5 ms·

The lack of critical thinking about music copyright never ceases to boggle my mind. In this discussion Spotify is the intermediary. The labels and the artists d

by b1daly 15y ago

The lack of critical thinking about music copyright never ceases to boggle my mind. In this discussion Spotify is the intermediary. The labels and the artists do the heavy lifting here. Do you guys believe in the concept of intellectual property or what? It is vital for our whole economy (including FOSS). The labels put up the money for the projects, and the risk is terrible. If you are a label almost every one of your products loses a lot of money. In fact all of the money you invest! You hope to make it back on a handful of hit acts. In some sense acts that fail commercially come out on the long end of the stick, in that they burn throughs hundreds of thousands in cash and are not on the hook to pay it back. This is why the classic case of hit acts not making any money exists, the deal is structured way in the labels favor. Without this the labels can't make money. How you all feel about a company that agregated other companies software products and started giving them away for free? Any objections to that? Would you look down on efforts of developers to get as much as they can for their products? A vital music culture cant exist without some kind of viable business model. Many attempts have been made to build a business on indie bands (my space , mp3.com) it can't work because indie artists don't have near the resources to create a true modern music product. Not to mention most indie music is not that good, and nobody wants to hear it.

barrkel 15y ago
"Vital music cultures" have existed for millennia without "viable business models", in the way we understand that term today. People like to make music, even if the reward is only attention. There might be less money in it, less commerce in it, in the future without "viable business models", but I think you're somewhat brainwashed if you think that means there won't be a "vital music culture". If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation.
- ianstormtaylor 15y ago
  "If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation." Dead on. If any amount of extrinsic motivation is removed from the music industry with the death of record companies I will be a very happy person.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation." It's interesting how everyone seems to want to make choices for artists..without even asking them. Without a way to make money, we will see less music. Why? Because artists will be forced to get day jobs. As it is, there is a small chance you will make a full living as an artist. If anything, it will kill the indy scene because the only companies that will be able to even come close to a profit are the the ones with deep pockets (IE: the huge record labels or something like it). Like software piracy, Adobe and Microsoft can handle it. Small companies go out of business if piracy us unchecked. I've seen it happen.
  - thomaslangston 15y ago
    I don't think the artists get a special role in creating copyright laws since effectively those laws are an abridgment of the freedom of speech. We can speak our minds on this issue without having to ask their permission. Given the course of recent history (i.e. ever expanding copyright terms and regulation), I don't see that more consideration for artists is warranted.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "I don't think the artists get a special role in creating copyright laws since effectively those laws are an abridgment of the freedom of speech. We can speak our minds on this issue without having to ask their permission." huh? Since when is sharing someone's copyrighted material without their permission "freedom of speech".
  - redrobot5050 15y ago
    >Without a way to make money, we will see less music. Why? Because artists will be forced to get day jobs. As it is, there is a small chance you will make a full living as an artist. So? This is how it has been for centuries. Call it the invisible hand meets the art world. They can get jobs being music teachers. They can record using vintage equipment, like Blake Schwarzenbach did (used 4-track and 8-track recordings while he wrote for GamePro). >If anything, it will kill the indy scene because the only companies that will be able to even come close to a profit are the the ones with deep pockets Something tells me you don't understand the definition of "Independent Music". The fact is, the labels function as a market for pump and dump stocks, where the stock is a band or album. Independent music doesn't (or in my opinion, shouldn't) work that way. It can take 5 years for your album to blow up. (See: Mumford and Sons). You might have a bigger following only after you're dead and buried (See: Elliot Smith and Bright Eyes). You might have every single one of your fans wanting you to quit your main gig for a side project they've done (See: Death Cab For Cutie/The Postal Service). Disclaimer: I am a founder of a failed start-up company that would work with artists in a way that was designed to supplant the labels and exploit long-tail effect, etc. The sad, sad thing is that indie bands are getting picked off quicker and quicker by labels and pumped up for the first-album success. It's actually a huge issue (read up on MGMT) when the artists then try a new direction for a second album and the label is hesitant to financially support an album unless fans move the product in the first two weeks. This becomes at catch-22. How do you enjoy the success of radio play when nobody's paying to play you on the radio? This leads the labels to relegate these bands (by the second or third album) to a "we don't help you" status, forcing the band to break up or just be a small indie band forever on tour. If anything, major labels playing in the indie scene is akin to making the indie bands "build on a flood plain". TL;DR: NOPE. Artists make very little money from albums. It is known.
- b1daly 15y ago
  Ok, my attempt to make my point is heavy handed vis a vis intellectual property as a whole. My main frustration on this subject is that many tech and entreprenrial people, like those who hang out here, have an inconsistent perspective on intellectual property when it comes to music. In this perspective the record labels are considered rapacious and entity like Spotify as being unfairly squeezed. Actually the labels put in tremendous resources to create the product, what value added does Spotify bring? As it stands, copyright is the law of the land. The whole concept of property, including intellectual property, is what enables business as we know it to exist. Think about just trademarks and how critical they are to so many types of business. Would you feel bad for a retail store set up in a market with razor thin margins because their suppliers are asking for prices that are too high? I might feel bad but you can hardly say the suppliers are being greedy. My other frustration is a lack of acknowledgement of how many resources go into creating modern music entertainment products. It's true that there is compelling music made by amateurs, and that has always been and will continue (essentially folk musics of different flavors). But most of the recorded music that we love is made by pros. There are other ways to support it: government funding, patronage. Advertising based business models as we know them are completely dependent on our current intellectual property structure. As a point of common sense I don't think we as a society should be enforcing copyright against individuals. But to abandon intellectual property as a whole concept is a very radical proposition. BTW, the reason most music business projects lose money is inherent to the endeavour: most people don't like most music. To get a product that is successful, you have to do a lot of projects knowing that most will fail hoping for the hit that makes up for all the losses. Courtney Love's famous article http://sodacity.net/system/files/Courtney-Love_Courtney-Love-does-the-math.pdf http://sodacity.net/system/files/Courtney-Love_Courtney-Love... is disingenuous because she knows what's up with this business model and conveniently leaves that out of her argument. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this subject!
hxa7241 15y ago
> Do you guys believe in the concept of intellectual property Certainly not as an article of faith. It needs to be configured according to evidence, and that is about as far from the case as possible today. > It is vital for our whole economy That as a whole statement is definitely false, since plenty of things have nothing to do with it. And it is quite possible it is not vital to any part of the economy. Economic research has not been able to determine the value of IP (see, for example: 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3.). That means, as far as anyone knows, we might actually be better off without it. That might be surprising, but there you are. If there were no, or much limited, IP structure/law, business activity would re-arrange; it would do different things. Putting forward an argument that business could not do what it currently does rather misses that. And if, as you describe, music recording is a business where "almost every one of your products loses a lot of money", it seems there is indeed a very great deal of room for improvement economically.
Tangurena 15y ago
An exposition of how broken the music industry business model can be found in Courtney Love's essay: "Courtney Love Does The Math". There are far too many corroborating similar stories for her story to be an outlier or an aberration. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

by b1daly 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

"Vital music cultures" have existed for millennia without "viable business models", in the way we understand that term today. People like to make music, even if the reward is only attention. There might be less money in it, less commerce in it, in the future without "viable business models", but I think you're somewhat brainwashed if you think that means there won't be a "vital music culture". If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation.

ianstormtaylor 15y ago
"If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation." Dead on. If any amount of extrinsic motivation is removed from the music industry with the death of record companies I will be a very happy person.
paulhauggis 15y ago
"If anything, the music culture may be even more vital in the absence of extrinsic motivation." It's interesting how everyone seems to want to make choices for artists..without even asking them. Without a way to make money, we will see less music. Why? Because artists will be forced to get day jobs. As it is, there is a small chance you will make a full living as an artist. If anything, it will kill the indy scene because the only companies that will be able to even come close to a profit are the the ones with deep pockets (IE: the huge record labels or something like it). Like software piracy, Adobe and Microsoft can handle it. Small companies go out of business if piracy us unchecked. I've seen it happen.
- thomaslangston 15y ago
  I don't think the artists get a special role in creating copyright laws since effectively those laws are an abridgment of the freedom of speech. We can speak our minds on this issue without having to ask their permission. Given the course of recent history (i.e. ever expanding copyright terms and regulation), I don't see that more consideration for artists is warranted.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "I don't think the artists get a special role in creating copyright laws since effectively those laws are an abridgment of the freedom of speech. We can speak our minds on this issue without having to ask their permission." huh? Since when is sharing someone's copyrighted material without their permission "freedom of speech".
- redrobot5050 15y ago
  >Without a way to make money, we will see less music. Why? Because artists will be forced to get day jobs. As it is, there is a small chance you will make a full living as an artist. So? This is how it has been for centuries. Call it the invisible hand meets the art world. They can get jobs being music teachers. They can record using vintage equipment, like Blake Schwarzenbach did (used 4-track and 8-track recordings while he wrote for GamePro). >If anything, it will kill the indy scene because the only companies that will be able to even come close to a profit are the the ones with deep pockets Something tells me you don't understand the definition of "Independent Music". The fact is, the labels function as a market for pump and dump stocks, where the stock is a band or album. Independent music doesn't (or in my opinion, shouldn't) work that way. It can take 5 years for your album to blow up. (See: Mumford and Sons). You might have a bigger following only after you're dead and buried (See: Elliot Smith and Bright Eyes). You might have every single one of your fans wanting you to quit your main gig for a side project they've done (See: Death Cab For Cutie/The Postal Service). Disclaimer: I am a founder of a failed start-up company that would work with artists in a way that was designed to supplant the labels and exploit long-tail effect, etc. The sad, sad thing is that indie bands are getting picked off quicker and quicker by labels and pumped up for the first-album success. It's actually a huge issue (read up on MGMT) when the artists then try a new direction for a second album and the label is hesitant to financially support an album unless fans move the product in the first two weeks. This becomes at catch-22. How do you enjoy the success of radio play when nobody's paying to play you on the radio? This leads the labels to relegate these bands (by the second or third album) to a "we don't help you" status, forcing the band to break up or just be a small indie band forever on tour. If anything, major labels playing in the indie scene is akin to making the indie bands "build on a flood plain". TL;DR: NOPE. Artists make very little money from albums. It is known.
b1daly 15y ago
Ok, my attempt to make my point is heavy handed vis a vis intellectual property as a whole. My main frustration on this subject is that many tech and entreprenrial people, like those who hang out here, have an inconsistent perspective on intellectual property when it comes to music. In this perspective the record labels are considered rapacious and entity like Spotify as being unfairly squeezed. Actually the labels put in tremendous resources to create the product, what value added does Spotify bring? As it stands, copyright is the law of the land. The whole concept of property, including intellectual property, is what enables business as we know it to exist. Think about just trademarks and how critical they are to so many types of business. Would you feel bad for a retail store set up in a market with razor thin margins because their suppliers are asking for prices that are too high? I might feel bad but you can hardly say the suppliers are being greedy. My other frustration is a lack of acknowledgement of how many resources go into creating modern music entertainment products. It's true that there is compelling music made by amateurs, and that has always been and will continue (essentially folk musics of different flavors). But most of the recorded music that we love is made by pros. There are other ways to support it: government funding, patronage. Advertising based business models as we know them are completely dependent on our current intellectual property structure. As a point of common sense I don't think we as a society should be enforcing copyright against individuals. But to abandon intellectual property as a whole concept is a very radical proposition. BTW, the reason most music business projects lose money is inherent to the endeavour: most people don't like most music. To get a product that is successful, you have to do a lot of projects knowing that most will fail hoping for the hit that makes up for all the losses. Courtney Love's famous article http://sodacity.net/system/files/Courtney-Love_Courtney-Love-does-the-math.pdf http://sodacity.net/system/files/Courtney-Love_Courtney-Love... is disingenuous because she knows what's up with this business model and conveniently leaves that out of her argument. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this subject!

hxa7241 15y ago

> Do you guys believe in the concept of intellectual property Certainly not as an article of faith. It needs to be configured according to evidence, and that is about as far from the case as possible today. > It is vital for our whole economy That as a whole statement is definitely false, since plenty of things have nothing to do with it. And it is quite possible it is not vital to any part of the economy. Economic research has not been able to determine the value of IP (see, for example: 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3.). That means, as far as anyone knows, we might actually be better off without it. That might be surprising, but there you are. If there were no, or much limited, IP structure/law, business activity would re-arrange; it would do different things. Putting forward an argument that business could not do what it currently does rather misses that. And if, as you describe, music recording is a business where "almost every one of your products loses a lot of money", it seems there is indeed a very great deal of room for improvement economically.

Tangurena 15y ago

An exposition of how broken the music industry business model can be found in Courtney Love's essay: "Courtney Love Does The Math". There are far too many corroborating similar stories for her story to be an outlier or an aberration. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/