RIAA's New Play Against Digital Downloads

[Kaon]

i think all artists should give away their music for free as much as possible, in some weak attempt to overthrow the current system that enables tonnes of garbled faecal matter (or "pop" music) to surge out pointless and artless production companies. and of course to stop wasting all the plastic that gets put into cds. any person who wants to make music should consider doing it as a passion as opposed to a job. if people want to see you perform live, you then have the potential to make a job from it

[djalexlaine]

it is not illegal to construct a program that shares files. a programmer can just say it was intended for free files. put a disclaimer in and the programmer is free of all accusation.

giving away music is one of the worst ideas ever. honestly, it would kill essentially all professional artists.

[DvlsAdvct]

Yeah, I actually disagree with music being free. How can you then justify getting paid as DJ at all? If an artist does not receive any payment for the creation of the music, without which we would not have any gigs, why should we be paid for our services of recreating that music in a recorded fashion?

Artists should be compensated for the work they have copywritten and packaged, with art and lyric sheets, etc.. If they are not tours will be almost impossible. Especially for independent artists where the sales of CDs can lead to a greater income than touring. Hell, I know artists that made no money touring unless they sell merch. *shrug*

I think that the system should be restructured. A CD with 10 tracks for $20 is excessive. If all CDs were between $7 and $12 I would still be buying CDs all the time. *shrug* But that's not the way it goes.

[steveboyett]

Whatever "should" be the case, the genie is already out of the bottle. Cheap and easy replication and distribution of information -- and that includes any digitally rendered art -- is here to stay. So the business model has to change.

Everybody talks as if the right to make money from a percentage of the proceeds from sales of recorded music by third parties is somehow built into the fabric of the universe. It's a recent phenomenon. Artists didn't expect to make a living selling their work until the late 19th to early 20th centuries, and that only because technology allowed reproductions of the work to be made and sold. That's why copyright law was enacted in the first place.

Now technology has outpaced the intent of copyright and the 20th century model simply doesn't apply anymore. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is right; that's the way it is. So artists, companies, middlemen, and manufacturers have to adapt or die.

The RIAA and major labels are in the position of typesetters and pre-press services when desktop publication came about. Should we have halted that development so they could earn a living? Do you know why the Teamsters are called teamsters? Cuz they were a union of people who drove horses that drove cabs. I can list literally hundreds more jobs and businesses outmoded or altered beyond recognition by technological development. Without exception, efforts to curb the development itself have failed miserably. You can't unring this bell. I guarantee you people will find a way to profit from all this. Those who insist on clinging to the outmoded models will themselves become quickly outmoded.

[BentoSan]

I completely agree with SteveBoyett

Its here to stay, get with the program, adapt or go the way of the dinosaur.

Personally i think there needs to be some drastic changes to society as a whole, in such a way that we can get rid of the cause of all these problems - money.

Artists having to travel around to get gigs to make a living is just the fallout of a capitalist society surounded by technology. If you dont like that there is only one real option - to push for a moneyless society. That is the only way an artist is ever going to be able to make music in the comfort of his own home and be able to live.

If you like capitalism then artists not being able to dedicate their time to just making music in the studio is the price that has to be payed.

So between now and the time that we form a new structure for society artists are going to have to find otherways to pay the bills - no ammount of argueing over who should pay for what is going to change that fact.

[nemo]

What we need is an Internet Revolution. Boycott big ISP's and start to build our own WAN's... People are too lazy though, and in the end, the good people will be fucked because of a bunch of morons

I am compiling some data over artists and labels, and as it looks right now, it is only the labels that are not doing any money, as the artists mostly do not have to give the label ANY money for live and dj gigs.

The future for producing acts are not with Selling music, it is with performing it, and go away from the big shitty labels that only live to suck the money from us small ones.

Free Net Labels for the WIN!

[Sc1C]

I think it's time to start using the free wireless down the pub/cafe...

[djalexlaine]

holy crap... where to begin...
1: money is not the problem, its human greed. you take money out of society, people will lust for something else, political/military power, land, resources, influence. there will always be people who want more of something and are willing to do whatever they have to to get it. take money out of the equation and more then likely there will probably be worldwide poverty. people will want to do nothing or only what they want. which will leave out important roles in society (garbage men etc.). most of those workers do it because they have to, not because they want to.

2: no businessman will EVER release music on their label without taking a cut. there are VERY few situations that i would perform a service for someone without expecting something in return. if there is nothing in it for me, why would i put my effort and time (and therefore money) into it. if i ever find out that a label is doing that, i would probably never buy from them.

3: artists dont pay labels when they gig, but most successful artists have an agent, which takes a cut.

[DvlsAdvct]

Yes, the industry needs to adapt. We can't put the cat back in the bag (I love these sayings: unring the bell, etc. etc.) of course, but if you spend your time screwing the artist you don't actually help anything.

The record labels need to be removed from the equation. The large labels are almost pointless at this point. Artists don't need someone to provide recording space cause they can do the bulk of it in their bedrooms, or someone's basement. They don't need the huge promotion as much cause they have the internet. It's all changing.

And Steve, that whole "Artists not making a living thing"... I kinda call bullshit on it. Yes, the style of living was very different, but there were professional performers. They also worked fields and farmed, of course, but there were avenues to make a living as a performer/artist (actors, painters, musicians, etc.). The difference is that they weren't paid for recorded work cause there wasn't any. Though painters/sculptors would be paid for a finished product, there could be no replicas.

Now, however, there is recorded music. Even if it is being distributed over the internet, it is a copywritten good that can be duplicated in its entirety (unlike a live performance) and that the artist put a lot of work into. I don't think they should be forced to give it away because there is an internet. The model should change, definitely. But they should still be compensated for their work. I think that means removing these large record labels.

But once again, a lot of work goes into running those things and to expect people to do it for no return is kinda cruel. Yeah the love of it is important, but don't you think that there should be compensation involved? I know it's great that we all want free music and everything but how can you expect people to keep doing it without a source of income beyond playing live? Especially with all of the music that will be floating around that no one will ever see a return for, but we'll get paid for reproducing in a live setting.

I just don't see it as a fair arrangement.

[steveboyett]

And Steve, that whole "Artists not making a living thing"... I kinda call bullshit on it. Yes, the style of living was very different, but there were professional performers. They also worked fields and farmed, of course, but there were avenues to make a living as a performer/artist (actors, painters, musicians, etc.). The difference is that they weren't paid for recorded work cause there wasn't any. Though painters/sculptors would be paid for a finished product, there could be no replicas.
.

So where's the bullshit? You just restated what I said: artists did not expect to make a living selling reproductions of their work.

However, they didn't work fields. They had patrons. They became part of bureaucracies -- church, feudal lord, noble, university, even apprenticeships to established artists. Or in the case of musicians, they were troubadors supported by the reciprocal good will of their audiences. Even through the 1920s, musicians, songwriters, and what we'd nowadays call labels their money through the sale of sheet music, because there wasn't much money in the sale of recorded works.

As for reforming society so that anyone's ideas of fairness can come into play -- good luck with that. I'll count on capitalism's admirable and frightening versatility to come up with new business models. The grassroots rise of Creative Commons is proof that there are plenty of artists out there who are happy to circumvent the traditional process altogether.

It's already over, guys. The comet has hit. The dinosaurs are wondering why it's getting cold. Meanwhile the little mammals are running around foraging.