| Author |
Topic: Please Explain to a Dummy! |
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 4 Jul 2005 6:14 am |
|
Tony, I believe you are missing a point by focusing on Janis Ian like you do. The reason I brought her up was to present a well written article that offers a different view, however provocative, than the standard 'Record Company Executive' view.
Have you actually read the article?
Let's face it,- most of us, whether we're songwriters, musicians, or what, lives in the world that Ian describes,- only a very marginal few makes it to the level of multi-million selling hits alá Britney & Co.
I personally know people who owns and runs indie labels, who's not especially worried about this problem at all. Of course, they don't encourage or support it, but they've decided to use the Internet for all it's worth and offer downloadable tracks, for a fee of course, and guess what? It's their experience that people are willing to pay for downloading tracks, if they're given the option. Those who won't, no matter what, would most probably never bought the tracks/CDs anyway.
Let's face it,- music piracy has been around ever since two-track tape machines and cassette players were made available to the general public, so there's nothing new here, it's only the medium that has changed.
Again - I am NOT favoring music piracy here - but what I'm saying is that the piracy is only a small part of the big record companies' problem, they have themselves to thank for much of the trouble they're in, and by focusing only on the piracy they're only sticking their head in the sand, and will eventually collapse.
Instead of going after teenagers who's downloading some Britney or Christina songs from the Internet, and making it harder for people to choose where they can play their CDs thanks to some ridiculous 'copy protection' (many people only use thir computer or DVD player for playing CDs), they should look at the insane waste of money going on in this business.
The combination of ridiculous budgets and low quality (both artistically and production wise), plus the fact that many people are simply suffering from a 'sensory overload' (hope I spelled that right..), probably contribute more to their problems than mp3 sharing. Many people simply don't buy as much music as they used to, simply because they get it 'for free' pretty much everywhere they go, whether they want to or not...
The problem, and it's solution, is not as simple and black/white as the industry wants us to believe.
Steinar
------------------
www.gregertsen.com
|
|
|
 |
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 4 Jul 2005 8:18 am
|
|
Erik, you are correct, I stand corrected..
Steinar..I am not arguing with you or anyone here..
I use Janis as the topic because in the article , which is shown here as a reference, it states her point of view, which IS NOT what the Industry standard is or should be. Her point of view as an artist / writer should be more stringent than ours...
But she is free to do whatever she chooses with the music she writtes and owns..
She is fortunate in that she is a writer that can actully perform well..Many writers are really not good singers and don't have much of a chance at a live show to draw fans.
I clearly understand what you are saying..
The argument is that even one illegal download effects someone and someones copyright protection...
it's not that , " Well it's just a few, it won't have much effect"...
If 25,000 copies of a Brittany tune are shared....not purchased ..sure it's not a big deal to Brittany..but to the writer that may reflect approx $1250..at 5 cents each in royaliies..
Do any of us want to not have that $1250 ?
I don't have ay idea how much money is lost from dowmloads and file sharing..but I know there are some folks that are loosing money..
and don't want to..
|
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 4 Jul 2005 1:06 pm
|
|
My friends and I pass the actual commercial CDs around, and it results in more sales for the artists. This is entirely within the bounds of copyright law, as no copy is made.
Also, a good word from people whose taste I trust goes a long way. I recently bought the Edgar Meyer and Ry Cooder CDs on recommendations from the Forum, without having heard either in advance. I wasn't disappointed.
Finally, there are artists and even labels that I trust to produce good products. I don't think I've ever been disappointed with a Nonesuch album or with anything by Bill Frisell, for example.
Bottom line: music downloading is totally unnecessary if you can afford to buy the music you want. Maybe the "majors" should come up with better pricing for music fans who can't pay the current retail prices.
------------------
 Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 5 Jul 2005 7:00 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| People forget that a songwriter has rights to a song and deserves to be paid no matter who is performing it. |
In my opinion, b0b's statement makes a great point, although the statement itself may not be totally accurate in all cases.
For example, my understanding is that in many instances the songwriter sells his/her rights in a given song to a publishing company [or whomever] for a lump sum fee or some such agreed upon remuneration and/or under a pre-arranged contractual agreement. This type of arrangement makes it easier for songwriters to make a living at writing songs. They don't have to shop their songs around to try to get some artist to record the song (although I'm sure that in many other instances, the songwriter retains rights to a song -- mostly in the case of singer/songwriters).
However, like I say, b0b's statement makes a very important point that goes to the core principle of the entire downloading argument.
The core principle is that without some sort of protection provided by copyright law, most song-writers would no longer have any incentive to write songs.
For example, even in cases where the songwriter sells the rights to a song before the song is even recorded, the songwriter is making money because the publishing company who pays the songwriter (thereby investing in the song) is banking on the copyright laws to provide protection which would enable a return on that investment by way of future sales of the music.
If the publishing companies stop making money through sales (i.e. legal downloads, CD's, sheetmusic, performance royalties, etc.), then they're not going to pay songwriters for songs. Likewise, if songwriters can't sell songs to the publishing companies, they're going to stop writing songs and find another way to make a living -- something that pays.
[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 05 July 2005 at 08:03 PM.] |
|
|
|
Jon Moen
From:
Canada
|
Posted 5 Jul 2005 8:39 pm
|
|
In Canada, there is a levy on any storage medium: floppy, hard drive, cd-r, cd-rw cassettes etc. It is assumed that there will be duplication of some kind going on. This levy is to be distributed to musicians through some process I haven't looked into. This levy makes the downloading and burning or copying songs apparently legal. There is a difference between downloading and making copywritten material available for others. However, the RIAA has been unable through court in Canada to get the IPs to release the names of people sharing content. The sad thing about this whole arrangement is that if you purchase cd's to make your own music available to others, the levy you pay most likely will go to some other musician.
Jon |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 6 Jul 2005 3:10 am
|
|
Just out of curiosity; Is there anyone in here who's never copied an LP to a cassette, in the old days, OR had a friend come over and copy one of your LPs to cassette? Never taped anything from radio either? How about video taping a show or a movie on TV? Never?
Again,- I totally agree that in a fair and just world everybody involved would get paid for every single track of theirs that is distributed, but it hasn't worked like that since 1965 (or whenever private copying was made possible).
I still claim that p2p sharing of mp3 is not the biggest problem of the major labels today. Take a look at their ridiculously overblown budgets, singleminded focus on hits, not allowing artists to grow over time, being owned by shareholders who care nothing about music but just want their profits as fast as possible,- and you will find the real reasons why they are in trouble. Mp3 downloads is only one little part of this, and cracking down on "Julia, age 14" for downloading songs isn't gonna solve anything.
I showed this thread to a friend of mine in the US who runs a small indie label after working with major labels for many years.
Here are some of his comments:
"One reason Metallica became so big was they handed out free cassettes in the beginning.
For you or any other working artist free downloads are good. You're not going to get major radio play so these are your promo copies.
Major labels got into trouble because they were bought by multi national corp.s who could be selling tires...they're not music people and they have shareholders to contend with.
Janis Ian speaks from her experience. If you can have any kind of a career like hers, you'd be blessed."
I also know other label owners who claim that, all in all, mp3 downloads actually generates sales because they 'spread the word'.
But perhaps we're talking about two different worlds here,- on one side, the "Britneys" who definitely suffer because of the downloading (and so does those involved, especially the songwriters), and "the rest of us", which I'd guess makes up anything between 90 and 95% of all working artists/songwriters/musicians struggling to make a living from this.
Just to present another view, so I don't come off as a one-sided advocate of copying, David Lindley is offering a different perspective on the cover of his "Twango Bango III" CD (after explaining his situation as a working musician who needs the money from the CD sales):
"So if you're going to make copies of this CD for your friends, then send me $5 for each copy you make. If you can't afford it then forget about it. But if you can afford it then send them to the P.O.Box. You'll feel better."
What he's doing is probably the only thing we can do,- appeal to the ethics of those copying.
Steinar
------------------
www.gregertsen.com
[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 July 2005 at 04:28 AM.] |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 6 Jul 2005 10:01 am
|
|
Steiner -- you've made some good points. I would like to address some of them, if I may.
| Quote: |
| Is there anyone in here who's never copied an LP to a cassette, in the old days, OR had a friend come over and copy one of your LPs to cassette? Never taped anything from radio either? How about video taping a show or a movie on TV? Never? |
I'm fairly certain that there are few people who have not done such things. However, making one or two copies of an LP or CD for personal use is legal under the "fair use" provisions of the copyright laws.
Making copies of radio and TV broadcasts for personal use is perfectly legal, as far as I know. The unauthorized re-broadcast of such copied material IS illegal. Besides, when such material is broadcast under authorization of the copyright owner, the copyright owner is usually compensated for such broadcast. So, it's not like making a copy of the broadcast is going to take money out of the copyright owner's pocket in such situations.
Moreover, when you're talking about digital copies, you're in a whole different world. That is, digital copying is different than analog copying because a digial copy of a digital master is an exact duplicate. On the other hand, an analog copy of an analog master is by nature of lower quality. An analog copy of an analog copy of an analog copy...etc. will end up being white noise.
However, if you make two digital copies of a CD and give them to two of your friends, and each of your friends does the same thing, and each of their friends does the same thing, you suddenly end up with 14 illegal exact duplicates of the initial CD. So, the owner of the copyright sold only a single CD, but there are now 15 units floating around out there.
P2P is like the above example of making CD copies, only worse. It's like taking the above example and squaring it. With P2P people have acess to more titles, so even more illegal copies can potentially be made.
| Quote: |
| "One reason Metallica became so big was they handed out free cassettes in the beginning. For you or any other working artist free downloads are good. You're not going to get major radio play so these are your promo copies. |
Maybe that's true. But the issue here is not what is good for an artist. The issue is what is fair for property owners. Copyright is a form of property that the owner has either created or purchased. The property owner has the right to determine the use of his/her property.
So, if an artist wants to give away free CD's that's perfectly fine -- as long as they own the property that they are giving away. If they are giving away copies of songs that they do not own, then that's really no different than somebody renting out part of your house (and keeping the rent money) without your permission. I don't think anybody would like that very much.
So, in my opinion, this whole entire issue is very simple: if you own the rights to a song, then do whatever the heck you want to do with it -- give it away, lock it up and throw away the key, burn it, get it gold plated, piss on it, give it wings, shoot it into outer space -- anything you want.
However, if you don't own the rights to a song, then respect the rights of the owner of that song.
|
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 6 Jul 2005 10:37 am
|
|
Tom,- as a matter of fact I agree with you on almost all points (besides the video taping of a movie. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not to me, you're still copying it from TV instead of buying the video/DVD, and someone is losing money because of that).
I think that the point I am trying to get across is that
1 - mp3 sharing doesn't hurt sales as much as we are lead to believe, and
2 - whether we like it or not, it's here to stay, simply because the technology makes it possible. 'Un-inventing' it is about as likely to happen as un-inventing the atomic bomb. We may like it or not, but it's here to stay....
So instead of sueing 14 year olds (which has happened) and implementing copy protection that only restricts the use of a CD, not whether it's possible to copy or not, we need to look into other ways to distribute our music and make money from it.
Payable digital downloads is one way to do it, and as far as I know, all experience so far shows that many are willing to pay what it cost to download a song from the website of an artist/label (I'm not sure if CD Baby offers this service, but we all know about iTunes), it's more a matter of availability than money.
Plus, as most of you probably realize by now  I am seriously p***ed at how the major labels runs their business and how they treat their artists, and then blame the kids when their sales drop. They have shot themselves in the foot long enough by now, and if they follow the dinasours into oblivion that's perfectly fine with me.
So only focusing on downloading is an oversimplification (is that a word?) of the problem, the business can pretty much blame themselves for their situation IMO. I believe there are ways to deal with the "mp3 problem", but it will NEVER go away.
I'd much rather accept this fact and concentrate on finding alternative ways to deal with it in a constructive manner, than join the major industry in their whining.
Steinar
PS - I do NOT have a p2p download program installed on my PC...... 
------------------
www.gregertsen.com
[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 July 2005 at 11:40 AM.] |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 6 Jul 2005 11:53 am
|
|
Steiner -- yes, sounds like we agree on many points.
In regard to downloading -- I think it needs to be clearly understood what type of downloading is being discussed. Of course, as you mentioned, there is legal downloading and there is illegal downloading.
Legal downloading of course is the legal purchase of a digital copy of a song fully authorized by the copyright owner. The copyright owner is being compensated for the downloaded copy of the song.
Illegal downloading would be sharing/copying of digital song files without authorization from (or compensation to)the copyright owner.
With all due respect, I don't know how anyone can say that such illegal downloading cannot hurt sales. Take my example above, where one person illegally downloads a copy of a CD then makes two copies for two friends, who each make copies for two friends, who each make copies for two friends. Now you have 15 illegal copies, which are not only copies, but exact digital copies. The copyright owner has made nothing any any of these 15 copies. Now multiply that by the number of people participating in the illegal downloading, then multiply that by the number of illegal downloads each person makes, and you can certainly see at least the potential for lost sales.
Going after little Suzy for illegally downloading a few hundred files may sound harsh but I think it's meant more to send a message that such activity cannot be tolerated if we are to preserve our present system of compensating artist for their work.
As I said in my first post above, if the big record/music publishing companies go under, and if the free-for-all file sharing is allowed to continue, then there will be no such thing as big name artists anymore because the artists will not be able to make any money.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has just recently ruled that websites such as Grokster(?) which facilitate the illegal sharing of music files will be liable for damages and or criminal penalties under the copyright laws.
I mean, think about it. If there are no more big record companies, then how are songwriters going to make decent money? If little Suzy can download a CD for free, why would she buy it? If most people who would have bought a CD instead download it, then how are the artists and/or songwriters going to make any money?
One thing I do not understand is what you mean when you say that the record companies have shot themselves in the foot. In what way? If you mean that they are suffering from a backlash due to the suits against the illegal downloaders, then I must respectfully disagree with you. I don't think that there's any evidence that such a backlash exists. And, it doesn't make sense either. If a CD is good, and if the only way to get it is to legally purchase it, then the CD will sell regardless of whether the record company has sued a couple hundred kids for stealing. |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 6 Jul 2005 12:38 pm
|
|
Let's see here... First of all, yeah, we agree on many/most things - in principal. I believe our differences is in how to deal with this situation.
I believe that by making legal downloads more accessible, many will in fact use this option instead of the illegal one. Perhaps not the "power users", but many of those looking for one or two songs by a special artist for their iPod. It's just as much about having instant accessibility than about saving a dollar by dl'ing illegally. As far as I know, this is the experience of many of those who has researched this problem and bothered to make their music easily accessible (legally) on the web.
| Quote: |
| I don't know how anyone can say that such illegal downloading cannot hurt sales. |
I'm not saying it doesn't hurt sales, only that I find it hard to believe that it hurts sales in such catastrophic numbers that it is threatening the whole industry, as we're being lead to believe now.
| Quote: |
| If there are no more big record companies, then how are songwriters going to make decent money? |
I am not against big record companies by principle (hey, I may be from Norway but I'm no communist! ), only big record companies that has stopped caring about the artists and their art, which is very much the case today.
I belive the whole industry needs a good shake-up and makeover, in order to (hopefully) get back to what it's all about (which isn't always 'easy money').
| Quote: |
| One thing I do not understand is what you mean when you say that the record companies have shot themselves in the foot. In what way? If you mean that they are suffering from a backlash due to the suits against the illegal downloaders, |
Oh no, it started long before downloading became a problem, and I believe we're at the very chore of my beef with the industry here.
- In my opinion, the industry has actually laid the ground for the dl problem, by raising a whole generatin of music buyers to focus on "the hippest" the latest "hit single", etc, and taught the kids to only care about single hits and not albums. "Why," a thirteen year old may ask, "do I have to buy the album or maxi single, when all I want is the song that I've seen Britney do on MTV for the last week? I just go to Kazaa and download it, because that song is all I want".
Add to that the fact that most of the album is just filler, the kids pay for the two songs they like and get 13 other songs that - in many cases even they realize - are total crap. What about all those "Summer Hits", Winter Hits", "Hits while you eat at McDonalds", yada yada, compilation CDs that they have released as fast as the CD burners can make them?
I seriously mean that the industry has created a generation of downloaders, I really do (mind you, I'm talking about the most commercial side of the industry here, the "Britneys". But they're also the ones suffering the most from the p2p phenomenon).
Okay, one might argue that this is nothing new, in fact this is how it was in the sixties too, before the LP became the norm. And yes, that's right, but the difference is that in the sixties there were no such thing as downloading, and only a few had the opportunity to copy, since this was before the cassette recorder and you needed a 2-track tape recorder to do that.
Then, of course, there are the issues that aren't directly connected to downloading, but every bit as important in seeing the whole picture behind the major recording industry's current problems. As I mentioned in another post,- ridiculous overspending as it is reflected in their budgets, no willingness to stick with an artist over time if he/she doesn't earn his weight on the first album,- meaning artists don't get to build a career like, for example, Bruce Springsteen did (I doubt Springsteen fans download much of his music instead of buying it), and so much more... When a company (ANY company, doesn't matter if it's a record company or a guitar manufacturer) cares more about a quick and easy profit instead of the quality of its product, it is doomed to crumble and fall sooner or later.
I love music way too much to leave it in the hands of guys like these.
Steinar
PS - one more thing that all of us who's not in the "Britney" class need to ask ourselves is this: I release a CD, and tracks from that CD has been illegally distributed in, say, 200 copies. Now,- how many of those would have bought my CD if they hadn't gotten the copy (meaning lost sales), and how many will buy the CD thanks to the copy (meaning generated sales). Will the generated sales outweigh the lost sales?
I will NOT claim to know the answer to this, but I believe it is a valid question, no matter how uncomfortable it might be.
------------------
www.gregertsen.com
[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 July 2005 at 01:43 PM.] [This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 July 2005 at 01:50 PM.] |
|
|
|
seldomfed
From:
Colorado
|
Posted 7 Jul 2005 11:44 am
|
|
Bobby wrote:
| Quote: |
| People forget that a songwriter has rights to a song and deserves to be paid no matter who is performing it. |
I'm not so sure anymore. It's a new game with all the new digital distribution channels and laws that I personally need to learn more about. This is in addtion to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC,... SoundExchange.
http://www.soundexchange.com/index.html ?
--------------------
excerpts from their web:
"SoundExchange is the first organization formed in the United States to collect performance royalties for sound recording copyright owners (SRCOs), featured and nonfeatured artists. "
----------------------
"What is a sound recording copyright owner (SRCO)?
An SRCO is a recording company or person who owns the exclusive right under the U.S. Copyright Act to perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission on one or more copyrighted sound recordings or has the right to license the public performance of one or more copyrighted sound recordings by means of a digital audio transmission. In essence, if you own the 'master' of a song, you are an SRCO."
---------------------------
"What royalties does SoundExchange administer?
SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties from statutory licenses, including:
Digital cable and satellite television services (DMX, Music Choice and Muzak)
Noninteractive "webcasters" (including original programmers and retransmissions of FCC-licensed radio stations by aggregators)
Satellite radio services (XM and SIRIUS) "
anybody hip to this aspect yet?????
chris
------------------
Chris Kennison
Colorado
|
|
|
|
Charlie McDonald
From:
out of the blue
|
Posted 7 Jul 2005 12:28 pm
|
|
"I'm not so sure anymore. It's a new game with all the new digital distribution channels and laws...."
That's kind of what I'm saying. There is a new paradigm a-brewing, one that will question ownership of intellectual property.
I predict that this will be the century of many arguments and lawsuits over first-amendment rights, and this topic is a piece of that puzzle. |
|
|
|
George Redmon
From:
Muskegon & Detroit Michigan.
|
Posted 7 Jul 2005 7:13 pm
|
|
I am still not sure on this subject yet. I am leaning towards Steinar's views on this, but ever so slightly...someone mentioned earlier in this post about the "Copyright Police"..lol too funny. If that were the case, every Mobile DJ, and {gulp hard swallow} KJ [karaoke Jock] would be behind bars, and their gear sold at auction by the FBI. These mobile DJ dudes, that do wedding and clubs that take or jobs. Buy a copy..and make 20 more for every DJ in town..and around here knock down $650 bucks for a wedding doing it! I have played clubs, where every song on the Jukebox was a copy...HOWEVER..with that being said..i still can't shed alligator tears for the greedy establishment, that has priced themselfs out of reality....
------------------
Whitney Single 12 8FL & 5 KN,keyless, dual changers Extended C6th, Webb Amp, Line6 PodXT, Goodrich Curly Chalker Volume Pedal, Match Bro, BJS Bar..I was keyless....when keyless wasn't cool....
|
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 7 Jul 2005 9:50 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| anybody hip to this aspect yet????? |
Well, as far as I know, it's still basically the same as it ever was.
Each facet of an artistic work has associated ownership rights. The copyright owner of a song owns the rights to the music/words of a song. The sound recording copyright owner owns the rights to the actual recorded version of the song. The copyright owner of the song can be the same entity as the sound recording copyright owner -- or not. A copyright owner can split up the rights -- for example, the owner can license broadcasting rights to somebody, and can license performance rights to somebody else, etc. etc. etc.
You can think of a copy right as sort of land rights. There is the basic ownership of the land, but there may also be mineral rights, timber rights, water rights, various right-of-ways or easements, etc. etc. and each of these rights might have a different owner. Furthermore, each of the owners can license or lease their rights to yet another entity. So, you can see how things can get somewhat complex in certain situations.
Depending on what is done with a song and/or recording, different royalties are due to the owner. This can be in accordance with the copyright statutes or in accordance with mutually agreed arrangements. Also, certain things cannot be done without the copyright owners permission, and some things can be done without the copyright owner's permission.
The wrinkle is that with digital technology, it's a lot easier to copy and/or transmit/broadcast recordings than before. So, the laws had to be tweaked a bit to account for this.
However, like I said -- basically it's the same deal. If a song and/or recording has an owner, that owner has certain rights that go along with ownership.
|
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 7 Jul 2005 9:51 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| I release a CD, and tracks from that CD has been illegally distributed in, say, 200 copies. Now,- how many of those would have bought my CD if they hadn't gotten the copy (meaning lost sales), and how many will buy the CD thanks to the copy (meaning generated sales). Will the generated sales outweigh the lost sales? |
Steiner, this is a good question. I would not pretend to be able to answer it either. However, I would say that regardless of the answer, or of what one's opinion of what the answer would be, the bottom line is that the copyright owner should have the ultimate say in what is done with his/her property.
[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 07 July 2005 at 10:57 PM.] |
|
|
|
