What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Get Her To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - An easy way to get a woman to start a conversation with you - no fancy lines required...
49 Comments
- naj0rt, on 03/03/2009, -1/+21Pfft as if music industry licensing will ever change. The real problem is that lobbyists having too much influence on the US government and law making.
- effedup, on 03/03/2009, -0/+17ban lobbyists!
- FredFredrickson, on 03/03/2009, -5/+17I honestly don't understand why some people out there thing that all copyrights / patents need to be abolished, forever. Do you not understand the implications of this?
I've heard your argument a thousand times on Digg - that if we remove patents and copyrights, people will be able to let their creativity finally run free, without fear of legal issues hampering the progress.
But as a creative person, I have to ask, why would anyone want to put hours, days, or years of work into something if their ideas could be copied by the next person free of charge? Do you not realize that the people best equipped to make money off of un-patented ideas are big "evil" corporations?
Without these protections in place, if you drew the next Mickey Mouse, or you created the next big software application, anyone could take it, copy it, and sell it - but the people who would do this and benefit the most would be the ones with the money. And unlike the way our system is set up now, they wouldn't have to give you a dime to do this.
So let's stop calling for the complete demise of the systems we have in place to protect creative people, and focus on each case individually. Just because a few software patent squatters or organizations like the MIAA use the system to their advantage does not mean the whole system is broken, or that everyone else who plays fair should be punished. - Nightfall, on 03/03/2009, -0/+11FTA:
"Plenty of musicians are showing that they can make good money by embracing new business models that have nothing to do with these antiquated licensing schemes."
Then they should do so. I know a couple local independent bands that are distributing over the internet right now and while they aren't making a living doing so, it pays for their time and some of their materials. When I talked to one of these bands a week or so ago, I asked them if they would ever sign on with a label and they said they would do it in a heartbeat. Mainly because that is where the money is. Getting your name out there and heard is the biggest thing any band can do. Then you can go on tour, make a lot of money, and make a name for yourself. If you go the route of just throwing your music out there on the internet like they have, you just won't grow unless you are very very lucky.
I hate the antiquated copyright laws as much as anyone else does, but lets face facts here. The labels are providing a service to these bands. They get all the profits from record sales, and in return, the artist gets valuable airtime on popular radio stations, interviews, and in the end a whole lot of money. The labels provide the legwork to get the music out there and the band popular. If bands like the ones I know that do make good music can do so without signing on with a label, then they will make more obviously because then they get the whole enchilada. We have seen NIN and the Barenaked Ladies do it rather successfully, but those bands were already established and popular AFTER they signed with a label. They toured already and had a fan base.
So what is a new band to do? - sivyr, on 03/03/2009, -2/+9A agree with you to a point. We still need music producers, though. Everyone seems to forget the fact that the guys in the recording studio tend to make a recorded band's sound MUCH better through their tireless efforts to improve the sound quality and master the sound for release.
People can tell me that you can do that with Logic or CuBase in your own home now. Yeah, you can. But it'll suck unless it's done by someone who really knows what they're doing and has a lot of experience doing it.
What we don't need anymore is the massive marketing conglomerates and hard-copy manufacturing efforts that can only be financed by the suits.
I just think the industry will boil down to smaller-scale recording studios, webhosting of content and viral marketing in the long run. - enantiodromia, on 03/03/2009, -1/+8this is really the RIAA's problem, not mine.
there are other license and distribution models which seem to be working fine for those artists who choose to use them.
an artist is not required to join the RIAA mafia. no one is. let the RIAA kill itself while we enjoy music they don't control. - moomoomoomoo, on 03/03/2009, -2/+9This needs to happen.
- sivyr, on 03/03/2009, -0/+7I guess I took the author's article to mean that he was hoping for a tear-down and modernization of the system, but upon thinking about it, he really didn't explicitly say that. You're right. The consequences of that would be staggering.
I'd be all for a complete modernization of copyright law. The problem with that is no country's laws ever get that kind of treatment unless you're founding a new nation.
You guys in the US sure had it right to begin with. Primo stuff, with the Constitution and checks and balances system. But seriously, you can only jury-rig the system so many times. Law is getting so obscenely complicated and riddled with loopholes and catch-alls. I wish I had a point...
I just wish there was still free land around to start a new Internet-centric country on. Then the only legal problem we'd have is deciding on what database infrastucture to store it in. - enantiodromia, on 03/03/2009, -1/+8you think the "man" doesn't get his slice of satellite radio?
- diggymow, on 03/03/2009, -0/+6That's exactly what I've been thinking about lately. What is a new band to do? Giving away music is all well and good for established artists but a new band can't make enough many playing it's local town live to move on anywhere. A lot of bands don't want to sign with labels because the labels clearly don't understand the current market but they can't make enough money to get anywhere themselves. It's a big question and it gets ignored all the time.
- Nightfall, on 03/03/2009, -0/+6I agree diggymow.
The band that I used in my example has been trying to break out of the local scene for a while now. It plays in local venues and bars with decent success. The problem is that they haven't been able to get their name out there with a label. Sure, they have an internet site and hand their albums and music out for free and just ask for donations. The end result is a little money coming in from the web but not much. I consider them to be a better band than some stuff I have heard on the air, but thats the difference between a label giving you airtime and struggling to make it up the ladder.
A lot more needs to be done than just have every band go independent and sell their own stuff. The labels need to not be a driving force for radio stations. The FCC needs to relax their control over what can be heard over the radio. Those are just a few examples. - flaterates, on 03/03/2009, -1/+6Read the stuff on copyright from E.F.F., they've got it right. The music industry is at a loss if they can't exploit their artists and screw you in the process.
- sivyr, on 03/03/2009, -1/+6Start a civil war. That'll show them.
- inactive, on 03/03/2009, -4/+9The way its going the music companies and the RIAA will patented all the musical instruments soon and make you pay a fee to buy one and play it... I shouldnt have said that now their getting ideas
- MatthewDuke, on 03/03/2009, -0/+5This only applies to artists that voluntarily enter into a licensing agreement under ASCAP or BMI. You don't have to join those services. I've written and published lots of music...it's not under ASCAP. Just email me if you want to use it. I'll draw up something and we can sign it. It will take a few hours, max. Done. We can negotiate for any use you want, because I didn't sign with a "one size fits all" licensing entity to be the middleman.
What's the problem with the laws again? That all the artists join the beurocracy of ASCAP and then potential licensees complain when they have to deal with that lumbering entity? Not really a "copyright law" issue. I think the author misunderstands the situation. - Balanced, on 03/03/2009, -1/+6So, how do you like working for Sirius?
- lordmike, on 03/03/2009, -2/+7You can't defend the current system. It is arbitrary and capricious. Why should a song by copyrighted for 150 years? How does the artist benefit from that? Originally, copyrights were limited to 26 years... we've gotten away from the original purpose of copyrights and have instead created a feudal system designed to rape consumers for the benefit of Disney.
- toekneebullard, on 03/03/2009, -1/+6sivyr is right, for the most part.
Yeah, electronic music is easy to make in Garageband and the like, but micing a drumset is still a pretty big undertaking. And besides the engineering side of it, Producers do exist for a reason. Not rap "producas" but real Producers, people with experience on how to get the very best out of a musician. That's an art form in and of itself. - diggymow, on 03/03/2009, -1/+6The real money is not related to live performances at all. I'm sick of hearing it. Big bands tour for a profit, many small bands tour at a loss or just to break even to gain some exposure. I agree with most of what you've got but people need to realize that touring is not a good way to make money and for new bands it's very hard to make any money at all touring. Hell even Pink Floyd lost money on the tour for The Wall.
- oxdeltaxo, on 03/03/2009, -2/+6Which is why The "Recording" Industry is un-necessary now that we have the miracle of the internet. The music industry will be around still, we just do not need the studios to produce a record any more.
- aurorous, on 03/03/2009, -2/+6And if you had actually read the article it points out that trying to secure the myriad of licenses to stream even a single song or video can take days. If we do this on a case by case basis todays copyright issues will become a generational issue to be solved by our great great grandchildren.
The article calls for scrapping the current system of licenses on top of licenses with more licenses thrown in for good measure and replace it with something fair. You know fair? It's the exact opposite of what the Music and Movie industries are advocating. - bacon_skoda, on 03/03/2009, -0/+4then you'll just have state and local lobbyists
- diggduggjoe, on 03/03/2009, -3/+7You are close, but not quite there. We reduce the government to its constitutionally valid role and without power to wield lobbyists become unnecessary. Lobbyists are not the source, but a result of the ever expanding power we allow the federal government to have.
If, we need laws regarding everyday life, that is the place of state and local governments to deal with. A great example is how some congressmen wish to ban primates as pets. The only problem is they do not have the authority (outsiide of DC) to do it. Unfortunately, the power hungry bastards do not understand that. THAT is the problem.
The debt we have? Again, a result of congressmen thinking they have the right to take one person's money and give it to another. They also feel they have the right to borrow against the future earnings of all of us and our progeny. - MatthewDuke, on 03/03/2009, -1/+5There is compulsory licensing for music. The statutory rate is 9 cents (last time I checked), meaning if you want to cover a song and distribute it, you pay the artist 9 cents per copy. The artist has no say and cannot prevent you from doing so, as long as you send the check covering your statutory fees. I think this is reasonable.
- FredFredrickson, on 03/03/2009, -0/+4That business model only works if the band has fame enough to support it, though. A garage band that's just starting out can't get enough exposure to make decent internet sales.
- eleete, on 03/03/2009, -1/+4Intellectual Property - Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. - stubear, on 03/03/2009, -3/+6I really don't understand why there is this desire to kill copyright and force the music industry to adopt a business model they don't want. If musicians can truly make $4.2 million giving music away then more and more will and the music industry will either have to adapt or die on its own. This is the way things work. Why should they be forced to eliminate thousands of contracts and give up rights they rightfully own? Give music away and prove the model works and everyone else will follow.
- inactive, on 03/03/2009, -0/+3The old distribution model does not fit well with our current technology. It is time to cut the middle man and go directly to the artist. The sad part is that most famous artists today have signed a long term deal with the greedy music labels and even if they leave, the music labels own copyrights on the music those artists created. Once you sign with them you lose, THEY win. Always.
I stopped buying music a long time ago, if I feel like listening to some I turn on the radio. - oxdeltaxo, on 03/03/2009, -0/+3K, people my words are being dragged out.
I said the "RECORDING" industry is un-necessary. That means disks that are marked up to 10 x their value.
I use the term "MUSIC" industry as a different entity. As in people still produce music, but don't price it stupidly becuase they need to ship a disc and its packaging. Doesn't mean there wont be discs produced, but they will be more of a collectors item, like records. - diggduggjoe, on 03/03/2009, -1/+3You will always have state and local lobbyists, but if you keep the size of government low it will be manageable. Plus their is one state and local lobbyist that should actually participate and the proximity helps. You.
- killdashnine, on 03/03/2009, -2/+4Moot discussion, really. Music is meant to be shared, and is on a regular basis. Any person of even sub-average intelligence can get a copy of a song if they want it. THAT presents the biggest problem to the "Music Industry", or at least to the executives who've made a dandy living for many years off the fruits of artists labors.
Fact is that a new business model is here for the industry, one for which artists ultimately take responsibility for their own existence. It's in their best interest to see their music become popular ... in fact spread to anyone who wants to listen and totally free of charge. Any other model limits you. The real money is related to live performances, public appearances, and other goods associated with your brand. - imronburgundy83, on 03/03/2009, -0/+2I don't. I own a satellite radio. Then everyone can sort of listen to what they want to but the RIAA can't completely ***** over the artists by taking all the profits of record sales.
- aceslick911, on 03/03/2009, -1/+3"Legal innovator in music"
That's pretty much an oxymoron. - MatthewDuke, on 03/03/2009, -0/+2Exactly. It's not really a copyright law issue. It's an issue that BMI/ASCAP owns all the publishing rights to the "good" songs. But so what? Just go find some indie songs to use in whatever your project is.
- timransom, on 03/03/2009, -2/+4"Fact is that a new business model is here for the industry, one for which artists ultimately take responsibility for their own existence. It's in their best interest to see their music become popular ... in fact spread to anyone who wants to listen and totally free of charge. Any other model limits you."
Yes, and *you* should also work for free and hope that someone notices and gives you money to live on. After all, it only takes years of practice to get any good on an instrument! Musicians *must* spend those thousands of hours, plus countless dollars on instruments, practice space, etc and *then* a few grand more making a decent recording (with an actual engineer, not a friend with Pro Tools on their laptop), and then give it away to you for free! After all, all us musicians are obviously independently wealthy! And really, I mean ******* some guy like BB King! If he wants money for his art, let him drag his tired old ass out on tour! And he better have a new album of music to give away!
"The real money is related to live performances, public appearances, and other goods associated with your brand. "
You are obviously not a musician, nor do you know any. - jeffiek, on 03/03/2009, -2/+4You can find an excellent rebuttal to your arguments here:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again ...
Don't worry. It's free.
Shakespeare wrote all his works with no copyright. Since copyrights - no more Shakespeares. Hmmmmm.
Anyway, just how much incentive does a copyright that lasts decades after your death motivate you? It does benefit the holders of older works like Disney. I really don't care if Disney makes a buck off dead artists. Do you? - FredFredrickson, on 03/03/2009, -2/+3"Shakespeare wrote all his works with no copyright. Since copyrights - no more Shakespeares. Hmmmmm."
Well Hitler was around a long time ago, but since then we've gotten the iPod. I guess that means that iPods keep Hitler from happening again.
Do you see how idiotic this logic is. - bacon_skoda, on 03/03/2009, -1/+2amen (break) brother
- sivyr, on 03/04/2009, -0/+0You weren't really specific. The "Recording" industry happens to include all of the aforementioned things: Recording, Production, Marketing, Manufacturing, Transport. Just because you put quotes around a word doesn't mean that everyone gets your "meaning". Last I checked, "Recording" was not synonymous with "10x markup".
The reason they charge so much is there's lot of people involved in what goes into a CD release, and because people will pay it. And well, the guys at the top of the chain of command are greedy bastards. But, if the demand is there, they can charge that much. If people won't buy it for that rate, they'll have to cut the price down, but people buy anyway. I'd just like to see it where we can buy an album for 1/2 - 2/3 as much and see half of that go to the artist(s) instead of like 10% or less. It's just a matter of cutting the fat. - bacon_skoda, on 03/03/2009, -2/+2This is super lame.
- killdashnine, on 03/04/2009, -2/+2Most musicians I know work by getting gigs and trying to reach their fan base. Most know they'll never make it so they have day jobs. The bands that I have known and who eventually "sold out" to pursue greatness found it wasn't worth the effort. They made more money before doing what they loved without a label's pressure.
The system is flawed and ultimately it will right itself by a free and/or inexpensive distribution mechanism that's widely accepted by all. I hate to remind people that it's irrelevant whether they think it's right or wrong ... Pandora's Box is quite literally open for music and licensing just doesn't hold. It's been proven over and over that it only helps the musicians. - vanbacon, on 03/04/2009, -1/+1Perhaps you don't understand that by digitizing any information you have effectively any copyright on that information obsolete.
In short copyright law needs to change. - diggymow, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1Yeah making records and touring is free. Thank ***** for that! What a great day it was when it was announced all pro level studios and producers announced they were going to provide all their services at no cost!
/s
New artists still need support and funding from someone. Until a new party steps up to do it the labels still need to exists. As ***** up and backward as they might be. - Finalreminder, on 03/03/2009, -5/+4You didn't read the article, or you did and didn't get it.
- imronburgundy83, on 03/03/2009, -4/+2We should all just pay $12/ mo for a Sirius radio and no one buy any music whatsoever. Then hopefully whoever the "man" is in the music industry will go bankrupt and leave it alone. The music industry will therefore be able to rebuild itself.
- 1ncu3us, on 03/03/2009, -4/+2I heart the internets
- mbraynard, on 03/03/2009, -9/+6How about - the music industry scraps licensing when techdirt removes ALL advertisements.
Because if you can have a music industry without revenue, you can certainly have a crappy blog without revenue. - TenaciousG86, on 03/03/2009, -3/+0Good Luck
- Mentat44, on 03/03/2009, -4/+0I'd like to see a system like the one for classical music where both the performers and composers of the music get credit and recgonition. If you're a songwriter/musician then you deserve all the credit but there are too many "artists" out there today who are associated with songs that could have been sung better by someone else.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is