved even if all public network traffic is monitored. Private networks will still be available to swap music and portable data storage can carry media from one private network to another.

No matter how indepth the encoding/encryption gets - there is always a key to unlock it.

Always.

[SturgeonGeneral]

Excellent content on both sides in this thread and good job keeping it civil so far.

This comment resonated with me.

If you want to "stick it to the labels," make a record people want to buy, and sell it outside the typical business model the labels adhere to.

It's the $64,000.00 question. What does the 21st century business model for selling music look like?

[yellowecho]

Then you are a criminal.
I hope that wasn't directed towards me. Name calling? :nono
we can have a discussion without that. We're adults.

[Dog Boy]

If you want to "stick it to the labels," make a record people want to buy, and sell it outside the typical business model the labels adhere to.

+1

If I was a young man I'd really think about giving away my recorded work and make mony off of live shows and merch.

[yellowecho]

+1
If I was a young man I'd really think about giving away my recorded work and make mony off of live shows and merch.
+1.

[pbradt]

I hope that wasn't directed towards me. Name calling? :nono
we can have a discussion without that. We're adults.

It was directed at everyone who does illegal downloads. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I can tell you this, I won't sell my record to anyone who condones or in any way publicly tries to rationalize illegal downloading, because I could never trust them not to give it away. I'll gladly lose $10 to avoid losing $1000.

[SturgeonGeneral]

If I was a young man I'd really think about giving away my recorded work and make mony off of live shows and merch.

Or licensing to TV, movies, etc.

What else?

[Chiba]

All this entitlement of people is what I don't get.
That's just part of our culture, Ed. It's sad, and I wish it wasn't so, but that's just how it is.

I see it in my classes, where college students think nothing of stealing information (plagiarism) to complete their assignments and are actually stunned to find out it's "wrong".

--chiba

[cram]

I hope that wasn't directed towards me. Name calling? :nono
we can have a discussion without that. We're adults.


I took his comments as an "ergo" thing. If you're this, then you're that. Everything's opinion here of course, but that's his and he's backed it up with proof of his opinion. I wouldn't take offense if it were directed at me. I'd either conceed/drop it or explain why it's not the case.

[pbradt]

Excellent content on both sides in this thread and good job keeping it civil so far.

This comment resonated with me.



It's the $64,000.00 question. What does the 21st century business model for selling music look like?

It varies according to who you are. If you are an established artist with a core fan base but no longer (or maybe never did) sell a million copies, making the record on your own dime and leasing it to an indie label (like New West or Dualtone) can be very lucrative. Delbert McClinton (never sold a million) and Dwight Yoakam (no longer selling millions) do it this way.

For weekend warriors who are actually good, the DIY approach (like we're doing) is about the only avenue. We recorded ourselves on a Digi 001 in our drummer's upstairs room. We used the four-mic "Glyn Johns" drum miking technique, DI for the bass and keys and a 57 on the guitar amp in another room.

When we get the masters back, we'll be doing our own unless and until demand justifies a run of 500.

But it's being professionally mixed and mastered, has not one but two A-listers as guest artists and I believe it doesn't have a stinker of a song anywhere on it. Even the one I wrote. I think it's worth $10, in a world of galactically stupid fluff, I think we did ok.

But after all that investment of time and money, we'd at least like to break even and to do that, we have to sell at least 300 copies. That doesn't include any copies sold at CDBaby, which net us $4 less per copy than any we sell on our own, but we want to have an online ordering opportunity for people.

So you can imagine, the notion of someone giving it away or stealing it doesn't sit well.

[yellowecho]

I took his comments as an "ergo" thing. If you're this, then you're that.
It was directly after my post and introduced as an adverb so I just thought I'd ask.
Ergos are good. :D

[pbradt]

+1

If I was a young man I'd really think about giving away my recorded work and make mony off of live shows and merch.

That's a nice sentiment, but unless you're the Stones, it's fantasy.

Gas is $4 a gallon, or damn near. Hotels, food, all the stuff you need to get by on the road (http://sdam.com/artists/bf/roadrules.shtml) is higher priced. To make any money, you have to sell thousands of t-shirts, key fobs, whatever. For any artist who's not a household name, that's just not how it works.

[JohnM]

Yes, but I fail to see the validity.


Then I guess in a weird way you should consider yourself fortunate that you don't rely on music for income!


Everyone hates the devil's advocate :o

Aw c'mon...Hate is a strong word! I find your view very frustrating, but like I said, I'm all for people having opinions!

Besides, I find your naivete charming :D

[cram]

Hey pbradt - I fully understand your reasoning and appreciate the pride and desire for getting the monitary reward of your labor.

I'm left with a question -
Don't you feel or atleast recognize that no matter what measures are done up front by an artist to protect their media, any person who receives that media has the ability to reproduce that media?

I think that any measure we take to manage content (books, pictures, movies, music) can help, but only to a small degree of certainty.

For instance - if you find a person with a copy of a song you distributed, there's little to no way of being certain of where they got it from. Header information on the file can be modified. There is no machine specific information that is required to be included from wherever it was copied. It seems futile.

I'm not sure what flavor of enforcement is legal or not for copy material. I've seen people argue this back and forth, but media is unique - it can be replicated as it is stored electronically. In solid goods - Someone can sell a car, but someone would have to buy all the parts again to copy it.

What is your thought on this? Is it just that It's wrong and we should be empowered to find and persicute the offender?

[yellowecho]

Then I guess in a weird way you should consider yourself fortunate that you don't rely on music for income!
But then again, I spend 50 hours in an office a week and you guys get to rock n' roll every night. It's somewhat of a trade off.


Aw c'mon...Hate is a strong word! I find your view very frustrating, but like I said, I'm all for people having opinions!
Besides, I find your naivete charming Hah! Yea, I can completely understand that. I don't want musicians to feel under appreciated or anything. Muh brothers!
And I don't want to come across as a pillaging pirate.. I'm a vinyl collector!:moon

[Dog Boy]

That's a nice sentiment, but unless you're the Stones, it's fantasy.

Gas is $4 a gallon, or damn near. Hotels, food, all the stuff you need to get by on the road (http://sdam.com/artists/bf/roadrules.shtml) is higher priced. To make any money, you have to sell thousands of t-shirts, key fobs, whatever. For any artist who's not a household name, that's just not how it works.

I admit its difficult. But its only impossible to those who won't try it. Or to those who have no business trying it in the first place. Working outside the "Record Lable" business model can be done I'll bet. But like I said...."if I was a younger man".

Hey, Good luck to ya bro!........

[iaresee]

I wish that I could "argue" (I use argue because I can't think of a better
way to put it) as calmly as iaresee. Instead of being dragged into a "who's
right" fight he calmly states his view point. And has some excellent points
to boot. I know I could learn a lot from him.
Thanks. I don't see it as arguing either. It's a discourse. We all have the same problem; we're stronger together. I hit a wall last year with this downloading epidemic and decided it can't be fought. You can't crush them. If someone with deep pockets like the RIAA can barely make a dent the solution isn't stopping it, the solution has to lie in marginalizing it's impact.

While Gary Willis wrote that article to highlight a problem there are some things in there that I think are great triumphs worth celebrating. We can get a little lost in all the bad sometimes, we don't see the good. So here's my short list of things I currently love about being a musician and the climate we're in for creating art:
I don't need $100,000 just start recording an album. I need $1000. If I really want to get fancy: $2000. As pbradt pointed out, DIY no longer equals "sounds like garbage". That's a big triumph.
Gary Willis makes $14 every time someone buys he's CD. Think about that. That is HUGE. Why? Because that doesn't just apply to Gary Willis, it applies to anyone who wants to sell a CD now. I don't have to ask a label to sell it for me. I don't have to take their lousy $0.50/CD or "generous" $1/CD offer. I can make $14 every time my CD sells. pbradt is talking about $10/album: awesome. That's a big triumph.
I can sell my art to the world without anyone else's help. If my goal is to find 1000 True Fans and my effective selling area is my city, or my state, I might be in trouble. But my effective selling area is no longer limited to how far I can drive in a day to deliver CDs to shelves. My effective selling area is the globe. I can seek out 1000 True Fans (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) in any first world nation and most second world nations. The old "I'm Big in Japan" joke is actually a way to make a real living now. I can get Big in Japan while making music in North America. And I didn't need to take a lousy deal from a Label to do it. That's a big triumph.

[johnzias]

Well lets see I can't afford a 2 Rock Sterling...I guess I will steal one since they're priced too high...see how that doesn't work. All this entitlement of people is what I don't get. It's really simple...don't like the price-don't buy it. But I don't see the logic in don't like the price-steal it.


I'll just say this to Ed about his analogy. If you could download a Two Rock Sterling, I bet you would!;)

It's about dangling the carrot, then criminalizing biting into it, IMO. Go after the limewires of this world, instead of giving 200k fines to single mothers in Minnesota.

[pbradt]

Hey pbradt - I fully understand your reasoning and appreciate the pride and desire for getting the monitary reward of your labor.

Thank you. :) It's one of the toughest things I've done in my life.

I'm left with a question -
Don't you feel or atleast recognize that no matter what measures are done up front by an artist to protect their media, any person who receives that media has the ability to reproduce that media?

Regrettably, that is true.

I think that any measure we take to manage content (books, pictures, movies, music) can help, but only to a small degree of certainty.

For instance - if you find a person with a copy of a song you distributed, there's little to no way of being certain of where they got it from. Header information on the file can be modified. There is no machine specific information that is required to be included from wherever it was copied. It seems futile.

That's true. However, if they didn't pay for it, I don't really care how they got it. I'll warn others, probably privately unless its an egregious example of stealing, not to sell their record to this person, because I caught them stealing mine. If they got it from someone who bought it, there's nothing I can do about that unless I get an ID on the buyer who's giving it away. If I DID, THEN I would, indeed, confront them, probably over the computer, in person if possible, and ask them what the hell they thought they were doing, and they better knock it off. If I got even a shred of guff, I'd publicize them on any forum whose administrators would allow it.

I'm not sure what flavor of enforcement is legal or not for copy material. I've seen people argue this back and forth, but media is unique - it can be replicated as it is stored electronically. In solid goods - Someone can sell a car, but someone would have to buy all the parts again to copy it.

I think of music thieves in the same way I think of any other thief. What they're stealing is not important, in a generic sense. Stealing is stealing, and if you're stealing from me, and I catch you, you better duck.

What is your thought on this? Is it just that It's wrong and we should be empowered to find and persicute the offender?

I'd prefer to be able to PROsecute them, as opposed to PERsecuting them, but failing the ability to litigate, I'd sure as hell do my best to drag 'em through the mud.

[cram]

Thank you. :) It's one of the toughest things I've done in my life.



Regrettably, that is true.



That's true. However, if they didn't pay for it, I don't really care how they got it. I'll warn others, probably privately unless its an egregious example of stealing, not to sell their record to this person, because I caught them stealing mine. If they got it from someone who bought it, there's nothing I can do about that unless I get an ID on the buyer who's giving it away. If I DID, THEN I would, indeed, confront them, probably over the computer, in person if possible, and ask them what the hell they thought they were doing, and they better knock it off. If I got even a shred of guff, I'd publicize them on any forum whose administrators would allow it.



I think of music thieves in the same way I think of any other thief. What they're stealing is not important, in a generic sense. Stealing is stealing, and if you're stealing from me, and I catch you, you better duck.



I'd prefer to be able to PROsecute them, as opposed to PERsecuting them, but failing the ability to litigate, I'd sure as hell do my best to drag 'em through the mud.


Hey that was a bad misuse of a word eh? persicute/prosecute...
I meant prosecute.

I see and agree with your points though. Just sucks that what has been the primary fruit of an artists labor is easily replicated. We're left with the experiences in person and anything solid that can be sold like cheezy t-shirts and other schwagg..

[cram]

Go after the limewires of this world, instead of giving 200k fines to single mothers in Minnesota.

They are hockey moms up there rather than soccer moms... :)

[teleharmonium]

Am I going to regret saying anything about this at all? Maybe...

He's got some good points but I think Gary, like the record labels, has made the same mistake: he has set the price of his music...
...rather than ask the market what his music is worth. He thinks he's losing $14 because that's what he feels his CD is worth. But is it worth $14? If your customers would rather steal your product than pay your asking price you have to ask yourself: maybe I've priced myself out of the market?

The $14 isn't some arbitrary number; it's what he sells his CDs for, and it is presumably based on a calculation of recording, manufacturing, advertising, and distribution or website expenses, plus enough profit to pay for other costs that aren't tied to that specific release, and something for his time. Why should any merchant be forced into the tip jar approach ? And how could that help him ?

Let's say you have a candy store that has a shoplifting problem. Among your options would be installing mirrors and cameras, elevating the merchandise, and implementing a rule that only 2 customers under 18 can be in the store at a time, and the like; or moving, or going out of business. Lowering your prices is not going to be an option for you, because since your costs for merchandise and overhead are what they are, doing so can only hurt you. Actually, what stores do in these cases is raise the prices for the merchandise, so they can still end up with enough profit to stay in business, which means that the honest people pay for the thieves.

The musician trying to sell recordings, and the candy store owner have exactly the same problem; a significant portion of those interested in their products are surly thieves who have the gall to justify their own behavior of stealing what is not necessary to their existence from a guy that can't afford a loss, with a lot of 4th grade Marxism, which is further enabled because there is little or no likelihood of any meaningful consequences for the crime due to the system (age, in the case of the shoplifters, and size of the crime, for the downloaders, relative to the priorities of the criminal justice system and the jurisdiction for copyright offenses).

So the reasonable responses in this situation are the same; you can treat all your customers like the presumptive thieves that only some of them are, thanks to the bad apples; or you can go out of business; or you can rework your model to greatly reduce the initial investment and costs required, and enable yourself to get by on less income that way. In terms of music, this means recording more quickly and cheaply, buying less or cheaper equipment, and perhaps selling direct by download only (In other words, being forced into artistic decisions you did not opt to make in the first place, which will not be acceptable for some. I don't let rude hecklers pick what notes or songs I play, either). Or maybe you can reconfigure what you do so that you sell your services to other musicians or producers or seek work in music for hire such as soundtracks.

But, it is clear that when your problem is reduced income, the solution cannot be reducing your income even more. If anybody finds an example of a successful business model based on the tip jar that can provide a living wage, let me know.

[pbradt]

I admit its difficult. But its only impossible to those who won't try it. Or to those who have no business trying it in the first place. Working outside the "Record Lable" business model can be done I'll bet. But like I said...."if I was a younger man".

Hey, Good luck to ya bro!........

Hey, I'm 53 and the keys player is 64. We're so far past "young" the light from "young" would take a million years to reach us.

But we're doing it because we can, because we know we're good, and because we know we have good songs, that we've made even better. We're not doing this for a living, we all have day jobs, but we wanted to make a record we think would be worthy in any era of the past 50 years and we believe we've done that. It's certainly not the "best" record of the past 50 years, but we believe it's "worthy," We all worked really hard on it, especially me, as I'm the guy with the recording rig (two, actually).

It'll be available in late April or early May, if you want one.

[iaresee]

That's true. However, if they didn't pay for it, I don't really care how they got it. I'll warn others, probably privately unless its an egregious example of stealing, not to sell their record to this person, because I caught them stealing mine. If they got it from someone who bought it, there's nothing I can do about that unless I get an ID on the buyer who's giving it away. If I DID, THEN I would, indeed, confront them, probably over the computer, in person if possible, and ask them what the hell they thought they were doing, and they better knock it off. If I got even a shred of guff, I'd publicize them on any forum whose administrators would allow it.

I think of music thieves in the same way I think of any other thief. What they're stealing is not important, in a generic sense. Stealing is stealing, and if you're stealing from me, and I catch you, you better duck.

I'd prefer to be able to PROsecute them, as opposed to PERsecuting them, but failing the ability to litigate, I'd sure as hell do my best to drag 'em through the mud.
Personally I'd much rather spend my time nurturing a positive relationship with my True Fans than a negative relationship with people who don't value my art. I think the latter is probably a big pool of people and it would consume all of time and be very unpleasant for me. The former is certainly smaller and most definitely a nicer bunch of people to interact with.

[Mayor McCheese]

I've tried the tip jar approach with my stuff, and have never gotten a single donation. I would like to think my music is worth something, but I think when free is an option there's just no price you can set that's low enough.

I try to keep costs as low as I can and shoot for a break even. But going forward, why even do it if no one values it? It's a lot of work to DIY on a CD release. I've done several of them. I'm not sure if it's worth doing now.

[pbradt]

Personally I'd much rather spend my time nurturing a positive relationship with my True Fans than a negative relationship with people who don't value my art. I think the latter is probably a big pool of people and it would consume all of time and be very unpleasant for me. The former is certainly smaller and most definitely a nicer bunch of people to interact with.

Yeah, you have an excellent point, and that's what I generally do. I just get incredibly angry when I read someone trying to say stealing music is ok.

Kinda gets mah dander up, if ya know whut ah mean.

But make no mistake, I keep a list of online personae who condone or advocate stealing music and my record will not be available to them at any price.

[Dog Boy]

Hey, I'm 53 and the keys player is 64. We're so far past "young" the light from "young" would take a million years to reach us.

But we're doing it because we can, because we know we're good, and because we know we have good songs, that we've made even better. We're not doing this for a living, we all have day jobs, but we wanted to make a record we think would be worthy in any era of the past 50 years and we believe we've done that. It's certainly not the "best" record of the past 50 years, but we believe it's "worthy," We all worked really hard on it, especially me, as I'm the guy with the recording rig (two, actually).

It'll be available in late April or early May, if you want one.

Sincerely, congrats on the new record and shoot me an email when its done....I'll snag...uh, buy a copy.:)

[Ed DeGenaro]

That's just part of our culture, Ed. It's sad, and I wish it wasn't so, but that's just how it is.

I see it in my classes, where college students think nothing of stealing information (plagiarism) to complete their assignments and are actually stunned to find out it's "wrong".

--chiba
You know the funny part is I can even overlook it in young fols...both stealing music and plagiarism. Because I do believe that when you're in your "young, dumb, full of..." phase all this is a matter of growing up. What gets my back up is grown men not wanting to pay for shit.
I haven't gotten anything for free in my live. I didn't have parents that helped me out, been on my own since I was 15. And yes many times I figured ways to not pay with money for stuff, but I always paid.
Shit, I've been through more endorsements then most. But all the cheaper or free gear is really not free.
Also, the idea that musicians should work for free is amazing. You know the weekend warriors that screwed up pricing is a subject I could get fired up just as well if it weren't for playing i a band that got paid well.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Personally I'd much rather spend my time nurturing a positive relationship with my True Fans than a negative relationship with people who don't value my art. I think the latter is probably a big pool of people and it would consume all of time and be very unpleasant for me. The former is certainly smaller and most definitely a nicer bunch of people to interact with.
Fair enough. But it does not negate the point that folks will seemingly alway want to get one over. But if you look at numbers like say Gambale selling about 3000-5000 copies is there really a necessity for folks to steal it?

[pbradt]

I've tried the tip jar approach with my stuff, and have never gotten a single donation. I would like to think my music is worth something, but I think when free is an option there's just no price you can set that's low enough.

I try to keep costs as low as I can and shoot for a break even. But going forward, why even do it if no one values it? It's a lot of work to DIY on a CD release. I've done several of them. I'm not sure if it's worth doing now.

This is the only salient point that matters. Whether you're a major artist or a weekend warrior with a Pro Tools LE rig. If we don't BUY the music we love (and face it, who downloads music they hate?) how are the artists and songwriters going to feed their families? I have a LOT of friends who make records, and they'd be happy as clams to send me a promo copy for free, but I always, ALWAYS decline. I get on their guest list at their shows because they're friends of mine, and I sit in onstage with a couple of them. But I ALWAYS buy tickets and do my level best to give those tickets to someone who's never heard them, or even heard OF them, but I know will like the music if they're exposed to it, even if they'd never have gone unless I gave them tickets, which is just about all of them. So that way, not only do I support the artist, but I try, in my very small way, to expose potential new fans to the music.

I want my more famous and accomplished friends to keep making music, I don't want to see them stocking shelves at the A&P (or whatever) in Nashville the next time I go visit. So I do my part as a fan, a friend and a colleague, to ensure that doesn't happen.

THIS is why it's so vital to support the music.

[Ed DeGenaro]

This is the only salient point that matters. Whether you're a major artist or a weekend warrior with a Pro Tools LE rig. If we don't BUY the music we love (and face it, who downloads music they hate?) how are the artists and songwriters going to feed their families? I have a LOT of friends who make records, and they'd be happy as clams to send me a promo copy for free, but I always, ALWAYS decline. I get on their guest list at their shows because they're friends of mine, and I sit in onstage with a couple of them. But I ALWAYS buy tickets and do my level best to give those tickets to someone who's never heard them, or even heard OF them, but I know will like the music if they're exposed to it, even if they'd never have gone unless I gave them tickets, which is just about all of them. So that way, not only do I support the artist, but I try, in my very small way, to expose potential new fans to the music.

I want my more famous and accomplished friends to keep making music, I don't want to see them stocking shelves at the A&P (or whatever) in Nashville the next time I go visit. So I do my part as a fan, a friend and a colleague, to ensure that doesn't happen.

THIS is why it's so vital to support the music.
Absolutely!!!

[louderock]

Hats off to any of you who do the DIY route. For those of you who think that this is a great option, think about these things...

Let's say you're able to sell 5,000 cds at $10. That is $50,000. 4 people in the band so that is $12,500 each. Oh wait, the very basic recording rig and the few cheap mics cost $2,500, and the cd's cost $2.50 each for a run of 5,000. That's not exactly what I would call making a living. Have you ever tried to sell 5,000 cd's? It's not easy.

You can be the greatest band in the world, but without getting a good cd recorded and without getting some really good gigs in front of the right people, nobody will ever know about you. How is a full-time guy supposed to 'make it' these days just going DIY? You can't go play a bunch of original gigs and expect to make good money.

Record labels/ managers have historically been the people to get involved in an artist's career to guide them through the process and help them get their music to the most people possible. Labels use their capital to promote and market a band so people will know who they are and might eventually buy their record or attend a concert. If all goes well, the artist can make a pretty good living. The only way a label can afford to do any of this is if they have income from record sales. Sure an artist can make money touring but the label does not see any of that. I for one enjoy listening to a good sounding/ well produced album. That takes money. The labels provide this money. The labels make us aware of this new music through promotion and marketing. Would we have ever heard of Bruce Springsteen if he were trying to do things the DIY way? Pure speculation on my part but I'll say no. Would SGT Pepper be as great of a record if it were recorded in a bedroom on a mbox Protools rig? Still great songs, but no. Many if not most of the 'artistic types' aren't exactly business minded. They can write and perform songs but that's where it stops. They need somebody to get behind them and guide the rest of the process. This will not happen if there is no money. If people want to get their music for free, then there is no money. A label is not going to experiment with something new and different if there is no money. They are only going to try to do the same ol' thing that worked before.. the sure thing.

Also, I hear people saying that the price should come way down on cd's. What did you do 15 or 20 years ago when you wanted music? Cd prices have went against inflation.

[iaresee]

I've tried the tip jar approach with my stuff, and have never gotten a single donation. I would like to think my music is worth something, but I think when free is an option there's just no price you can set that's low enough.
The Amie Street site I mentioned is a free-market-experimentation approach, not a tip jar, but you and teleharmonium are right: the long-tail approach to selling music doesn't really work (where the "long-tail approach" is sell to lots of people, for very little money, and you can make just as much as if you sold to a few people for a lot of money). Especially if you're not already established. Too many people, as has been pointed out, place zero value in music.

I see it myself: my Amie Street downloads stopped cold as soon as they got popular enough to require payment (only $0.09/track!). But that's just because non-fans and fringe fans don't see any value there anymore. My True Fans (the few I can count...maybe 20) were all happy to pay me for a CD. I'll focus on them, and on converting a few more to True Fan status. Because ultimately I don't need a lot of those True Fans to sustain myself and keep creating my art.

I try to keep costs as low as I can and shoot for a break even. But going forward, why even do it if no one values it? It's a lot of work to DIY on a CD release. I've done several of them. I'm not sure if it's worth doing now.That's awful. I hope you keep doing it because you love it. Because out there are a few True Fans who will help you keep doing it and you want to find them and connect with them, share your art with them.

[Grun]

Hey, I'm 53 and the keys player is 64. We're so far past "young" the light from "young" would take a million years to reach us.

But we're doing it because we can, because we know we're good, and because we know we have good songs, that we've made even better. We're not doing this for a living, we all have day jobs, but we wanted to make a record we think would be worthy in any era of the past 50 years and we believe we've done that. It's certainly not the "best" record of the past 50 years, but we believe it's "worthy," We all worked really hard on it, especially me, as I'm the guy with the recording rig (two, actually).

It'll be available in late April or early May, if you want one.


Sounds good. Be sure to let us know where we can buy it.

I recently finished a CD I feel the same way as you do about yours. I haven't tried to sell it. For me it was more of a personal accomplishment.

I don't down load at all, but I don't buy too many CD's either.

It's a fact that the market will only bear a certain price. In my business (manufacturing) we determine how many can be sold at what price before we even make a product. If the numbers don't add up to 'cost plus profit' the product never gets manuafctured.

I would buy a lot more CD's if they were in the $5-$10 price range.

One last point. This talk about art in this context is confusing. Artists don't produce with the expectation of pay. Business men do that. Artists create because they are artists.

That said, most artists do appreciate support. I haven't figured out what should come next yet.

[iaresee]

This is the only salient point that matters. Whether you're a major artist or a weekend warrior with a Pro Tools LE rig. If we don't BUY the music we love (and face it, who downloads music they hate?) how are the artists and songwriters going to feed their families? I have a LOT of friends who make records, and they'd be happy as clams to send me a promo copy for free, but I always, ALWAYS decline. I get on their guest list at their shows because they're friends of mine, and I sit in onstage with a couple of them. But I ALWAYS buy tickets and do my level best to give those tickets to someone who's never heard them, or even heard OF them, but I know will like the music if they're exposed to it, even if they'd never have gone unless I gave them tickets, which is just about all of them. So that way, not only do I support the artist, but I try, in my very small way, to expose potential new fans to the music.
You're a True Fan for some artists. You need to find your True Fans and make sure they know you value them.

These conversations usually fall into one or two paths: people saying "they're all thieves, hunt them down" and people saying "sorry I'm a thief, I can't help myself". I'd like to stop talking about the thieves and start talking about the True Fans, and how convert more people to True Fans, so we can sustain ourselves. The thieves, if you ask me, get too much press and too much of our precious time and thoughts.

[madsr]

I think that the fact of the matter is the world has changed, bands aren't making albums anymore.. they make tracks. Today's world seems to have gone the way of itunes and rhapsody, etc. .99 a track. I shudder to think about younger fans not hearing a complete album that is made to be listened to from beginning to end.
When I was a kid you would make mixed tapes with all of your favorite stuff and share it with your friends, and also tape from the radio.. no musicians were complaining then. In today's world you are able to share your music via the internet which of course opens it up to millions of potential fans worldwide. That's bad because the majority aren't paying .99 a track? Bands are going to have to make the majority of their $$ on the road again, selling out shows all over the world because their fanbase is quadrupled what it would be had they not been exposed to it. IMO this is an unstoppable trend and it's bad for record companies, and also musicians who don't want to play lots of live shows.. but great for the hardworking touring musicians who don't fit the record company or radio top 40 list. I am on the fence with regards to the whole thing, it isn't stealing, it's sharing music on one hand, and on the other it is. I personally feel that it will be good for music in general in the long run, making it easier for those who may otherwise go unknown to get their music out there to a mass audience. It will also eventually drive the trends in popular music possibly resulting in less of the whole record company view of "that made us a lot of $$, so lets clone it and produce as many more of the same as we can" IE: less Brittney clones and Backstreet Boys and more real original music... but that's just me.

[teleharmonium]

Hats off to any of you who do the DIY route. For those of you who think that this is a great option, think about these things...

Let's say you're able to sell 5,000 cds at $10. That is $50,000. 4 people in the band so that is $12,500 each. Oh wait, the very basic recording rig and the few cheap mics cost $2,500, and the cd's cost $2.50 each for a run of 5,000. That's not exactly what I would call making a living. Have you ever tried to sell 5,000 cd's? It's not easy.

It's especially not easy to sell 5000 CDs of music recorded on that ghetto style 2500 recording rig, produced and "mastered" by non professionals and with your zero dollars budgeted toward graphic design. And you're probably not going to sell anywhere near that number without sending out a bunch of promos (each of which becomes a loss rather than a potential few dollars of profit), having a certain amount of luck, and investing more of your money up front in advertising, with no kind of certainty that you'll get any of this money back and the knowledge that you more than likely will end up in the red.

[franksguitar]

We all know illegal downloads and free sharing rob musicians of royalties, but what about the issue where you have bought and paid for CD's in your own collection (which pays the royalties)and burn them to download into your personal ipod so you can listen to them and not to share files with others? Isn't that the new crazy lawsuit record companies are going after next?

[fetishfrog]

I'm not trying to justifying the stealing. Look at it a little differently. Lets say I create a new amp that is amazing. And I try to sell it for $50,000 -- but its not selling. Do I keep trying to sell it from $50,000? Is it the market that is nuts for not wanting to buy my amp? Or am I nuts for wanting $50,000?



Sounds great. I say, go create your $50,000 amp. We'll use the Amie Street pricing model for distribution. I get the first one for free. Ed DeGenaro, he's freakin' paid his dues hard...he gets one too, free of course. The next two customer's, they pay $1.50. Out of business yet?

Everything Gary Willis said is right. Period.

I agree with you, it's probably more productive to cultivate your 'True Fans' than too persecute the thieves, but that doesn't make me wnat to beat them into a bloody pulp any less.

I did a 25 day tour in Oct of '07. 24 day on, one day off, LA to Boston and back home again...17,000 miles driven. My van. We split $800 five ways upon our return. I lost weight and got into shape lugging hundreds of pounds of gear around. We're on a label with international distribution. Everytime I heard a 'True Fan' tell ask his buddy if he could rip a copy of the CD his buddy just bought, it was my lack of desire for an extended prison sentence that stayed my hand. Explaining my this is stealing fell on deaf ears, I was looked at as if I were insane...'It's not stealing bro...I'm just burning a copy and sharing it with my friends.' The sense of entitlement was unnerving. Rather than 'be a dick' and risk all of the bad press that can follow one around on the internet, i swallowed my pride, smiled, and said, 'well, thanks for coming anyway'.

It's stealing. Period.

[teleharmonium]

One last point. This talk about art in this context is confusing. Artists don't produce with the expectation of pay. Business men do that. Artists create because they are artists.

Professionals absolutely produce with the expectation of pay. Not only that, they require investment up front before they can produce, because the materials, and their own lives, require funds. They might still make something if they weren't getting paid, but not the same thing that they would make as professionals, unless they started rich.

Now, amateur hobbyists, often create with no expectation of pay. Which is good because they are often not paid and their hobby is a net loss; they figure they are paying for the fun of doing what they love. That's fine if someone chooses to do that. What I object to is anyone creative that deals with anything digital, being forced out of a career and into hobbyist mode by a bunch of people that say they like this artistic output but aren't willing to pay for it.

[teleharmonium]

We all know illegal downloads and free sharing rob musicians of royalties, but what about the issue where you have bought and paid for CD's in your own collection (which pays the royalties)and burn them to download into your personal ipod so you can listen to them and not to share files with others? Isn't that the new crazy lawsuit record companies are going after next?

Uh, no - that is legal fair use, so long as you don't give those copies to anyone else. If you're suggesting record labels are "going after" it "next", can you substantiate that accusation , or is this one of those folk tales that can't be attributed to any credible source ?

[fetishfrog]

We all know illegal downloads and free sharing rob musicians of royalties, but what about the issue where you have bought and paid for CD's in your own collection (which pays the royalties)and burn them to download into your personal ipod so you can listen to them and not to share files with others? Isn't that the new crazy lawsuit record companies are going after next?

To me, that's the same as making a cassette copy of an LP, which is legal and no big deal.

[jtwang]

Thieves, hate, criminals, punishment... these questions makes people upset, and often understandably so. But the discourse (at least in the major media) is soooo record company/artist biased. Simple facts like that the digital revolution has made the cost of production, medium duplication, distribution and marketing a fraction of what is was ten years ago is something the major label loadmouths usually don't talk about. Same goes for a topic like imaginary losses (people downloading stuff that they would NEVER consider buying anyway, like jazz cats downloading a couple of Britney tracks just for kicks). Or what about the shift of profits? A few of those pirate jazz cats might just realize that they like Britney and end up paying for a concert ticket, an album or some product she's endorsing.

Illegal downloading is just not a simple moral issue, but it's easily made one.

[pbradt]

Hats off to any of you who do the DIY route. For those of you who think that this is a great option, think about these things...

Let's say you're able to sell 5,000 cds at $10. That is $50,000. 4 people in the band so that is $12,500 each. Oh wait, the very basic recording rig and the few cheap mics cost $2,500, and the cd's cost $2.50 each for a run of 5,000. That's not exactly what I would call making a living. Have you ever tried to sell 5,000 cd's? It's not easy.

That's why we're rolling our own unless/until demand is such to justify the investment/expense. We're not trying to make a career of it. We just want to get it out the best we can given our budget and daily lives.

[pbradt]

Sounds great. I say, go create your $50,000 amp. We'll use the Amie Street pricing model for distribution. I get the first one for free. Ed DeGenaro, he's freakin' paid his dues hard...he gets one too, free of course. The next two customer's, they pay $1.50. Out of business yet?

Everything Gary Willis said is right. Period.

I agree with you, it's probably more productive to cultivate your 'True Fans' than too persecute the thieves, but that doesn't make me wnat to beat them into a bloody pulp any less.

I did a 25 day tour in Oct of '07. 24 day on, one day off, LA to Boston and back home again...17,000 miles driven. My van. We split $800 five ways upon our return. I lost weight and got into shape lugging hundreds of pounds of gear around. We're on a label with international distribution. Everytime I heard a 'True Fan' tell ask his buddy if he could rip a copy of the CD his buddy just bought, it was my lack of desire for an extended prison sentence that stayed my hand. Explaining my this is stealing fell on deaf ears, I was looked at as if I were insane...'It's not stealing bro...I'm just burning a copy and sharing it with my friends.' The sense of entitlement was unnerving. Rather than 'be a dick' and risk all of the bad press that can follow one around on the internet, i swallowed my pride, smiled, and said, 'well, thanks for coming anyway'.

It's stealing. Period.
Yes. It is. The sense of entitlement is the thing that makes me the angriest. I admire your restraint, I might have failed in that situation.

[fetishfrog]

Yes. It is. The sense of entitlement is the thing that makes me the angriest. I admire your restraint, I might have failed in that situation.

It wasn't easy. Knowing that the others in the band (and myself included for the most part) generally want to avoid potentially 'precarious' conflict oriented situations, especially thousands of miles from home, helped make it easier. Still though...maddening.

[pbradt]

When I read stories like the one you told, it makes me wish you'd called the cops. You just heard the beginning of a criminal conspiracy.

I believe the answer, like many other problems, is to make the penalties so harsh, with no loopholes, that it makes it just not worth the risk for the offenders.

Anybody who calls me bro better not think about giving away, the music I worked so hard to create.

[tone4days]

i am against stealing .. it is wrong .. i dont do it

but it is wrong in all its forms ... not just illegal downloaders

i do not think that 'the world' owes a musician an ongoing living from a one time act ... nor does it owe the labels and others that the artists enlist on their behalf to try to make a living ... i have great trouble accepting the "work once - get paid over and over and over again" model ... if i want to get a check next week, i gotta go to work ... if a farmer wants to get paid, he has to work and work and work and hope and pray that the weather and everything else cooperates so he can get paid at harvest ... i see no reason to support the notion that a musician can write and record a song once and just keep getting paid for it with no extra effort .. wanna get paid? play live and let your talent be the draw that determines what it is worth in the market place .. set ticket prices too high? play to an empty house and make no dough ...

i also have a problem with musicians et al who treat music as a commodity (a hunk of plastic) when it suits some of their purposes and like a license when it suits their other purposes - one or the other, greedy pigs ... i also have a problem with the fact that in the US the musicians and their agents strong armed congress into taxing me on the presupposition that i steal and have that money passed to them in compensation for a crime that they did not suffer at my hands ... the basis for that law was the so called inferior copy ... well, mp3s etc are inferior copies, but they want the law changed to suit their updated purposes

[fetishfrog]

When I read stories like the one you told, it makes me wish you'd called the cops. You just heard the beginning of a criminal conspiracy.

I believe the answer, like many other problems, is to make the penalties so harsh, with no loopholes, that it makes it just not worth the risk for the offenders.

Anybody who calls me bro better not think about giving away, the music I worked so hard to create.

I like that, criminal conspiracy :). Unfortunately I think it's become so socially acceptable to illegally download music that nothing would be done.

I do agree that the penalties need to be 'Gulag Style'.

[iaresee]

Sounds great. I say, go create your $50,000 amp. We'll use the Amie Street pricing model for distribution. I get the first one for free. Ed DeGenaro, he's freakin' paid his dues hard...he gets one too, free of course. The next two customer's, they pay $1.50. Out of business yet?
Admittedly the physical goods analogy is not the best, but it wasn't meant to be taken so literally.

Everything Gary Willis said is right. Period.
Yup. I think we're all very much aware of how much theft is occurring and how wrong it is and how we're having a hard time convincing people to stop. It's sort of...you know: done. We've talked about it. We've ached about it. Some people have swung some fists over it.

Lets move on. Lets start talking about how we make money. About how we sustain ourselves. Because we're not getting any further ahead just rehashing the same old stealing-is-bad thread.

I agree with you, it's probably more productive to cultivate your 'True Fans' than too persecute the thieves, but that doesn't make me wnat to beat them into a bloody pulp any less.
It is incredibly difficult. More so, as you pointed out in your story, when it's not some anonymous action over the 'Net but something that's happening right in front of your face. I will not deny that it hurts. I remember the first time someone handed me a burned copy of a CD I played on to autograph! I just smiled, said thanks for coming to the show, and signed it.

But really, making a good middle-class living at anything is hard. It requires work and perseverance in the face of some big adversities. Lets stop talking about the things we did last week to make money, because they're not working anymore, and start talking about the things we can do tomorrow to make money.

[iaresee]

I believe the answer, like many other problems, is to make the penalties so harsh, with no loopholes, that it makes it just not worth the risk for the offenders.But the scope of the problem is global. How do you make this work on a global scale? You can't.

We need to figure out how to marginalize the effect, not penalize the action.

[fetishfrog]

Admittedly the physical goods analogy is not the best, but it wasn't meant to be taken so literally.

I know, I was just pointing out that it's not a sustainable model in ANY real context. No other industry would even attempt to survive with such a model as ultimately, your efforts will be short sold.

[fetishfrog]

i do not think that 'the world' owes a musician an ongoing living from a one time act ... nor does it owe the labels and others that the artists enlist on their behalf to try to make a living ... i have great trouble accepting the "work once - get paid over and over and over again" model ... if i want to get a check next week, i gotta go to work ... if a farmer wants to get paid, he has to work and work and work and hope and pray that the weather and everything else cooperates so he can get paid at harvest ... i see no reason to support the notion that a musician can write and record a song once and just keep getting paid for it with no extra effort .. wanna get paid? play live and let your talent be the draw that determines what it is worth in the market place .. set ticket prices too high? play to an empty house and make no dough ...


Couldn't disagree more. If people are going to use your work and make money off it, you should be compensated. Period.

[imissmj]

I wonder how much of this could have been avoided had the record companies simply opened up their catalogs for subscription or $/per song downloads before illegal downloading became so pervasive and entrenched into our culture?

Also, there are certainly bands that have thrived in the internet age. Phish basically pioneered the internet fan relationship, and a lot of bands have sought to emulate their business model. Metallica even offers paid next day downloads of their shows through the same service Phish debuted. So there are bands that are harnessing the technology and changing the game.

[fetishfrog]

i also have a problem with musicians et al who treat music as a commodity (a hunk of plastic) when it suits some of their purposes and like a license when it suits their other purposes - one or the other, greedy pigs ... i also have a problem with the fact that in the US the musicians and their agents strong armed congress into taxing me on the presupposition that i steal and have that money passed to them in compensation for a crime that they did not suffer at my hands ... the basis for that law was the so called inferior copy ... well, mp3s etc are inferior copies, but they want the law changed to suit their updated purposes

I think for the most part, it's always treated as a license. That is why it is legal and acceptable to make copies provided you do not distribute them. You can make a million copies of a CD and as long as you never sell/give them away, no one will really know or care. It's the same as software. You can (legally) make as may back ups of Windows as you want...start selling them or giving the away and Microsoft will come calling.

I do agree on the taxes thing. Please don't tax me for a crime I'll never commit.

[c-dub]

I'm not trying to justifying the stealing. Look at it a little differently. Lets say I create a new amp that is amazing. And I try to sell it for $50,000 -- but its not selling. Do I keep trying to sell it from $50,000? Is it the market that is nuts for not wanting to buy my amp? Or am I nuts for wanting $50,000?

It's unfortunate that free is readily available, but it's telling that so many people think it's okay, don't you think? If you're looking at things rationally you have to ask: why is it they don't want to pay? Am I asking too much? Is my product inferior? Is it unsaleable? It's too easy to just say that all your customers are just a bunch of thieves. If you give the people what they want they will happily part with their hard earned cash in exchange for it.


They dont want to pay becuase it is so easy to steal, in the privacy of their own homes, when no one is watching. If it was that easy to steal from the local shop I'm sure a lot of people would be twisting themselves into mental gymnastics to try to justofy that theivery too.

The value of any intellectual property is the ability to control the manner of distribution. Who to distribute it too, how to do so, and for how much. It's in the word istelf -- "Copy" "Right". By downloading you take away the economic value of the intellectual property, the same as if you steal Picasso prints from the local frame shop.

[teleharmonium]

i am against stealing .. it is wrong .. i dont do it

but it is wrong in all its forms ... not just illegal downloaders

i do not think that 'the world' owes a musician an ongoing living from a one time act ... nor does it owe the labels and others that the artists enlist on their behalf to try to make a living ... i have great trouble accepting the "work once - get paid over and over and over again" model ...

But the musician doesn't "work once" - he has to work over and over for years for free to be good enough to make the record, and invest enough time and money into the record to give it any kind of chance in an extremely competitive market where it is increasingly hard to get paid.

If I was going to "work once" in the sense of making a record and then "sell it once", that would mean I was selling the actual exclusive rights to the record itself, which would mean that the cost would be equal to the entire production cost plus a reasonable payment for the chunk of my life that it took to enable me to make the record as well as actually make the record, plus more cost to compensate me for being deprived of being able to control and use the fruits of that labor to further my "career". So let me know if you're in the market for a CD with a 6 figure price tag.

The only reason truly professionally made CDs cost $15 instead of $40,000 - $500,000 each is because the resulting intellectual property can be sold to many individuals who would like to own a copy of it.

[eru]

[I]If your customers would rather steal your product than pay your asking price you have to ask yourself: maybe I've priced myself out of the market?
:AOK

There's something about actually buying something on vinyl and to a lesser extent on CD that's actually awesome. But so much new music isn't worth buying.

I will never buy a CD without listening to all of it first and more than once. If it's worth paying for, lord knows I'll pay for it.

[teleharmonium]

But the scope of the problem is global. How do you make this work on a global scale? You can't.

We need to figure out how to marginalize the effect, not penalize the action.


We need to find a way to prevent this theft from occurring in the first place, or prevent it through deterrence due to real legal punishment. What business could continue to exist when it is effectively danger free to steal the product ?
The crime is the problem, therefore it needs to be penalized. I shouldn't have to do a damn thing differently, and certainly not make different music than I want to make by being denied money for the production I desire and work for on my music, just because somebody else is happy to commit a crime.

[teleharmonium]

iaresee wrote: "It's unfortunate that free is readily available, but it's telling that so many people think it's okay, don't you think? "

Describing it as "free is readily available" is basically sugar coating the fact that people are stealing because they can. And it's "telling" me that people will steal if they can do so without facing any consequences; of course, I knew that already.


"If you're looking at things rationally you have to ask: why is it they don't want to pay? Am I asking too much? Is my product inferior? Is it unsaleable? It's too easy to just say that all your customers are just a bunch of thieves. If you give the people what they want they will happily part with their hard earned cash in exchange for it."

I am looking at it rationally, and I do not have to ask if it's "me", which is what you're implying. Obviously people want something if they will go to the trouble to seek it out and steal it. And those that steal it, aren't customers ! It's not just that it's easy to blame them - it happens to be 100% accurate.

[iaresee]

We need to find a way to prevent this theft from occurring in the first place, or prevent it through deterrence due to real legal punishment. What business could continue to exist when it is effectively danger free to steal the product ?
Let me restate that bit: I'm unwilling to sit idly by and wait for the governments of the world to get together and implement a globally enforceable, legislative remedy to the problem. It'll take too long. I'll likely be dead.

So I want to work around it. I want to find ways to make it less of an impact on me. I'm willing to talk through the ideas in a forum so hopefully other musicians can benefit from it as well.

I shouldn't have to do a damn thing differently, and certainly not make different music than I want to make by being denied money for the production I desire and work for on my music, just because somebody else is happy to commit a crime.
But it's not a crime in all places. Not all countries consider downloading to be illegal. Canada for one. China. How do you punish a non-US citizen?

[teleharmonium]

But the scope of the problem is global. How do you make this work on a global scale? You can't.

We need to figure out how to marginalize the effect, not penalize the action.

Theft and all kinds of violence are also global crimes. You make this work on a global scale the same way you do for other crimes - have a real and visible system of investigation, prosecution, and punishment.

Substitute any other crime for illegal downloading, and you quickly see how absurd the prospect of "marginalizing the effect" as an alternative to punishment actually is.

[Bassomatic]

It is cause for pause that Radiohead won't divulge the "wholly accurate" count... if it were a raging success, wouldn't it make everyone involved look like a genius?

I heard from a fairly reliable source (long term and well-connected manager of a succesful indie band with a long and respected career) that they sold a whole lot of those boxed sets.

If Radiohead came right out and said what they made, they might be suffer a backlash next time around, no?

Consider this, too - by eliminating a grossly wasteful and horrendously greedy major label from the equation, they should be more than doubling their share of the profit per CD sold.

[teleharmonium]

Let me restate that bit: I'm unwilling to sit idly by and wait for the governments of the world to get together and implement a globally enforceable, legislative remedy to the problem. It'll take too long. I'll likely be dead.

So I want to work around it. I want to find ways to make it less of an impact on me. I'm willing to talk through the ideas in a forum so hopefully other musicians can benefit from it as well.


But it's not a crime in all places. Not all countries consider downloading to be illegal. Canada for one. China. How do you punish a non-US citizen?

I share your pessimism on an enforceable legislative remedy. Or any other kind of remedy, honestly. Personally, I am leaning toward just not releasing recordings, ever. Which sucks because that's what I would prefer to do for a living.

I think you may be exaggerating the legal status in Canada - see this link - http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/08/22/1655233.shtml

But IMO if the US took the importance of IP creation seriously, it would implement a total trade ban on all IP to Canada until they fix the problems in their interpretation of their law that cause unfair exposure to artists and publishers. In the absence of that, I would simply suggest not selling anything to any Canadian and not playing there until they can be more artist friendly.

China as I understand it is a signator to international Copyright rules that mean that the downloading is as illegal there as everywhere else, it's just that they can't be bothered to do anything about the rampant piracy problem they have. They're not the ones being deprived of the income when they produce pirate DVDs and CDs which weren't produced by anyone Chinese, so economically they have little incentive to do anything about it, and apparently they lack the ethical incentive as well.

[iaresee]

Theft and all kinds of violence are also global crimes. You make this work on a global scale the same way you do for other crimes - have a real and visible system of investigation, prosecution, and punishment.
Not quite the same thing actually. You can probably get all countries to agree that killing some one is bad. But you can't get all countries to even acknowledge that intellectual property exists (read: China). Nor can you get them all to agree on the severity of copyright infringement. In the US the government is mute on the cost of infringement. It's a civil matter. The copyright holder makes a case and argues a loss, the accused infringer argues against it, someone wins.

Substitute any other crime for illegal downloading, and you quickly see how absurd the prospect of "marginalizing the effect" as an alternative to punishment actually is.You can't just "substitue any other crime" though. Copyright infringement is a very different crime from murder, or theft of physical property. Perhaps not in your mind, but in the letter of the law and the philosophies of law it is.

But you're derailing me. I'm trying not to talk about the crime. I'm trying to talk about how to survive. :)

[THebert]

I really have no dog in this hunt, as I rarely buy music nowdays and I never download it. But I agree that this discussion has focused more on 'stopping' the downloads as opposed to figuring out some way to deal with it and to turn it to an advantage.

I remember when I could tape an album and give that tape to my friend. No one cared about that. But now that it has become easier, and more common, that same thing is a problem. If I buy a cd and then let others listen to it, is that stealing? I am guessing most would say no. But if I burn it to a disk and then let you have it so you can listen to it, then I am guessing that most would say that is stealing. Where do we draw the line? I realize those are two extremes, but modern technology has made it real easy to share music while the record industry was caught flat and has yet to get a handle on it. Seems like the artist are taking the lead and you can guess what their position will be- no downloads- no sharing. Many people will say 'it is stealing and it is wrong' but then speed and otherwise break the law or transgress on society. And if we could dowload amps, guitars, food, gas, etc., you had better believe we would all be stealing like a madman. Some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree, but I bet we would all be doing some of it (I would get a black SG!). The technology is here and will not be going away- in fact I am guessing that it will only get better. So those that are involved had better get with it or get left behind. Downloading is a way of life now. We can argue that it should have never happened, but the tootpaste aint going back in the tube on this one. Just my thoughts from someone who is not in the music business.

[studiodunn]

I have but one thing to add......Radiohead.

[iaresee]

I share your pessimism on an enforceable legislative remedy. Or any other kind of remedy, honestly. Personally, I am leaning toward just not releasing recordings, ever. Which sucks because that's what I would prefer to do for a living.
That does suck. Don't you want to talk about ways to make it work though? I do.

I think you may be exaggerating the legal status in Canada - see this link - http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/08/22/1655233.shtml
Not at all. Downloading is not illegal. We pay a levy on blank media that allows this activity. Making available for someone else is illegal. That is, I can take, but I cannot give. It's covered under the Private Copying provision of our Copyright Act see: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

But IMO if the US took the importance of IP creation seriously, it would implement a total trade ban on all IP to Canada until they fix the problems in their interpretation of their law that cause unfair exposure to artists and publishers. In the absence of that, I would simply suggest not selling anything to any Canadian and not playing there until they can be more artist friendly.
That's essentially what WIPO was supposed to do but it's a bit of a neutered organisation. They've got a bark but no bite. Ultimately the internet makes it almost impossible to stop the flow of IP. You'd have to do the Great Firewall of China approach to effect a total ban.

China as I understand it is a signator to international Copyright rules that mean that the downloading is as illegal there as everywhere else, it's just that they can't be bothered to do anything about the rampant piracy problem they have. They're not the ones being deprived of the income when they produce pirate DVDs and CDs which weren't produced by anyone Chinese, so economically they have little incentive to do anything about it, and apparently they lack the ethical incentive as well.
They have a long history with a different philosophy on who owns ideas. I'm not saying their view is wrong or right, just pointing out the difference. It is very hard to make millions of people change their beliefs.

[Dog Boy]

I really have no dog in this hunt, as I rarely buy music nowdays and I never download it. But I agree that this discussion has focused more on 'stopping' the downloads as opposed to figuring out some way to deal with it and to turn it to an advantage.

I remember when I could tape an album and give that tape to my friend. No one cared about that. But now that it has become easier, and more common, that same thing is a problem. If I buy a cd and then let others listen to it, is that stealing? I am guessing most would say no. But if I burn it to a disk and then let you have it so you can listen to it, then I am guessing that most would say that is stealing. Where do we draw the line? I realize those are two extremes, but modern technology has made it real easy to share music while the record industry was caught flat and has yet to get a handle on it. Seems like the artist are taking the lead and you can guess what their position will be- no downloads- no sharing. Many people will say 'it is stealing and it is wrong' but then speed and otherwise break the law or transgress on society. And if we could dowload amps, guitars, food, gas, etc., you had better believe we would all be stealing like a madman. Some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree, but I bet we would all be doing some of it (I would get a black SG!). The technology is here and will not be going away- in fact I am guessing that it will only get better. So those that are involved had better get with it or get left behind. Downloading is a way of life now. We can argue that it should have never happened, but the tootpaste aint going back in the tube on this one. Just my thoughts from someone who is not in the music business.

+1 i don' think laws are going to win out over human nature.

Like i pointed out earlier, money can be made by merch., licensing, swag etc. if its attached to good music.

The old days are gone. Think creatively.

And yesssssss....stealing = bad.

[teleharmonium]

Not quite the same thing actually. You can probably get all countries to agree that killing some one is bad. But you can't get all countries to even acknowledge that intellectual property exists (read: China). Nor can you get them all to agree on the severity of copyright infringement. In the US the government is mute on the cost of infringement. It's a civil matter. The copyright holder makes a case and argues a loss, the accused infringer argues against it, someone wins.

You can't just "substitue any other crime" though. Copyright infringement is a very different crime from murder, or theft of physical property. Perhaps not in your mind, but in the letter of the law and the philosophies of law it is.

But you're derailing me. I'm trying not to talk about the crime. I'm trying to talk about how to survive. :)

China does acknowledge the existence of IP, they just aren't willing to seriously do anything about it.

What exactly are you referring to about copyright infringement being a very different crime from theft of "physical" property in the letter and philosophy of the law ? That's a new one on me, and I've been absorbed in this issue for a while. I'm looking for specific examples and sources if you care to share.

[fetishfrog]

I have but one thing to add......Radiohead.

The Radiohead poor excuse for a business model nonsense would have never worked if they hadn't already

A. Been a household name
B. Sold Millions of records to legions of adoring fans
C. Had huge radio hits in various countries
D. Circumnavigated the globe a half dozen times
E. Spent YEARS on a major with full tour/marketing/licensing/PR support.

Take these factors out of the equation and they make nothing.

[teleharmonium]

I remember when I could tape an album and give that tape to my friend. No one cared about that. But now that it has become easier, and more common, that same thing is a problem.

It was always a crime and people always cared about it. Then, as now, the people that did it preferred not to think of it that way, and I'm sure many were genuinely ignorant that it was illegal, but in the US ignorance of the law is not an excuse. As one example, the industry spent millions of dollars on public awareness campaigns about the illegality and consequences of illegal taping (the illegal part being when you tape something that you didn't buy, or provide a tape that you don't have distribution rights to, to another person).

[JohnM]

... i have great trouble accepting the "work once - get paid over and over and over again" model ... if i want to get a check next week, i gotta go to work ... if a farmer wants to get paid, he has to work and work and work and hope and pray that the weather and everything else cooperates so he can get paid at harvest ... i see no reason to support the notion that a musician can write and record a song once and just keep getting paid for it with no extra effort ..

For the sake of argument, the farmer's head of lettuce is eaten and enjoyed once, then it's gone. The musician labors (possibly for years) for that one song, then it is enjoyed for years. That's why the farmer grows a million heads of lettuce and the musician hopes for one hit song.
I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. (or lettuce...)

[teleharmonium]

That does suck. Don't you want to talk about ways to make it work though? I do.

Well, if there are any that make it work in a way I can live with, I'd like to talk about them. And I am interested in pointing out the shortcomings of proposals that would not work for me, so that we can include in that conversation a sense of what options do and don't work, and why, from the perspective of a musician and recording geek, not just a consumer of music (which I also am). But I've thought about it a lot going back years, and I am not optimistic of there being such a solution.

And I could give you probably way more reasons than you would want to read about as to why that is. Briefly, I'm not interested in selling T shirts and crap like that, I cannot go on the road and tour at length even if it were guaranteed profitable (when the opposite is more likely to be the case), I cannot self finance the type of records I would like to make at this time or anytime soon, and I have some fairly unusual beliefs about the relationship between artist and audience. I believe that there are ethical aspects to that relationship that go both ways, which basically means that I don't want to have people interacting with my work without them first entering into a reasonably respectful relationship with me by buying a publication of my work in the particular way that I choose to publish it. I don't want my stuff to become some date rape soundtrack in somebody's life, or to incur the risk of some Mark David Chapman coming at me, or put my stuff out there where other musicians can try to hoist me by the petard of my own work for a competitive advantage against me, without a fair transaction taking place on my terms to establish that relationship in the light of day and give me something in return for those kinds of risks. Further, I think that musical appreciation has a lot to do with the perceived value, appearance, and scarcity of that music - if you don't have to go to any trouble or expense whatsoever to hear something, and you don't see the carefully crafted packaging and info that I chose to pair it with, you may never make it to that critical second or third listen that I believe is the key to the music really taking hold in a person. On the other hand if you have spent 15 bucks and have a hard copy sitting in your house looking at you, you are much more likely to give the music a spin after the initial first pass. I really think that you don't hear music the first time on a recording, you just start to get a basic sense of it, unlike a live show where you are exposed to a lot more information and are more likely to 'get it' in the moment. This has been my experience time and time again with many of the records that have become my favorites, but didn't make much of an impression at first.

[cdaloia]

I give away stuff on my site as well as sell recordings.
Trying to find a way to make it work.

It's a new venture, we'll see how it goes.

Chuck

[iaresee]

What exactly are you referring to about copyright infringement being a very different crime from theft of "physical" property in the letter and philosophy of the law ? That's a new one on me, and I've been absorbed in this issue for a while. I'm looking for specific examples and sources if you care to share.
The US has an entire section of legislation dedicated to copyright. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 -- if stealing a song was the same as stealing a candy bar, you wouldn't need this. It'd just be "theft". But the laws make a distinction. If I violate a copyright I'm not punished under the same laws that deal with the theft of a candy bar or a car. There's contentious wikipedia article you can look at the elaborates on some of the philosophical differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

[teleharmonium]

The US has an entire section of legislation dedicated to copyright. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 -- if stealing a song was the same as stealing a candy bar, you wouldn't need this. It'd just be "theft". But the laws make a distinction. If I violate a copyright I'm not punished under the same laws that deal with the theft of a candy bar or a car. There's contentious wikipedia article you can look at the elaborates on some of the philosophical differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Well yeah there is law dedicated to it, as there is for many kinds of crimes - all crimes have to be spelled out in the code somewhere - but that doesn't necessarily make it "very" or "fundamentally" different just because the code for stealing physical property can be expressed in fewer words.

I'm well aware of the philosophy re IP and that not everyone agrees on it, but I am looking for the more objective "difference" you implied. Not everyone agrees that there is such a thing as physical property, either, but it's still a crime and the minority opinion does not mitigate or need to be balanced against the prevailing operating method of understanding property in this society.

[c-dub]

The US has an entire section of legislation dedicated to copyright. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 -- if stealing a song was the same as stealing a candy bar, you wouldn't need this. It'd just be "theft". But the laws make a distinction. If I violate a copyright I'm not punished under the same laws that deal with the theft of a candy bar or a car. There's contentious wikipedia article you can look at the elaborates on some of the philosophical differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property


Poor analogy. There are all sorts of "theft" crimes not covered by a basic larceny statute; e.g. breach of trust with fraudulent intent, passing bad checks, embezzlement, obtaining goods by false pretenses, forgery, blackmail and extortion.

[Dog Boy]

Well, if there are any that make it work in a way I can live with, I'd like to talk about them. And I am interested in pointing out the shortcomings of proposals that would not work for me, so that we can include in that conversation a sense of what options do and don't work, and why, from the perspective of a musician and recording geek, not just a consumer of music (which I also am). But I've thought about it a lot going back years, and I am not optimistic of there being such a solution.

And I could give you probably way more reasons than you would want to read about as to why that is. Briefly, I'm not interested in selling T shirts and crap like that, I cannot go on the road and tour at length even if it were guaranteed profitable (when the opposite is more likely to be the case), I cannot self finance the type of records I would like to make at this time or anytime soon, and I have some fairly unusual beliefs about the relationship between artist and audience. I believe that there are ethical aspects to that relationship that go both ways, which basically means that I don't want to have people interacting with my work without them first entering into a reasonably respectful relationship with me by buying a publication of my work in the particular way that I choose to publish it. I don't want my stuff to become some date rape soundtrack in somebody's life, or to incur the risk of some Mark David Chapman coming at me, or put my stuff out there where other musicians can try to hoist me by the petard of my own work for a competitive advantage against me, without a fair transaction taking place on my terms to establish that relationship in the light of day and give me something in return for those kinds of risks. Further, I think that musical appreciation has a lot to do with the perceived value, appearance, and scarcity of that music - if you don't have to go to any trouble or expense whatsoever to hear something, and you don't see the carefully crafted packaging and info that I chose to pair it with, you may never make it to that critical second or third listen that I believe is the key to the music really taking hold in a person. On the other hand if you have spent 15 bucks and have a hard copy sitting in your house looking at you, you are much more likely to give the music a spin after the initial first pass. I really think that you don't hear music the first time on a recording, you just start to get a basic sense of it, unlike a live show where you are exposed to a lot more information and are more likely to 'get it' in the moment. This has been my experience