Also, I don't think the AskMe post makes this a double. posted by exogenous at 6:47 AM on October 23, 2007
Sad day.
Also, lucrative my ass. The guy wasn't doing it for the money. posted by ReiToei at 6:50 AM on October 23, 2007
Was OiNK really that "central" to the file-sharing chain? I mean, it was a great tracker that had virtually everything, but I fail to see how it had a really central role in the release of newer albums to the file-sharing community. I think people just leaked albums to OiNK because if you were the first to upload something you got an upload credit that you could use to download more music than you ever knew existed. In lossless format to boot. posted by ofthestrait at 6:51 AM on October 23, 2007
An IFPI spokesman said: "Once an album had been posted on the OiNK website, the users that download that music then passed the content to other websites, forums and blogs, where multiple copies were made."
He went on to say that OiNK stole an amount of music equal in area to 3 Texases and that if you stacked the music it would make a pile 1.4 miles high. posted by DU at 7:01 AM on October 23, 2007 [13 favorites]
Weird. I am listening to an album right now that I downloaded from there late last night. posted by ND¢ at 7:01 AM on October 23, 2007
Sounded like my kinda place. Rue the dead hard drive. posted by carsonb at 7:04 AM on October 23, 2007
I'm kind of conflicted about Oink - on the one hand, thanks to them I have music that I could otherwise only obtain by spending silly money on eBay, on the other, I know folk whose album was leaked via the site months before release, which seriously pissed them off, and rightly so. posted by jack_mo at 7:06 AM on October 23, 2007
If only I would have known ahead of time so that I could have downloaded like a mad man without worrying about my ratio.
lucrative. heh. everything in the media is an obvious lie. what's scary is to realize that to some degree, it always has been. cronkite, huntley and brinkley, edward r. murrow, all bought and paid for in their own settings. posted by quonsar at 7:07 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I didn't have an invite, but really, shutting down sites like this is like trying to cork a sieve. If the music industry would just get off their 20th century addiction to "units" and start thinking of how to recapture the audience, perhaps we could stop criminalizing kids who want to hear tunes.
Bootlegs and whatnot have always been a part of the industry. Heck, back in the days before Metallica became evil, they used to let tapers stand up in the sound board area to record. Bootlegs from their American concerts sent to listeners in Europe is how they finally broke the international barriers.
There will always be people like me who will pay for music, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy prepackaged, teenybopper, pop masquerading as music. At this point, if the industry wants me to buy an entire CD, they're going to have to give me a taste of what's there, or I'll just pass it by, assuming it's the same crap they've been pushing.
By the same token, if I own the actual vinyl of something, I don't feel particularly bad downloading a rip of that music. The technology exists for me to rip my own, but I don't own the tech, and someone else does. Well, yay them, and thanks for sharing.
Some of the stuff I've downloaded are things that have never been released in the American market, and I will poke myself on a rotisserie and baste myself with my own juices before I'm willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a CD of an album I bought 25 years ago and still own. That's just ridiculous.
Frankly, the entire music industry is full of evil, money grubbing, music hating, fan hating, stuffed shirt MBAs who should be clubbed like baby seals. posted by Peecabu at 7:19 AM on October 23, 2007 [9 favorites]
Also shut down last week: TV Links. So much for my access to near-complete archives of QI. posted by maudlin at 7:22 AM on October 23, 2007
Oh, man. I might not go on without TV Links. Damn!
Utter bollocks about having to pay to join or offer music yourself too (other than trying to keep a decent ratio). Terrible one-sded reporting from the Beeb there. posted by Abiezer at 7:26 AM on October 23, 2007
Well, that was a surprise entrant. I know a little bit about him and I enjoyed 'Good Night and Good Luck' - Edward R. Murrow bought and paid for, please elucidate. [Seriously, I'd like to hear, or maybe just use that new fangled mail thingy to avoid a derail]. posted by tellurian at 7:34 AM on October 23, 2007
As far as I know, Oink had less than 250k memebers, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the larger torrent places out there.
I guess they had the right 250k members. posted by sparkletone at 7:35 AM on October 23, 2007
NRHM: I will continue to favorite that comment as long as you continue you make it. It is relentlessly hilarious. posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:42 AM on October 23, 2007
God fucking damnit. posted by Skorgu at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2007
I guess they had the right 250k members.
Yes, they did. posted by signal at 7:59 AM on October 23, 2007
Don't these folks understand that every site they shut down just makes The Pirate Bay more powerful? At the very least, they're diverting important resources from suing grandmothers. posted by mkultra at 8:07 AM on October 23, 2007
Oink was definitely not lucrative. Not sure why the media is latching onto that.
Moreover, did it really "specialize" in not-yet-released albums? From my experience, it specialized in old, rare albums that were so far below the radar that the RIAA could have cared less. posted by roll truck roll at 8:10 AM on October 23, 2007
Run out of my home town, no less, which was something of a surprise. And the buggers still wouldn't give me an account. posted by holgate at 8:14 AM on October 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
Until there are no more professional musicians, anyway. posted by spitbull at 8:15 AM on October 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
The thing about Oink that was so great was the community. Oink was a way to find out about new music, find rare music and remixes, talk to other people who were really into music. I found a lot of people who were serious about it in the same way I was. I'll miss that the most I think. posted by hazyspring at 8:19 AM on October 23, 2007
Thanks, stefanie. I've trawled through YouTube for the series 5 materials and various clips, but I preferred TV Links for the older shows because they keep them in one piece instead of three slices. and they're much easier to find in a nicely sorted set of lists. Yes, I'm that lazy. posted by maudlin at 8:33 AM on October 23, 2007
Not sure why the media is latching onto that.
then you really *are* clueless. it's integral to the core of the whole deception that The Sheeple are led to beleive that someone is getting filthy rich at the expense of america, apple pie, the girl next door and the good people who bring you britney spears and nickelback. then they'll gladly support and loudly demand that the transmission / reception of TCP packets configured in certain ways and in a certain order be made a criminal offense. it's all indistinguishable from magic anyway, so the corporations have to feed them something they can respond to. "cheating driven by filthy lucre is hurting us all" is a concept The Sheeple can grasp. TCP/IP conducting P2P, not so much. posted by quonsar at 8:34 AM on October 23, 2007 [13 favorites]
Until there are no more professional musicians, anyway.
Exactly. I listen to a lot of music, so I buy a lot of music, because I want to support the musicians. Yes, I know, the evil record industry takes most of the money, etc. etc. And a lot of people use that as an excuse to take music without paying for it. But that's still depriving the musicians of money, even if it's not depriving them of as much money as it should be.
I have nothing against downloading music that's out of print or otherwise unavailable (e.g. bootlegs), and I even have nothing against downloading music if you're not sure whether you'll like it (though if you do end up liking it, you should then go and buy it). But if you want artists to keep making good music, then you should be willing to pay them to do that by buying their albums. posted by klausness at 8:35 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Until there are no more professional musicians, anyway.
posted by spitbull at 10:15 AM on October 23
Right, since there were no musicians before the RIAA. Or recording, for that matter. posted by Ynoxas at 8:36 AM on October 23, 2007
This is extremely sad, especially for people who care about obscure, out-of-print records. I know several musicians that used Oink regularly. posted by waxpancake at 8:36 AM on October 23, 2007
This little piggy went weee weee weee weee, all the way to prison. posted by Reggie Digest at 8:37 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
TV Links just linked to content hosted elsewhere, mostly in China, so anything you found there is still out there somewhere.
That's why that bust strikes me as so interesting and outrageous. I meant to post an FPP about it, but assumed someone else must have gotten to it first and then got distracted by something shiny before I could search.
But seriously, if you can bust a site that just links to illegally hosted content, isn't the whole internet now at legal risk on some level? posted by CunningLinguist at 8:54 AM on October 23, 2007
You know, when you talk about lucrative, there is lucrative in terms of money generation and lucrative in terms of gaining assets.
If you file share and download, say, 10,000 songs, you've saved yourself $10,000 for a dollar a song standard download price. Now, the dynamics of reality don't work that way because not every song is available for a dollar download and very few people would download as much music if it were not free, but we can't sit back and pretend that the downloaded music is worthless.
Hey, does the music industry need to figure out new revenue models? Yes. Are the music prices too high considering the money that goes to the actual artists? Yes. Are you still stealing music? Yes.
Let's not pretend that our common justification for sharing sites like Oink is nothing more than two wrongs make a right. Casting harsh stones at the music industry for closing down Oink while sitting back and stealing music comes off as more than a little whiney. posted by Muddler at 8:56 AM on October 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
while sitting back and stealing music comes off as more than a little whiney.
Yep, stealing music. Several few years ago I stole the entire Beatles discography. Michael Jackson doesn't own it anymore, I do. posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:04 AM on October 23, 2007 [19 favorites]
I wanted to listen to Yesterday recently and couldn't because you had stolen it TheOnlyCoolTim. You cockass! posted by ND¢ at 9:10 AM on October 23, 2007 [8 favorites]
Is Was oink better than Soulseek? I'm continually blown away by the amount of ridiculously obscure "stuff" that's available on SSX. posted by porn in the woods at 9:14 AM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
They seemed approximately the same in terms of available stuff, but Oink was Bittorrent and thus much more reliable and faster. posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:17 AM on October 23, 2007
I've always assumed that there was a lot of crossover traffic between the two, though it's hard to get lossless on SSX. posted by item at 9:23 AM on October 23, 2007
Are you still stealing music Infringing Copyright? Yes.
Fixed that for you. We all know there is a difference, no? posted by absalom at 9:23 AM on October 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
Damn, someone near me had such a good ratio as well.
I wonder how this is going to play in UK courts. Conspiracy to fraud I can see, but copyright infringement? From a tracker? I suppose they get an old judge and talk about popular beat combos having their "bits" stolen, mlud.
Any English lawyers know how this works? Has there even been a succesful tracker prosecution there? posted by bonaldi at 9:26 AM on October 23, 2007
And:
Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK. I't been a while since I've had a non work related computer that I could use to download as much music as I want. I've had an OiNK account since the site went live, and was really looking forward to dusting off that account (with a stellar ratio)... TODAY - when our new computer arrives.
Fuck everyone that had anything to do with this. Ass-fuck them with a broken bottle and no lube. posted by item at 9:28 AM on October 23, 2007 [5 favorites]
Are you still stealing music? Yes.
No. Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
ya, what happened to Death Cab's Chris Walla was stealing music... I don't think the same term should be used to describe copying. posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 9:37 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is so depressing. posted by geoff. at 9:37 AM on October 23, 2007
Quonsar nails it above, and TheOnlyCoolTim follows close behind.
Most people, including the computer literate, have not yet grasped what digital content really is. It can't be "stolen". There is no good there. Or, maybe better put, there is a good of zero value there, at least in the traditional terms of valuation.
"Stealing" a song online cannot be equated to any other form of theft because what has been stolen is, by definition, perfectly, infinitely and freely reproducible, and therefore (classically) valueless. You at least are "stealing" $1 worth of packaging if you shove a CD down your pants. In digital, there is simply no loss to the content producer, except the nebulous idea of selling less due to some indeterminate number getting it for free.
It is gross, and sloppy, extrapolation at best. There has not been a CD I have bought in the past 5 years that I have not listened to online first. Many of those I would simply have never bought had I not had access to those files. In those cases, the record companies and that artist actually benefited from my hearing it for free first.
Digital content turns every notion we have upside down.
Say J.K. spends a billion of her dollars getting scanners outlawed, since they are only used to scan in the pages of her latest Harry Potter novels and make her lose some indeterminate amount of income.
A determined individual could still take digital photos of each page. Or they could read the book into a voice recognition engine. Or they could record themselves reading the book in an audio or video file. Or they could simply type it up in Notepad.
Whatever happened to the "a computer file is just one very long integer, and numbers can't be copyrighted/trademarked"? Did that defense ever actually get tried in court?
If that is overturned, then you could conceivably copyright a song before it was written.
Talk about turning the world upside down. Could you imagine? A random number generator spitting out a file made up of 1's and 0's of the requisite length that just happened to sound exactly like 50 Cent doing "Oh Come All Ye Faithful".
Is such a thing even possible? I'm thinking this would make an excellent askme. posted by Ynoxas at 9:37 AM on October 23, 2007 [16 favorites]
Any English lawyers know how this works? Has there even been a succesful tracker prosecution there?
As interesting as that will be*, I'm more interested in how the TVLinks case will go. As others have pointed out, nailing a guy for linking to content hosted in another country because it's illegal to host in the country of residence opens up an unbelievable number of the ol' cans o' worms.
Also, any word on if us non-British users who weren't anyone special on the site should start worrying? posted by geoff. at 9:40 AM on October 23, 2007
Could you imagine? A random number generator spitting out a file made up of 1's and 0's of the requisite length that just happened to sound exactly like 50 Cent doing "Oh Come All Ye Faithful. Is such a thing even possible? "
It is, but you would need an infinite number of monkeys typing 1s and 0s..... posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 9:49 AM on October 23, 2007
Is such a thing even possible? I'm thinking this would make an excellent askme.
Not possible: for filesize n bits, there are 2^n possible files of that size. If we're making songs, ignoring the restrictions put on by being valid MP3 files, let's assume a 5 megabyte song.
5*1024*1024*8 = n = 41,943,040
2^(41,943,040) files is a lot, to understate it. posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:58 AM on October 23, 2007
Well I can stop worrying about my ratio now...
Let the whack-a-mole game continue. posted by mullingitover at 10:05 AM on October 23, 2007
Do we really want to move towards a world where artists cannot sell recordings of their music? Artists in America are already economically marginalized as it is and throwing copyright out the window will only make it even more difficult to survive.
And don't give me that old live music line. Underground artists don't make enough at the door to cover their gasoline. They need to sell CDs and records at the merch table to survive. posted by Pinwheel at 10:08 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Pinwheel, we're inexorably moving to a world where X-content-creator cannot sell X-copies of their content. Movies are one of the few exemptions, and that's only while people still value big screens, but as ticket prices tend towards £10 a pop, they're going to go online as well.
Print media is the first to feel this effect. Already newspapers can barely sell their (expensive to create) stories. The common wisdom is that newspapers "have to" work out some model to make money online while the content is free.
What is going to stop the same thing happening to music? The fact that it might be bad overall? That's not how the tragedy of the commons works. posted by bonaldi at 10:17 AM on October 23, 2007
Saying that we're "inexorably" moving towards a world without copyrights and unit sales of recorded music is denying the possibility of consumer activism on this issue.
We're inexorably moving towards a world dominated by Starbucks and Wal-mart because of economic power laws, etc. But does that mean it's fruitless to ask if that's really a good idea after all? posted by Pinwheel at 10:19 AM on October 23, 2007
Yes, file sharing will be the end of musicians making money on their work.
Whatever happened to the "a computer file is just one very long integer, and numbers can't be copyrighted/trademarked"? Did that defense ever actually get tried in court?
"And don't give me that old live music line. Underground artists don't make enough at the door to cover their gasoline. They need to sell CDs and records at the merch table to survive."
And that's where I buy my CDs, after downloading lossy versions from the internet. (Also, they can sell t-shirts). posted by klangklangston at 10:21 AM on October 23, 2007
If libraries allowed you to take home a book and KEEP it, then yes, it would put many writers out of business. posted by Pinwheel at 10:21 AM on October 23, 2007
Saying that we're "inexorably" moving towards a world without copyrights and unit sales of recorded music is denying the possibility of consumer activism on this issue.
The day we have consumer activism to pay for "free" things is the day OiNKs will fly.
Though, to be fair, FairTrade is sort-of activism to pay more for things, but it's hardly like clamouring to pay for "free" things posted by bonaldi at 10:25 AM on October 23, 2007
"And that's where I buy my CDs, after downloading lossy versions from the internet. (Also, they can sell t-shirts)."
But all we need is a slight bandwidth upgrade before FLAC and WAV files become the lingua franca of the p2p realm. Why will you buy CDs then?
Underground bands sell t-shirts now and it's not enough to allow them to quit their jobs washing dishes. We're talking about cutting out a central revenue stream from an economic class (underground musicians) that can barely afford to create and promote their art as it is. posted by Pinwheel at 10:25 AM on October 23, 2007
I never got to use Oink, but I have a lot of co-workers who are exceptionally irate about this.
I look forward to the day that administrators of sites like this coordinate with other like-minded people, and mirror the entire content of their server on several other machines, including encrypted authentication. That way, when one site goes down, withing minutes, another one is up and running with the exact same user base.
We all comment on how as soon as one goes down, another pops up. What I'm looking forward to is not just another one, but the same one popping up. Ideally, in a completely different country. posted by quin at 10:25 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sad. Oink was the only place I could find a few albums after the band gave me explicit permission to pirate them (no longer in print).
I wouldn't dismiss the lucrativeness of the site. How does one really know that the big donate button on the top of every page raised funds that went entirely to paying the hosting bills? We might actually find out as the investigation goes forward. posted by zsazsa at 10:28 AM on October 23, 2007
From a practical matter. What is the likelihood that any of this will come back to the users? posted by CCK at 10:39 AM on October 23, 2007
CCKwrites"From a practical matter. What is the likelihood that any of this will come back to the users?"
They have everyone's account information, so it's probably only a matter of time before they start rounding up the users and putting them in forced labor camps. Pretty much the same as they do any time they take down a major tracker. posted by mullingitover at 10:47 AM on October 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
Do we really want to move towards a world where artists cannot sell recordings of their music?
Mullingitover,
Should I just start shooting any police officer I see then? I mean just to be on the safe side.
Wait!
I mean should a user of OiNK start shooting... posted by CCK at 10:55 AM on October 23, 2007
it's integral to the core of the whole deception that The Sheeple are led to beleive that someone is getting filthy rich at the expense of america, apple pie, the girl next door and the good people who bring you britney spears and nickelback.
I think that's a marginal overstatement, at least in so far as that it's 10% guile and 90% lazy sound-byte reporting. Certainly RIAA etc want to continue to pretend there's no distinction between 'theft' and 'copyright infringement' and the massive corporation that own all the media outlets are not motivated to fight that in the reporting.
But you look at what a hard time the media has in talking about the concept of open source software - "people make stuff but then they GIVE IT AWAY! They're so WEIRD!" - and I think the simpler answer is that they just can't comprehend someone spending so much time and money on an endeavor that doesn't yield them financial gain. Since they can't conceive it they can't report it, so they throw in junk like "lucrative" to fit things into their worldview. posted by phearlez at 11:00 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
If libraries allowed you to take home a book and KEEP it, then yes, it would put many writers out of business.
And if downloading a CD from OiNK kept someone else from having it, you'd have a point. posted by SansPoint at 11:03 AM on October 23, 2007
"Underground bands sell t-shirts now and it's not enough to allow them to quit their jobs washing dishes."
Perhaps they should be better bands? Or at least work at being more fiscally successful bands?
I mean, I write for all sorts of weird little places and I still have to have a day job. I'd love to be able to quit and only make art and music and bound curvets in the daffodils, but I don't.
It was great when Pollard could quit being an elementary school teacher in order to put out music, but it didn't result in better music (just more of it).
"But all we need is a slight bandwidth upgrade before FLAC and WAV files become the lingua franca of the p2p realm. Why will you buy CDs then?"
Probably, though not necessarily. Is this gonna happen after I upgrade my computer to have the storage space for all that? And my sound card to support a cleaner output?
You're talking to someone who still buys vinyl. You're not going to make me feel guilty about this, sorry. posted by klangklangston at 11:07 AM on October 23, 2007
You're not going to make me feel guilty about this, sorry.
Was he trying to? I think he was just trying to argue that there are a lot of bands eking out a marginal existence from music that are going to have a harder and harder time doing so. Ok, so that doesn't bother you, but it's helpful to understand that there are people who are impacted by filesharing who aren't record industry fatcats. posted by lbergstr at 11:14 AM on October 23, 2007
Alluc is a good replacement for TV Links. posted by empath at 11:14 AM on October 23, 2007
Do we really want to move towards a world where artists cannot sell recordings of their music?
You mean like how Evian can't sell bottled water because you can get it other places for free? Or auto manufacturers can't sell cars anywhere that people can just take the bus?
Even within digital media like computer games companies manage to find ways to create differentiators and upsell things. There's no reason you have to get Halo 3 in a metal box but you can, and for more money and higher profit for the seller.
Some people will never pay for your stuff. Others always will. Fighting battles over those groups is pointless. The place the music industry seems uninterested in focusing on is those folks in the middle. The video game folks seems to be starting to Get It what with special editions and things like special-edition-only Penny Arcade comics bundled with the game. Yes, it can be scanned instead, but again: some people will never pay. They're inevitable and unimportant, and a financial distraction. posted by phearlez at 11:17 AM on October 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
Perhaps they should be better bands? Or at least work at being more fiscally successful bands?
So: who cares if life becomes more difficult for obscure artists, eh? They must suck!
Well I certainly don't see how I can argue with you there... posted by lbergstr at 11:18 AM on October 23, 2007
Perhaps they should be better bands? Or at least work at being more fiscally successful bands?
More fiscally successful how? If the only path to solvency lies at the stadium-rock level, then we're going to move towards a culture that produces more crap music.
If you buy vinyl, then you're off the hook. If you "can't remember the last time you bought a CD," feel proud of this, think that the occasional night out on the town to see a band pays the diff, and think that you're really sticking it to the man, then you're drinking kool-aid and oversimplifying a very complex issue. posted by Pinwheel at 11:18 AM on October 23, 2007
Bummer. I was looking forward to restoring my ratio during the Xmas amnesty. posted by punilux at 11:21 AM on October 23, 2007
I think he was just trying to argue that there are a lot of bands eking out a marginal existence from music that are going to have a harder and harder time doing so. Ok, so that doesn't bother you, but it's helpful to understand that there are people who are impacted by filesharing who aren't record industry fatcats.
But are they? It's a big industry and impossible to know every way people get compensated, but I have heard nothing that indicates that the "signed and no real profit will gold record #3" model has changed.
Gasoline claims aside, I still have heard nothing that indicates the people below Everclear-level are the ones taking the hit. Bare Naked Ladies managed to sell an album on a memory stick and I don't think someone like Jonathan Coulton could have had a career in the traditional model. posted by phearlez at 11:22 AM on October 23, 2007
Crap - no real profit TILL gold record #3, that should say. posted by phearlez at 11:23 AM on October 23, 2007
Do we really want to move towards a world where artists cannot sell recordings of their music?
I can think of worse worlds.
Well, I can think of worse worlds, too (I have a pretty good imagination). But that would still be a pretty bad world. Frankly, I have somewhat selfish reasons for wanting artists to make money from their music. If they make money from their music, then they can spend their time making more music, instead of washing dishes (or whatever their day job is).
"Underground bands sell t-shirts now and it's not enough to allow them to quit their jobs washing dishes."
Perhaps they should be better bands? Or at least work at being more fiscally successful bands?
Would they sell more t-shirts if they were better bands? I don't buy band t-shirts, because I don't wear them. How, concretely, is being a better band supposed to make them more fiscally successful if they aren't going to be able to sell their music? Sure there's live shows, but a non-mainstream band is lucky to break even on a tour. So is selling out (so that you can fill up stadiums and rake in the bucks from a tour) the answer? And what about musicians who basically compose in the studio, and therefore don't even have a live show to speak of?
It was great when Pollard could quit being an elementary school teacher in order to put out music, but it didn't result in better music (just more of it).
But more music is a good thing (at least if it's more music that you like). posted by klausness at 11:24 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I picture these anti-file sharing people as the guy with the acoustic guitar playing crap music nobody wants to hear in coffee houses and wondering why he can't quit his job delivering pizza and live off making music. "It must be file sharing!" he says as he walks off the stage/area in front of the window temporarily cleared of tables to bored stares. If it weren't for us people stealing music then someone would have signed your band to a major label and you'd be living in a mansion, boning super-models and just rocking all day.
I would rate these people about on par with the unemployed white guy that swears that it is affirmative action that is keeping him down and the libertarian IT guy that thinks that government regulation is all that is keeping him from finding a girlfriend and moving out of his parent's basement. posted by ND¢ at 11:25 AM on October 23, 2007 [12 favorites]
Ibergstr,
There were albums listed on OiNK that the members of the RIAA didn't deem necessary to post on iTunes. If those albums were listed there I don't think Oink would have been as popular as it was.
I don't understand the concept personally. There is a market that is untapped by the major labels, and they seem wholly uninterested in tapping it.
As long as songs on iTunes cost more in one country than in another, albums are released in one country but not another, tracks are missing from albums in one country, albums are "out of print" for whatever reason; expect file trading to continue.
I'm a music fan. I buy CDs of artists I like. If you make it impossible for me to buy those cds, I will look for alternatives. And large segments of the population apparently feel the same as I do. posted by CCK at 11:27 AM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
phearlez - a lot of the artists I love are on independent record labels that structure their deals more fairly. posted by lbergstr at 11:27 AM on October 23, 2007
LOL - I love how people skirt the fact they are breaking the law and downloading songs by saying "it's copyright infringement, not stealing." Man, that is some serious self-justification going on.
I hope that when you say that you realize that most people don't see the difference, and for good reason.
Look, if you want to justify downloading illegally, do so based upon market factors, the inequity in the system, price fixing, etc. As much as I hate to take a line from the RIAA, don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart. Even if you left a buck or two to cover the cost of the media, you can bet your ass would be in jail all the same. posted by Muddler at 11:30 AM on October 23, 2007
Everyone is taking the hit. But you know what, how are we going to stop repeating these claims that rampant downloading helps indie artists until someone does the research? But people who question this really poorly reasoned dogma are shouted down within geek cultures.
This is not a red vs. blue issue.
And the Bare Naked Ladies (who derived success from mass culture before their enlightened marketing approaches) and Jonathan Coulton are aberrant cases - not the underground that I am speaking of. posted by Pinwheel at 11:31 AM on October 23, 2007
One thing I can cede to the anti-piracy crowd: historically, being a musician has always been a guaranteed easy way to become wealthy. I mean, who's ever heard of a starving musician? Exactly.
This file sharing business could derail that gravy train for musicians.
Oh, wait, did I say musicians? I meant people with lots of capital who control access to production and distribution. posted by mullingitover at 11:35 AM on October 23, 2007 [6 favorites]
Do we really want to move towards a world where artists cannot sell recordings of their music?
Of course we're not moving toward that world, but we are gladly moving toward a world where middlemen cannot make millions off artists' work anymore. If you want to talk about stealing from artists, there it is: Actual quantifiable millions of dollars of real money, not some theoretical money that might have been.
Pinwheel: Do you want to live in a world where the quantity of new music which you can be exposed to is defined by how much money you have? Or, where the number of people who will hear a musician's music is limited to the number of CDs they can afford to make and distribute? If you do, I suggest you build a time machine and return to the previous century. posted by finite at 11:38 AM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT NEW COMPUTER CAN'T USE OBSCURE WARP SOMA SILENT REMIXES STUPID FUCK FUCK FUCK DREXCIYA OUT OF PRINT DESTROYED BACK STOCK GOD DAMMIT !@#$!$!#$!#$!
So, um, does anyone here have, uh, the Iz remix of Rumpfunk (original version Mr. Ski, Digs & Woosh of DiY Nottingham)? No?
I was about to be able to delete my wishlist on GEMM and go with the digital versions of all the rare records I've been looking for over the past decade....
ugh, like, GAK4, Elecktroids, Black Dog....
How about Cityboy, the single, by Troy Anderson? I heard only 500 were pressed and I was going to look when I got home...
sigh.
This is like when I went to buy a print off Kurt Vonnegut's web site and it was shut down because HE HAD JUST DIED. ARGH.
Muddlerwrites"Look, if you want to justify downloading illegally, do so based upon market factors, the inequity in the system, price fixing, etc. As much as I hate to take a line from the RIAA, don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart. Even if you left a buck or two to cover the cost of the media, you can bet your ass would be in jail all the same."
That's a fine dead horse you've got there. Must you flog it so mercilessly? posted by mullingitover at 11:40 AM on October 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
LOL - I love how people skirt the fact they are breaking the law and downloading songs by saying "it's copyright infringement, not stealing." Man, that is some serious self-justification going on.
It's not self-justification, it's understanding legal terminology instead of drinking RIAA koolaid. Your position is weakened if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, no matter what side you're on.
If you're going to trot around proclaiming from on high, make sure you're riding a horse, not an ass. posted by oneirodynia at 11:43 AM on October 23, 2007 [7 favorites]
One thing I can cede to the anti-piracy crowd: historically, being a musician has always been a guaranteed easy way to become wealthy. I mean, who's ever heard of a starving musician? Exactly.
This file sharing business could derail that gravy train for musicians.
So you're saying that, since most musicians are being ripped off by the record industry, it's OK to deprive those musicians of what little money they can make from their music? Yeah, that makes sense... posted by klausness at 11:44 AM on October 23, 2007
Thing that occurs to me: I have read that Oink was selling tshirts?
I wonder what those'll go for on eBay now. posted by sparkletone at 11:45 AM on October 23, 2007
MUDDLER'S NOT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID, HE'S GOT A FUCKING KOOL-AID IV. posted by quonsar at 11:45 AM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
Muddler: 15 years ago you would be in jail for shipping encryption software to a foreign country. Just because you are punished for stealing and punished for infingement does not mean they are the same crime. Period. Full Stop. Not that I really should expect any sort of intellectual honesty from you at this point, but what the hell:
theft is "Wrongful taking of property with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession." Infringment has to do with inappropriate or unauthorized used. See? posted by absalom at 11:48 AM on October 23, 2007
don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart
Of course it's different. That doesn't make it right, but it's pretty obviously different. posted by klausness at 11:49 AM on October 23, 2007
Frankly, I have somewhat selfish reasons for wanting artists to make money from their music.
there are plenty of ways to do this without getting gun-toting, lawyer-happy middlemen involved. posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 11:52 AM on October 23, 2007
There are a few ways you can make money as a musician.
1) You can sell your music.
2) You can sell merchandise.
3) You can get paid to play shows
4) You can license your music for ads, movies, or games.
5) You can ask for donations.
There are probably a few other minor ones.
In some ways number 1 is harder now because it's so much easier for people to get your music for free. Granted, in some ways 1 has gotten easier (very cheap distribution, and cheaper recording equipment)
As for number 3, it's getting a lot harder. There just aren't as many clubs as there once were, because clubs have found it far cheaper to just get a DJ to come in (the picks some tracks to play sort).
If you focus on merch sales, eventually don't you just become a jingle writer for your t-shirt brand?
Personally, I'm fine with people trading my music for free, but I do think people who are looking to make a little money off their music are going to find it harder.
In the same way, as more and more publications lose money, and writing moves to the net, I think the amount writers get paid will decrease as there will be a greater pool of talent for paying companies to choose from.
A similar thing is happening in photography where cheap technology and people that are willing to give their work away for free are leading to cheaper ways to get photos. posted by drezdn at 11:53 AM on October 23, 2007
Of course, once good 3-D fabrication printers become common enough, the only people making any money will be sellers of raw material or plans. posted by drezdn at 11:54 AM on October 23, 2007
don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart
LOL - I love how people skirt the fact they are breaking the law and downloading songs by saying "it's copyright infringement, not stealing." Man, that is some serious self-justification going on.
There may be people using that as self-justification but there are also a number of us who think it's a significant distinction regardless.
As much as I hate to take a line from the RIAA, don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart.
If your intention is to say that for certain cases it's got similar impacts, yes, that is true. If you're making the case that it's across-the-board the same then you're just wrong. Physical theft deprives Walmart of a product they could otherwise sell. Downloading that album, from Walmart's perspective, is identical to the result of your purchasing it at Circuit City instead.
And the Bare Naked Ladies (who derived success from mass culture before their enlightened marketing approaches) and Jonathan Coulton are aberrant cases - not the underground that I am speaking of.
They are aberrant to the prevailing music business culture, but examples of people who were successful in a different manner. This makes them perfectly reasonable example to bring up when people make the case that the existing business model must be maintained because no other is tenable.
That's their choice to do or not to do, but the point is that claiming the sky is falling because of file sharing and zero-degradation copy methods is demonstrably false. Maybe you don't like the new system, maybe less people overall make money, maybe it's more or less democratic in who makes the money. But models for financial gain short of royal patronage will still exist. posted by phearlez at 11:55 AM on October 23, 2007
LOL - I love how people skirt the fact they are breaking the law and downloading songs by saying "it's copyright infringement, not stealing." Man, that is some serious self-justification going on.
I hope that when you say that you realize that most people don't see the difference, and for good reason.
Look, if you want to justify downloading illegally, do so based upon market factors, the inequity in the system, price fixing, etc. As much as I hate to take a line from the RIAA, don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart. Even if you left a buck or two to cover the cost of the media, you can bet your ass would be in jail all the same.
Was that intentionally eponysterical, Muddler?
It's not skirting a fact, it's stating a fact. Copyright infringement is not stealing, no matter how much the RIAA says it is. posted by empath at 11:56 AM on October 23, 2007
People are angry about corporate music practices and they've been persuaded to believe that downloading as much music as they want is somehow making a countercultural stand.
But they're stepping on real countercultures to do it.
Pinwheel: Do you want to live in a world... where the number of people who will hear a musician's music is limited to the number of CDs they can afford to make and distribute?
Supply is almost infinite now, so that's not the issue. CDs are wasteful and need to be shown the door.
But yes, I'm willing to live in a world where I have to pay artists to listen to their work on-demand. Why wouldn't your logic apply to any industry?
If laptops could be taken for free, would it become political activism to take them? Even if it slowed Apple's ability to make them so wonderfully?
As much fun as it would be to not have to pay for music, you'd be denying a whole class of people their right to a fair living wage. posted by Pinwheel at 11:56 AM on October 23, 2007
Inaccuracies:
- Subscribers did not pay by requirement, only optionally, and certainly not to gain access.
- The claim that all of the music posted was pre-release and had never darkened a store shelf? Very wrong.
Nice that the BBC reporter was invited along for a ride in the police van, like some kind of RIAA/IFPI-approved Chris Hansen. posted by grabbingsand at 11:58 AM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies file sharing. All the rhetoric sounds driven by one's avarice and greed,with no alternative offered to the people who takes the most damage. If digital distribution is so robust and versatile, then why aren't you willing to pay for those downloads?
Granted I never got the opportunity to enjoy Oink or other file sharing sites ( which would then color my reasoning). But may of the points that the proponents of FS cede seem like excuses. I'll bet you anything the vast majority of people who torrent could give a rat's ass about the musicians or producers. posted by Student of Man at 12:03 PM on October 23, 2007
the existing business model must be maintained because no other is tenable
But no one is arguing this! We're just arguing that it would be nice if artists could be compensated for recorded music, somehow. That's not the same as arguing that everyone should buy $20 CDs, or even that filesharing should be stopped. posted by lbergstr at 12:05 PM on October 23, 2007
I'll bet you anything the vast majority of people who torrent could give a rat's ass about the musicians or producers.
This may be going too far. My feeling is that most file-traders are sitting comfortably within their feeling of self-satisfied free consumption because they made they've shut off the complaints of their super egos by feeling that they're somehow fighting on the same side as these musicians in a grand culture war.
You know? I hate the Bush administration, think art is important, comment on Mefi, steal music.
It's become a cultural badge of honor. And that's what's ridiculous about all of this. Think about it, folks. posted by Pinwheel at 12:07 PM on October 23, 2007
People are angry about corporate music practices and they've been persuaded to believe that downloading as much music as they want is somehow making a countercultural stand.
American heritage Dictionary defines counterculture as: "A culture, especially of young people, with values or lifestyles in opposition to those of the established culture." I fail to see how this differs in the slightest from the above assessment.
But they're stepping on real countercultures to do it.
A similar thing is happening in photography where cheap technology and people that are willing to give their work away for free are leading to cheaper ways to get photos.
This is what I'm saying. It's not just music, it's all "content". Most wedding photographs are now done on a flat-fee basis. It used to be a smaller up-front fee and then money off the prints, but nobody buys the prints. They buy one, then scan it.
This is not exclusive to music.
Pinwheel: As much fun as it would be to not have to pay for music, you'd be denying a whole class of people their right to a fair living wage.
It's not about fun, it's actually pretty simple economics. There used to be scarcity of supply, albeit artifically created in some senses, so there was money to be made. Now there is no scarcity, hence no money.
That people are getting squeezed or crushed is sad, but it's going to happen short of some incredibly draconian anti-market measures. So, yes, just like photographers did, newspapers do and films will have to, musicians need to come up with a new economic model.
Appeals to emotion aren't going to do it, sorry. posted by bonaldi at 12:08 PM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
Student of Manwrites"I'll bet you anything the vast majority of people who torrent could give a rat's ass about the musicians or producers."
Um, a lot of the people who torrent *are* musicians and producers. posted by mullingitover at 12:11 PM on October 23, 2007
If digital distribution is so robust and versatile, then why aren't you willing to pay for those downloads?
There are heaps and heaps of things that simply aren't offered, by anyone, anywhere. I buy a lot of things on Itunes, but there's a ton of stuff that's missing.
In the case of anything shown on PBS, those shows have already been paid for: by grants from the So-and-so foundation, pledges, and taxes. posted by oneirodynia at 12:12 PM on October 23, 2007
Are you serious?
As for [You can get paid to play shows] it's getting a lot harder. There just aren't as many clubs as there once were, because clubs have found it far cheaper to just get a DJ to come in (the picks some tracks to play sort).
What's your definition of "once were," 1910? Pre-player piano? There may be a live vs recorded music tug of war but it's driven by cultural interest, not technology - recorded music has been an available option for clubs in sufficient quality for better than forty years.
A similar thing is happening in photography where cheap technology and people that are willing to give their work away for free are leading to cheaper ways to get photos.
Photography is more than stock photos. If you want a photographic parallel to the music biz you'd be better served looking at how digital has impacted wedding photography. A decade ago you paid someone to shoot your wedding and they could be reasonably sure they'd spend a lot more money beyond the initial shoot fee to buy albums and prints.
Scanners changed that and consumer understanding of digital changed it even more - they knew the pictures were all on a chip and you weren't printing or assembling the album yourself so they didn't see why they had to put up with the photog as a gatekeeper for their access.
So now a lot of togs charge a higher base price and hand over the photos. Many still sell album services and the like but they're now dealing with the people who value that service and would rather pay for the assistance rather than a captive crowd. In some ways it's surely a harder existence but in other ways its easier. The world changes and in most cases, expertise persists in being marketable. posted by phearlez at 12:13 PM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Suing file-traders won't do it and shutting down trackers won't slow illegal file trading. You know what would?
If consumers decided not to (or that they would also buy vinyl or licensed digital copies) because it was the right thing to do, morally.
If downloading became as uncool as Starbucks and Wal-Mart, that would be a good start. posted by Pinwheel at 12:14 PM on October 23, 2007
It's become a cultural badge of honor. And that's what's ridiculous about all of this. Think about it, folks.
I don't find most straw men worthy of a lot of my pondering and yours is no different. I'm glad you've come up with a concept of what "the other side" is like and are comfortable with what you're sure they think and feel, but that doesn't make you right and doesn't obligate me to agree. posted by phearlez at 12:17 PM on October 23, 2007
If consumers decided not to (or that they would also buy vinyl or licensed digital copies) because it was the right thing to do, morally.
Are my posts invisible here? That's not how market economics works, and IT NEVER WILL. Consumers can get better-quality products AT NO COST TO THEM. They will not agitate or campaign or volunteer to PAY MORE and GET LESS.
Parallel: It really hurts newspapers when you read stories online. Seriously. Some may fold, and good newsgathering disappear. If consumers decided to buy the papers instead, that would be a Good Thing. Is it going to happen? Is it fuck. posted by bonaldi at 12:17 PM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
And, Ynoxas' point about the "digitization of music annuls it as a 'good' since it is infinitely reproducible " just could not go down the pipe with me. For example, the latest video game The Orange Box was available for download at $50 through the Developers' site. While I'm sure you could obtain the game for free if you know where to look, you would not be able to play it. While it is infinitely reproducible, it is a GOOD. That kind of good has been digital since the birth of that industry. Pro file sharers seem to see their logic as only applying in the music industry. You are lying to me and yourself. posted by Student of Man at 12:18 PM on October 23, 2007
I download a lot of music and television, and I also buy a lot of music and television (on dvd). There are a lot of people that only download music and television. They won't buy shit. The problem with the suits in charge is that they waste all their time and energy on these people. These people aren't their customers and never will be. The people in charge need to focus their attention on people who are willing to spend their money on music, and there are still plenty of people like that judging by how well Apple's iTunes store has done, and how well Radiohead did with the MP3 downloads. When it is easier for me to download the 3rd season of Battlestar Galactica than it is for me to buy it (which is something I can't actually do right now) than something is wrong. posted by chunking express at 12:18 PM on October 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
If downloading became as uncool as Starbucks and Wal-Mart, that would be a good start.
Shooter McGavin: I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast.
Happy Gilmore: [laughing] you eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
Those are two of the most financially successful businesses in modern society. I don't think you mean what you think you mean. posted by phearlez at 12:19 PM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sorry everyone, but I can't resist wasting some more space in this thread giving muddler some probably undeserved benefit of the doubt.
don't fool yourself into thinking that downloading is really any different than stealing a CD off the shelves of Walmart.
CDs cost money to manufacture and distribute, and stealing one would result in there being one less that can be sold. It really is quite different to download something than to steal it.
you can bet your ass would be in jail all the same.
Yes, stealing a CD will land you in jail. Yet, the penalty for infringing on a copyright by downloading the same CD from the internet is a large fine, and not jail. Criminal copyright infringement, like the oink admin sitting in jail today will probably be charged with, is a different matter. But it still isn't theft.
I hope that when you say that you realize that most people don't see the difference, and for good reason.
The law does see a difference, and for good reason. posted by finite at 12:19 PM on October 23, 2007
Pinwheelwrites"If consumers decided not to (or that they would also buy vinyl or licensed digital copies) because it was the right thing to do, morally. "
If you want to bring morals into this, why not start with the unconscionable copyright terms? "For a limited time..." as per the Constitution, does not mean 'forever minus a day' which is what the RIAA companies would like and are well on their way to getting.
At some point, the government's 'mandate of heaven' was lost with regard to copyright. People are just reacting appropriately. posted by mullingitover at 12:22 PM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's not how market economics works, and IT NEVER WILL. Consumers can get better-quality products AT NO COST TO THEM. They will not agitate or campaign or volunteer to PAY MORE and GET LESS.
So there is no moral component to a purchase decision? Then every nasty, evil-hearted corporation in the land dealing in scarce physical goods will triumph and there's no use in trying to campaign against them.
Just eat your McBurger and be quiet? posted by Pinwheel at 12:22 PM on October 23, 2007
Phearlez, I didn't say that there were less places for bands to play because of technology.
In the less 10-20 years, the amount of places available for bands to play has decreased because it's cheaper for a club to bring in a DJ than it is to bring in a band. Plus, you don't need a sound guy and the DJ isn't likely to start cranking their amp if the audience talks to loud.
On top of that, city council members tend to frown on live music and deny performances permits. Just look at places like Chicago for examples of the limited number of places for bands to play.
I agree that there will always be money made for the really really skilled professionals, but I think people are going to make less in the long run because the mystique of the professional photographer is less great.
-----
One thing no one ever seems to mention in these arguments is that it costs money to make music. If you live in a city, odds are you rent out a practice space. You have to pay for instruments, the gas to get to the show and the money for the website.
Then there's recording...
Personally, if someone wants their music to be available for free for download, that should be their choice, not the downloaders. posted by drezdn at 12:23 PM on October 23, 2007
If you want to bring morals into this, why not start with the unconscionable copyright terms? "For a limited time..." as per the Constitution, does not mean 'forever minus a day' which is what the RIAA companies would like and are well on their way to getting.
I agree, copyright terms are completely unreasonable.
It does not then follow that we should not pay for albums that came out last month. Do you see how you've conflated two VERY different things? posted by Pinwheel at 12:25 PM on October 23, 2007
So there is no moral component to a purchase decision? Then every nasty, evil-hearted corporation in the land dealing in scarce physical goods will triumph and there's no use in trying to campaign against them.
Er, yes! As they do. The campaigns that work against corporations are those that affect their bottom line. You don't plead with corporations to be nice, you make them -- either by government intervention, or by affecting their profits.
If you don't want to eat a McBurger, then don't. Pay someone for an EthicBurger. If there aren't enough people to make this economically viable, that company will fold. If there are, then McDonald's will begin selling them too.
But you're never going to get anywhere saying to people who are happy to pay £1 for a McBurger "hey! Pay £20 for this burger! It's ethically good, but it tastes a bit worse!"
In fact, your argument is both more difficult. "pleasepleaseplease STOP EATING THE FREE BURGERS. Take this crappy £20 ONE!" posted by bonaldi at 12:31 PM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
Pinwheelwrites"It does not then follow that we should not pay for albums that came out last month. Do you see how you've conflated two VERY different things?"
The system is broken, and by adding money to it you're only contributing to the problem. You are the problem. The first step when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. posted by mullingitover at 12:32 PM on October 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Phearlez, I didn't say that there were less places for bands to play because of technology.
You stated it was because it was cheaper to get a DJ. I'm just pointing out that that is not a remotely new condition. You say 10-20 years but why not 30? 40? Permits and things I'll give more credit to but it's not like dance clubs are so much quieter.
As far as the photogs, the mystique may be less great but most people who see someone's pictures that were taken by Uncle Bob then go hire a pro for their own wedding. Some do without, but in line with chunking's brilliant comment those are not the buyers anyway. posted by phearlez at 12:34 PM on October 23, 2007
As for the moral component: people indicate their morals by what they're prepared to pay for. If they object to battery farming, they pay for free range eggs. Any price paid is an exact indication of what that item is worth to the purchaser.
People aren't paying more for downloaded music, at least not in numbers that come close to the magnitudes downloaded. The ethics of downloading aren't worth that much to them. Music isn't worth that much to them. In a large number of cases, it's worth £0. Sorry. posted by bonaldi at 12:37 PM on October 23, 2007
So there is no moral component to a purchase decision? Then every nasty, evil-hearted corporation in the land dealing in scarce physical goods will triumph and there's no use in trying to campaign against them.
The point, Pinwheel, is that no matter how much we may want morality to drive consumer behavior it doesn't, or at least not on a scale large enough to matter. Guess what? Every nasty, evil-hearted corporation is triumphing. Sure, campaigning against them is important, but appeals to consumers' morality are rarely successful.
bonaldi isn't saying that the market is right or wrong, just that it is. Waiting for consumers to decide en masse to alter their behavior is wishful thinking of the highest order, especially when the actual ethical questions involved are as muddled as they are. posted by wemayfreeze at 12:39 PM on October 23, 2007
''I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way,'' he said. ''The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing.''
''Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity,'' he added. ''So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen.'' - Dame David Bowie 2002 posted by merocet at 12:42 PM on October 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
To anyone for whom music is worth nothing: I've known music fans and you are no music fan. But hey, if you're a philastine who didn't buy a single CD before the internet came along, no harm done.
But if you really love music but you find yourself not buying it now because you can get it free? Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're fighting "the system." posted by Pinwheel at 12:42 PM on October 23, 2007
Plus, you don't need a sound guy and the DJ isn't likely to start cranking their amp if the audience talks to loud.
As a sound guy that has primarily done events with DJs, and who has frequently wished for an automated device to smack DJs who don't know that making all of the red lights on the mixer flash is a Bad Thing, I beg to differ on both points. posted by flaterik at 12:43 PM on October 23, 2007
Pinwheelwrites"To anyone for whom music is worth nothing: I've known music fans and you are no music fan. But hey, if you're a philastine who didn't buy a single CD before the internet came along, no harm done.
"But if you really love music but you find yourself not buying it now because you can get it free? Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're fighting 'the system.'"
What about people who went to the library or taped it off the radio? posted by mullingitover at 12:44 PM on October 23, 2007
Pinwheel: from a straw man emerges the last true Scotsman. posted by bonaldi at 12:45 PM on October 23, 2007
When a band records an album out of pocket, and the record labels and retailers skim off 90% of all the profits, that is a worse affront to musicians than copyright infringement. Fans steal music; labels steal money.
The fact of the matter is that the concept of record labels (i.e. the RIAA) is completely obsolete. They are not needed at all when artists can use the internet to promote, distribute, and manufacture their work.
If artists went out on their own and offered downloads for a reasonable fee, they'd make truckloads more cash than they do currently. They could charge $3 per album and it would still be a significant pay raise.
The only missing piece of the puzzle is an online retailer who'll take no more than its fair share. It is up to the artists to organize this for themselves, since they are the only interested party. Otherwise, they'll simply continue to take the RIAA's bitch-slaps and to slowly leak their meagre earnings to the frugal masses. posted by Reggie Digest at 12:47 PM on October 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
What about people who went to the library or taped it off the radio?
Phearlez, I think part of the reason that places have stopped bringing in bands is because a DJ is more predictable and less of a hassle. If you have someone DJ they just bring in their own records, CDs, or files and play away.
Partly it's a culture change, people are possibly less interested in seeing live bands than just drinking while a DJ spins some songs. I can't speak as to what was happening 20 years ago (I would have been eight), but when I was in bands playing shows, I'd always hear how bars weren't as interested in bands.
Some do without, but in line with chunking's brilliant comment those are not the buyers anyway.
From a marketing perspective, it's a good point, and if I were promoting a band I think I'd work to do something to reward the people that buy in. What if you didn't sell albums, but fan club memberships. For $20, you get to download any of the band's tracks, show discounts, and some exclusive thing of some sort. posted by drezdn at 12:51 PM on October 23, 2007
So what about those of us who live in countries where it is expressly legal to download all the music we can eat and we pay a levy for media which goes to the artists through their industry association?
Are we unethical if we freely download? If so, why? It's not my fault if the artists don't collect enough from the media levy, after all. Is it "stealing"? If so, why? Because clearly, I can be criminally prosecuted for one but not the other. Unlike Americans, I don't even have to worry about being sued.
See, I can freely download last month's album, I am legally permitted to do so, and the government has decided how the artists, indirectly, may receive what they consider fair payment. ("That's not fair payment!" you may cry. Hey, 70-odd years of copyright protection isn't fair, either, so we can split the difference.)
Frankly, I look at the rest of your legal systems as being backwards, not mine as being aberrantly permissive. posted by ten pounds of inedita at 12:52 PM on October 23, 2007
Also, Pinwheel, the idea that countercultures are struggling or dying because of file sharing is laughable (though I recognize that actual research needs to be done to figure this one out). Because of file sharing, Kids These Days have access to ridiculously rich libraries of music. They're finding obscure shit, old shit, foreign shit. They're mixing and remixing it in new ways and sending it back out into the tubes or playing shows. They're learning about new bands and going to see them play.
I'm curious to know why you think otherwise. posted by wemayfreeze at 12:55 PM on October 23, 2007
Bonaldi: ha. I admit that I am making some sloppy rhetorical points here. But you have to admit that I have typified the views of one important archetype of the illegal file-trader scene.
"More fiscally successful how? If the only path to solvency lies at the stadium-rock level, then we're going to move towards a culture that produces more crap music."
Luckily, it doesn't. More fiscally successful means things like reducing overhead (home recording), building a local fanbase by playing out ALL THE TIME, capitalizing on merchandise, getting grants, making smart deals with distributors, engaging alternate distribution schemes, licensing your work, and establishing a reputation as a smart, professional band.
Being in a band is either essentially a job or a hobby, and if you do it right, it's a job that pays your way into being lower-middle class (for an indie musician). And for folks that don't want to throw themselves into it like a job, I don't feel bad that they have to pursue other engagements in order to make rent. posted by klangklangston at 12:5
Subscribe
posted by yeoz at 6:30 AM on October 23, 2007