5 ms·

Let the music business die. There were musicians around long before the invention of copyright. There will be musicians when the music industry goes away. We

Let the music business die. There were musicians around long before the invention of copyright. There will be musicians when the music industry goes away. We are in a temporary period that began with the invention of the phonograph and extended to the development of zero-cost copying of digital music. This temporary period enabled a few to become famous and rich off of the proceeds guaranteed by copyright law. We should not expect this period to last forever.

benologist 16y ago
Why exactly should their product be less deserving of copyright, protection and revenue than the websites/apps/iphone games/whatever everyone here makes, copyrights, and is trying to profit from?
- lucisferre 16y ago
  I suppose I could see your point if he had made the argument that it didn't deserve the same copyright software and apps get, except he didn't. AFAICT he simply said music will survive and perhaps implied copyright will likely change significantly in the coming decades.
  - benologist 16y ago
    Let them die because historically it's just a recent trend that allowed only a few to get rich. How does that not exactly describe us and the internet, especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? The only difference between us and them is someone has to hack our servers to get our IP.
    - DeusExMachina 16y ago
      especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? As we, do you mean a few big companies, patent trolls or the bigger set of startups? I'm not a lawyer or a big expert in startups, but it seems to me that the latter do not leverage copyright laws that much.
- wdewind 16y ago
  Copyright and protection: it shouldn't be. And Steve Jobs certainly isn't wrecking that, and legal free digital music certainly isn't either, just like open source and free apps aren't wrecking the software industry: they simply change the game. As for revenue: it's just the markets, not everyone gets to be an artist. There's too much music out there now for people to pay for. You can argue "there will always be a market for premium content" til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one agrees on what premium is.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You can't say pop music is deserving of copyright protection in one breath, rationalize copyright violation in the next breath, and claim to have a serious argument.
    - wdewind 16y ago
      I think you misunderstood me, I never rationalized copyright violation I meant to imply that there isn't as much copyright violation going on as people assume. I also meant both should be copyrighted, and I agree that those who argue music doesn't deserve copyright while software does are hypocritical. But the fact that the music industry is failing (changing, whatever) right now can't only be the fault of piracy and copying. Along with those came a HUGE increase in the volume of media. Old institutions that confused themselves with being quality barriers were actually just distribution barriers operating in a drought. I support people's right to copyright their music and sell it, and sue those who copy it as well (edit: support as fairness within our system, overall I do think it sucks for both, but we don't live in a perfect world). But if people just aren't buying, maybe it's because there is a wealth of mainstream, free, legal stuff out there everywhere.
- mcculley 16y ago
  As other replies have stated, I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of copyright protection of music versus any other IP. Copyright exists because it is intended to create social utility, a temporary monopoly guaranteed the creator and enforced by the government. I don't think social utility is served by Disney lobbying to get copyright terms extended every few decades so that nothing ever falls into the public domain. I don't think social utility is served by laws (e.g., DMCA) that disallow hackers from modifying their own hardware and showing others how to modify theirs. I'm just saying that when rich musicians protest that something must be done to prevent the death of the music industry, we should consider whether the music industry needs special protection.
wdewind 16y ago
Not sure that has to do with copyright. The music industry served primarily as a distribution platform for years, though the entire time it was convincing itself it was a filter and an artist itself. It thought its profits were based on its ability to churn out hits, when in fact its profits were based on its ability to churn out SOMETHING to a lot of people. Now that distribution is no longer a challenge, it's a lot harder for Bon Jovi to compete (and a lot less likely that he will be interpreted as a signal amongst the noise). I question that the music industry will go away. It will just change. As I said before, it is and remains primarily a distribution platform not a content filter, and there will always be distribution challenges that artists do not want to (or know how to) solve. Also, the musicians who existed long before copyright that you speak of often needed to be sponsored by nobility just to eat. I'm not sure that's a better system.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hessenwolf 16y ago
  There are still plenty of musicians out there who survive by a meal, a few pints, and a some cash from pub gigs - busking if needs be. The music for the nobility was paid for by the nobility, but all the other music was paid for by the corresponding audiences.
- mcculley 16y ago
  There aren't just two choices: sponsorship by nobility and Bon Jovi. If the "music industry" collapses one can still imagine plenty of musicians making a living from performing or other business models.
tomlin 16y ago
Agreed. Not sure why, but there is this notion that when an industry is created it is immortal - not only that, but also always increasing in profit, margin, market. Strange, really, since by now we should all understand that the very fabric of life revolves around evolution, and of course, death.
- nostromo 16y ago
  And of course the music industry really isn't going anywhere. Lady Gaga could charge $0 for her music and she'd still be very wealthy. Look at 50 cent -- he made north of $100 million off of his endorsement of Vitamin Water alone. It's just a guess, but I doubt he's ever made that much from his music.
Tycho 16y ago
To have a thriving popular music scene, you need lots of people to try their hand. Even the very best songwriters are lucky to manage about 20 classic/hit tunes (exceptions: Beatles, Stevie Wonder). For the charts to be listenable depends on the thousands of bands that only produce a few potential hits their whole career. It's only the money that can attract artists in sufficient numbers to achieve this. If there's no money in the industry, people wont bother. Music will suck.
- rfzabick 16y ago
  Musicians don't become musicians to make money. The vast majority of all active musicians don't make any real money at it. They do it because they enjoy it. If music was where the money was, we'd be discussing chord progressions, not data structures on this board. :)
  - Tycho 16y ago
    The vast majority of active musicians don't make any memorable original music whatsoever. Sure, we'll have lots of good performers always, that won't change, but what popular music needs is huge numbers of relatively unskilled 'musicians' taking a stab at songwriting. That happens because there's money in the game. Otherwise we'd just be left with a dull cottage industry.
    - lukifer 16y ago
      There needs to be money, but there's nothing saying it has to be big money. I'd happily take ten Jonathan Coultons over one Bon Jovi.
      - Tycho 16y ago
        The more money there is, the more people will take a crack at it. It's sort of like the App Store and the explosion of great indie apps.
    - notahacker 16y ago
      You're arguing that the music industry will be worse for lack of people with no discernible talent or even interest in music becoming songwriters for pecuniary reward. Seriously?

benologist 16y ago

Why exactly should their product be less deserving of copyright, protection and revenue than the websites/apps/iphone games/whatever everyone here makes, copyrights, and is trying to profit from?

lucisferre 16y ago
I suppose I could see your point if he had made the argument that it didn't deserve the same copyright software and apps get, except he didn't. AFAICT he simply said music will survive and perhaps implied copyright will likely change significantly in the coming decades.
- benologist 16y ago
  Let them die because historically it's just a recent trend that allowed only a few to get rich. How does that not exactly describe us and the internet, especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? The only difference between us and them is someone has to hack our servers to get our IP.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? As we, do you mean a few big companies, patent trolls or the bigger set of startups? I'm not a lawyer or a big expert in startups, but it seems to me that the latter do not leverage copyright laws that much.
wdewind 16y ago
Copyright and protection: it shouldn't be. And Steve Jobs certainly isn't wrecking that, and legal free digital music certainly isn't either, just like open source and free apps aren't wrecking the software industry: they simply change the game. As for revenue: it's just the markets, not everyone gets to be an artist. There's too much music out there now for people to pay for. You can argue "there will always be a market for premium content" til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one agrees on what premium is.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You can't say pop music is deserving of copyright protection in one breath, rationalize copyright violation in the next breath, and claim to have a serious argument.
  - wdewind 16y ago
    I think you misunderstood me, I never rationalized copyright violation I meant to imply that there isn't as much copyright violation going on as people assume. I also meant both should be copyrighted, and I agree that those who argue music doesn't deserve copyright while software does are hypocritical. But the fact that the music industry is failing (changing, whatever) right now can't only be the fault of piracy and copying. Along with those came a HUGE increase in the volume of media. Old institutions that confused themselves with being quality barriers were actually just distribution barriers operating in a drought. I support people's right to copyright their music and sell it, and sue those who copy it as well (edit: support as fairness within our system, overall I do think it sucks for both, but we don't live in a perfect world). But if people just aren't buying, maybe it's because there is a wealth of mainstream, free, legal stuff out there everywhere.
mcculley 16y ago
As other replies have stated, I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of copyright protection of music versus any other IP. Copyright exists because it is intended to create social utility, a temporary monopoly guaranteed the creator and enforced by the government. I don't think social utility is served by Disney lobbying to get copyright terms extended every few decades so that nothing ever falls into the public domain. I don't think social utility is served by laws (e.g., DMCA) that disallow hackers from modifying their own hardware and showing others how to modify theirs. I'm just saying that when rich musicians protest that something must be done to prevent the death of the music industry, we should consider whether the music industry needs special protection.

wdewind 16y ago

Not sure that has to do with copyright. The music industry served primarily as a distribution platform for years, though the entire time it was convincing itself it was a filter and an artist itself. It thought its profits were based on its ability to churn out hits, when in fact its profits were based on its ability to churn out SOMETHING to a lot of people. Now that distribution is no longer a challenge, it's a lot harder for Bon Jovi to compete (and a lot less likely that he will be interpreted as a signal amongst the noise). I question that the music industry will go away. It will just change. As I said before, it is and remains primarily a distribution platform not a content filter, and there will always be distribution challenges that artists do not want to (or know how to) solve. Also, the musicians who existed long before copyright that you speak of often needed to be sponsored by nobility just to eat. I'm not sure that's a better system.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hessenwolf 16y ago
There are still plenty of musicians out there who survive by a meal, a few pints, and a some cash from pub gigs - busking if needs be. The music for the nobility was paid for by the nobility, but all the other music was paid for by the corresponding audiences.
mcculley 16y ago
There aren't just two choices: sponsorship by nobility and Bon Jovi. If the "music industry" collapses one can still imagine plenty of musicians making a living from performing or other business models.

tomlin 16y ago

Agreed. Not sure why, but there is this notion that when an industry is created it is immortal - not only that, but also always increasing in profit, margin, market. Strange, really, since by now we should all understand that the very fabric of life revolves around evolution, and of course, death.

nostromo 16y ago
And of course the music industry really isn't going anywhere. Lady Gaga could charge $0 for her music and she'd still be very wealthy. Look at 50 cent -- he made north of $100 million off of his endorsement of Vitamin Water alone. It's just a guess, but I doubt he's ever made that much from his music.

Tycho 16y ago

To have a thriving popular music scene, you need lots of people to try their hand. Even the very best songwriters are lucky to manage about 20 classic/hit tunes (exceptions: Beatles, Stevie Wonder). For the charts to be listenable depends on the thousands of bands that only produce a few potential hits their whole career. It's only the money that can attract artists in sufficient numbers to achieve this. If there's no money in the industry, people wont bother. Music will suck.

rfzabick 16y ago
Musicians don't become musicians to make money. The vast majority of all active musicians don't make any real money at it. They do it because they enjoy it. If music was where the money was, we'd be discussing chord progressions, not data structures on this board. :)
- Tycho 16y ago
  The vast majority of active musicians don't make any memorable original music whatsoever. Sure, we'll have lots of good performers always, that won't change, but what popular music needs is huge numbers of relatively unskilled 'musicians' taking a stab at songwriting. That happens because there's money in the game. Otherwise we'd just be left with a dull cottage industry.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    There needs to be money, but there's nothing saying it has to be big money. I'd happily take ten Jonathan Coultons over one Bon Jovi.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      The more money there is, the more people will take a crack at it. It's sort of like the App Store and the explosion of great indie apps.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    You're arguing that the music industry will be worse for lack of people with no discernible talent or even interest in music becoming songwriters for pecuniary reward. Seriously?