Music Industry Cocksuckers

[Alluvian]

Besides, a Word format book will not print or read as well as a paperback/hardback in the hand. If some mutton chops feel such a need to get my book out there, so long as they aren't making money off of it, I might be a bit irritated but otherwise unconcerned.

This is where comparing a book to a music cd fails.  The analogy does not work.

In order for the analogy to work, the person would be able to take the word document, press print, and get a nice hardbound copy of your book that takes maybe 10 minutes.  He can then take this book around just like if he had bought the hardcover in the store.  And he can easily print copies for his friends or send them the electronic and they could print this hard cover.  Oh, and all the materials that this magical hardcover bound 'printer' cost about 50 cents per copied book and can be bought at any local computer store.

There is physical value in a book.  The same cannot be said for music as most don't give a shit about liner notes.

[Alkiera]

Besides, a Word format book will not print or read as well as a paperback/hardback in the hand. If some mutton chops feel such a need to get my book out there, so long as they aren't making money off of it, I might be a bit irritated but otherwise unconcerned.

This is where comparing a book to a music cd fails.  The analogy does not work.

In order for the analogy to work, the person would be able to take the word document, press print, and get a nice hardbound copy of your book that takes maybe 10 minutes.  He can then take this book around just like if he had bought the hardcover in the store.  And he can easily print copies for his friends or send them the electronic and they could print this hard cover.  Oh, and all the materials that this magical hardcover bound 'printer' cost about 50 cents per copied book and can be bought at any local computer store.

There is physical value in a book.  The same cannot be said for music as most don't give a shit about liner notes.

And yet, given the massive difference in reproduction costs, I can buy 2 legit paperback books, likely 8-12 hours of original entertainment, for the cost of 1 legit CD which will hopefully last an entire hour on the first play through.  Hardback books are more expensive, but I see them as a premium I can't afford in most cases, I can wait the extra few months for paperback, or I check the hardcover out from the library(which is IP theft according to SirBruce, apparently) .  I have bought a few, as gifts or in cases where time was of the essence (my signed copy of War of Honor) or cases where the hardcover is neccesary for book integrity (the hichhiker's guide books in one volume, the reason my friend buys all of R. Jordan's book in hardcover).

Anyway, I feel this is sufficient proof that the music distribution system is screwed up.  Books have a far more difficult to produce medium(by pros or amateurs),  are arguably more entertaining, and yet are less expensive to purchase legit copies of.  Is this related to the large number of competing book publishing companies and the lack of a 'BIAA'?  Could be.  Could be.

--
Alkiera

[Arnold]

Microsoft's online music store was launched a day early today. I caught the story over at Ars. It's nice that Microsoft is offering 160kbps encodes, but I really refuse to purchase music online unless 256k/320k is offered. Lossless would be best, but I doubt that'll ever happen. $10 an album online is too much for crappy quality (to my ears).

They need to sell a license that entitles you to get the material in ANY (including future) format, including physical, for a reasonable duplication and S/H fee.

[daveNYC]

Microsoft's online music store was launched a day early today. I caught the story over at Ars. It's nice that Microsoft is offering 160kbps encodes, but I really refuse to purchase music online unless 256k/320k is offered. Lossless would be best, but I doubt that'll ever happen. $10 an album online is too much for crappy quality (to my ears).

They need to sell a license that entitles you to get the material in ANY (including future) format, including physical, for a reasonable duplication and S/H fee.

They'll never get it.

[HaemishM]

There is physical value in a book.  The same cannot be said for music as most don't give a shit about liner notes.

That's actually one of the points I was making. Until Ebook readers are as easy to handle as an actual book, the Intellectual Property itself is only a part of the product as a whole. CD's of almost exact quality can be copied and produced easier than my theoretical novel could be, so the reproduction of one of those might hurt the artist a bit more than of novels.

However, for someone who just wants to read my book or hear a CD, quality of reproduction is less of an issue than actually getting the book. In the same way the comics you and I have downloaded aren't equal to the originals, they are a good substitute, especially when you consider the difficulty inherent in finding the originals of some of those things.

Regardless of quality, as an artist, I would rather make a little money and have a lot of people read my book, than make a little more money and have absolute and total control over every single viewing of said book. If I found someone selling copies of my book, I'd sic the dogs on them like a motherfucker. If I saw my book on the P2P networks, I'd more than likely shrug and hope that some of those downloads turn into eventual sales of current and future works.

The idea of attacking people who actually want to read my book is just silly to me.

[Ironwood]

 The idea of attacking people who actually want to read my book is just silly to me.

Just out of interest, how many have you published that are actually out there making money for you at present ?

[HaemishM]

Zero, hence my use of the word "theoretical" to describe said novel earlier.

[ArtificialKid]

So will you eventually put the book up for download here if we "promise" to buy it if we like it?

[HaemishM]

Do I look stupid?

No, I won't put the book up for download for free. Yes, I would hope that anyone interested in my writing will pay for said book when/if it gets published. Depending on the contract(s) with my hypothetical publisher, I will offer an EBook version for purchase.

Will I personally attack anyone I find downloading the book for free? No, because though they aren't paying me for it, they aren't making any money off it either. If my publisher feels the need to pursue that, that's their legal right, though I won't support gestapo tactics.

Will I sue/harrass/send out attack lawyers on any motherfucker that tries to make money off of copies of my book that he is not authorized to do so, such as bootleggers on the streets? Hell yes, as that's what copyright law was SUPPOSED to do, protect the original author of a work from having some other bitch make money off his shit.

[eldaec]

as that's what copyright law was SUPPOSED to do, protect the original author of a work from having some other bitch make money off his shit.

Actually, what it is supposed to do is get as many works into the public domain as quickly as possible, so that everyone can make as much money off your shit as possible.

Too little copyright protection and there is no incentive to produce works, too much and economic 'rents' exist.

Hence the use of the word 'limited' in the US constitution.

[Elohite]

Copyright is meant to expire.  Works were supposed to enter the public domain after a period of time.  That's why Mozart cds are so cheap.  Anyone can hire an orchestra, record it, press it onto a cd.  It's why copies of Homer's Illiad and the complete works of Shakespeare are so cheap.  I believe the limit was meant to be 80 years.  This was extended in the US not so long ago.  Disney didn't want to face the prospect of losing copyright on Mickey Mouse.  If this behaviour isn't checked there will come a time when copyrights never expire and the only thing that does is stifle creativity.

[Krakrok]

Copyright is meant to expire...I believe the limit was meant to be 80 years.

Originally, try 15.

[AOFanboi]

Do I look stupid?

You don't have to be stupid to offer free downloads of books you also sell in paper form. You just need a different business model than the classic industry-oriented one.

[plangent]

Subscription based services.  It's all about the subscription based services...

I think the person who begins setting up official forums for various celebrities with subscription fees will end up minting money.  All you need is dynamic content to go along with it.  That shouldn't be hard to produce.

First, you make said celebrity post to the forums so their fans feel they are part of that scene.  Said celebrity and the more ambitious  fans can post photos, rants, et al as they vie for one another's attention.  Also (and this is the kicker), snippets and teasers of the upcoming thing said celebrity is working on can be posted to the forums to give people their money's worth, generate buzz and give the artist valuable feedback.

This could take the form of a few pages an author is having trouble getting right, a song that your favorite band rattled off while working on the next album, concept shots of the new implants your favorite pornstar is considering, etc...

I'm sure this has already been done in some form or another, but it doesn't seem to have taken hold yet.  If I'm wrong please gimme some urls.  :?>

[Hanzii]

This could take the form of a few pages an author is having trouble getting right, a song that your favorite band rattled off while working on the next album, concept shots of the new implants your favorite pornstar is considering, etc...

You ever worked in a creative endeavour?
The last thing you want is input from the unwashed masses.
That's where some MMOG designers go wrong, reading the boards, promising to implement everyones good suggestions and then pissing everyone off, when it turns out to be impossible.

Read Stephen Kings Misery for a good example of fan-influence on a creative work...

We do focus groups and listen to the general gist of what our readers want - but our own knowledge and gut feelings still supercede any reader suggestion or answered questionaire (I'm a subeditor at a highly sucessful  pc mag)

Apart from that, you're right, that people would probably pay money for a board where they felt they had the ear of the artist. A lot of artists do this allready - it's called marketing (and some like Moby seems to do it for kicks as well... but I'm sure the original suggestion of an official board came from the marketing people)

[Dark Vengeance]

Read Stephen Kings Misery for a good example of fan-influence on a creative work...

Are you suggesting we go into the offices of EA and start busting ankles with a sledgehammer? I'll go along with that.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[daveNYC]

Read Stephen Kings Misery for a good example of fan-influence on a creative work...

Are you suggesting we go into the offices of EA and start busting ankles with a sledgehammer? I'll go along with that.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Wasn't the book version of that scene much, much worse?

[Arnold]

Subscription based services.  It's all about the subscription based services...

I think the person who begins setting up official forums for various celebrities with subscription fees will end up minting money.  All you need is dynamic content to go along with it.  That shouldn't be hard to produce.

First, you make said celebrity post to the forums so their fans feel they are part of that scene.  Said celebrity and the more ambitious  fans can post photos, rants, et al as they vie for one another's attention.  Also (and this is the kicker), snippets and teasers of the upcoming thing said celebrity is working on can be posted to the forums to give people their money's worth, generate buzz and give the artist valuable feedback.

This could take the form of a few pages an author is having trouble getting right, a song that your favorite band rattled off while working on the next album, concept shots of the new implants your favorite pornstar is considering, etc...

I'm sure this has already been done in some form or another, but it doesn't seem to have taken hold yet.  If I'm wrong please gimme some urls.  :?>

I had that idea years ago.  Nowadays bands release an album every 2 or 3 years and a kid could graduate high school while waiting for new material to come out, while the singles are being replayed to death.

I thought it would be cool to setup a sbuscription service ($5 a month or so).  The band's management would book studio time a couple times a month at a tour stop.  The band could go in, cut a cover or new song in a few takes, and the single could be mixed, mastered, and uploaded to their web server.  Also, the service should give the fans more intimate access to the band - forums where the celebs post and chat sessions.  They would also get the ability to buy merchandise only available to subscribers.

[schild]

The band could go in, cut a cover or new song in a few takes, and the single could be mixed, mastered, and uploaded to their web server.  Also, the service should give the fans more intimate access to the band - forums where the celebs post and chat sessions.  They would also get the ability to buy merchandise only available to subscribers.

Last I checked, Einsterzende Neubauten was doing something like this. But uhm, I don't know a single high school kid besides me that listened to them (mind you this goes back the better part of a decade), let alone knows how to pronounce their name.

David Bowie does this as well with BowieNet.

[Romp]

the whole 'record companies going broke because of downloading' is such bullshit by the way.

All the big record companies are making more money than they ever have.

eg http://www.ars-technica.com/news/posts/20040903-4156.html

I mainly listen to dance music which you can't really get on CD anyway, and since I dont buy vinyl the only way I can listen to most of the music besides in clubs is by downloading it.  The artists who make the tracks actively encourage this because its the best way to give people access to their music and it helps them get name recognition.  And even though its a niche market they still make enough money to produce.

I firmly believe that the best music is made by people who arent in it for the money anyway.  Its the bands who are doing pub gigs and the DJs who play in clubs who are making most of the best music, not the popular artists making millions producing formulaic songs.

A true music artist is going to be happy doing their thing and making the average wage.  And the best are still going to be making fotunes just from their live shows anyway.

I would love to see the record companies go bust and CD's go out of fashion and have everyone downloading music for free but unfortunately its not going to happen.

[eldaec]

I think the person who begins setting up official forums for various celebrities with subscription fees will end up minting money.  All you need is dynamic content to go along with it.  That shouldn't be hard to produce.

Nobody is going to pay for a forum anytime soon.

And if you can make someone pay for the 'dynamic content' then it's something they'll pay for anyway.

Beats me why everyone (other than challenged marketing people) seem to believe subscription is an automatically superior tarriff system for almost everything these days.

Customers like to own things. Customers do not feel they own things when they do not pay a one off fee and get to keep that something forever. They also generate resistence to the customer signing up to what feels like a longer term commitment.

Why have digital video recorders not taken off like video tape did? Dumbass subscription systems combined with the abscence of an obvious physical form of the media. They feel too temporary for most customers.

Why have dvd's done so well, and cut so dramatically into cd sales? Exactly the same reason, you buy it, you often only watch it once, you stick on a shelf and be happy, or lend it to a friend and be happy, it's all good.

Subscription isn't bad in all circumstances of course, utilities will always be subscriptions. But utilities (internet, tv, etc included) also have the strongest history of having their margins raped of almost any sector. Why the hell do people want to be like utilities lately?

[Samwise]

Is the borrower somehow stealing the book? He hasn't paid for his use of the copyright.

Yes, he is.  Although what he's "stealing" isn't a book; it's the author's and publisher's IP, and it's not so much "stealing" as violating their rights.  He should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Okay, now I'm wildly curious.  What exactly is the maximum legal penalty for borrowing a friend's copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then reading it, thereby violating the author's rights?  How about the lender - is he an accessory to the intellectual rape of Douglas Adams's corpse?

[Jayce]

Last I checked, Einsterzende Neubauten was doing something like this. But uhm, I don't know a single high school kid besides me that listened to them (mind you this goes back the better part of a decade), let alone knows how to pronounce their name.

David Bowie does this as well with BowieNet.

Weezer did something similar with the Green Album.  They released a few versions of each song on MP3 from their site while the album was in production and solicited feedback on which version was best.  

They didn't go overboard with it and submit it to a vote or anything stupid like that.  But they let people have some influence at least.

However, most people don't consider the Green Album that great, and they haven't done it since AFAIK.  Take that as you will...

[Krakrok]

Okay, now I'm wildly curious.  What exactly is the maximum legal penalty for borrowing a friend's copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then reading it, thereby violating the author's rights?  How about the lender - is he an accessory to the intellectual rape of Douglas Adams's corpse?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if a copy right holder was so foulish as to sue over someone lending a book to someone else who then read the book, the copy right holder would be laughed out of court and potentially countersued.

Legal problems start happening when you start making and distributing copies of a copy righted work. That is after all what "copy right" means; the monopolistic right to make copies of something.

Mediums other than books like music and movies have other bullshit attached to them like "performance" rights while software usually has "licence" agreements or "terms & conditions" which are suppost to govern what you can and can't do with a piece of software.


Optimally big media copy right holders would like to have DRM hardware screwed into each of your orifices that charges ($$$) you each time you experience something they created.

[eldaec]

Okay, now I'm wildly curious.  What exactly is the maximum legal penalty for borrowing a friend's copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then reading it, thereby violating the author's rights?  How about the lender - is he an accessory to the intellectual rape of Douglas Adams's corpse?

An amount exactly equal to the loss incurred due to the lending. Arguably you could stretch this to the full sticker price of the book, technically legal exposure is lower, since the transgressor has saved the publisher all the variable costs associated with an additional copy.

Incidentaly, it remains entirely legal to sell on your copy, and then buy it back from the person you sold it to. In some countries that right is limited by the provision that you cannot sell the book for less than the price you paid for it. In other countries it is limited by the provision that you cannot sell the book for more than the price you paid for it. And in another bunch of countries again, you can only sell for exactly the price you paid for it.

[Resvrgam]

This reminds me of a new law being sponsored in legislation right now:  the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act" (or INDUCE ACT for short).

I'll quote an article found in Maximum PC that shed some light on the subject (Maximum PC, Oct.2004, Pg.16):

"Senators Orrin Hatch & Patrick Leahy recently proved that idiocy is indeed bipartisan by sponsoring  the Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act.  Under this sterling piece of legislation, it would be a crime to aid, abet, or "induce" copryright infringement.  Although the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out that this rather broad bill would make the Apple iPod, Toshiba's miniature drive in the iPod, and even a review of the iPod subject to criminal penalty, Hatch cheerfully promises that the bill is only intended to go after the "bad guys," such as the makers of file sharing applications.  If you believe him, don't call him at (202) 224-5251, or Senator Leahy at (202) 224-4242."

WTF is going on in Washington?!  How many of these corporate cock-suckers are having our senators tossing their salad?  I knew politics were bullshit but this is unbelievable!  Everyone's got everyone else's hand in someone's pocket and I'm not even getting a decent handjob!

I wonder how long it'll be before it's illegal to listen to a radio station at work?

[Murgos]

Okay, now I'm wildly curious.  What exactly is the maximum legal penalty for borrowing a friend's copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then reading it, thereby violating the author's rights?  How about the lender - is he an accessory to the intellectual rape of Douglas Adams's corpse?

An amount exactly equal to the loss incurred due to the lending. Arguably you could stretch this to the full sticker price of the book, technically legal exposure is lower, since the transgressor has saved the publisher all the variable costs associated with an additional copy.

According to this logic libraries must be racking up billions in copyright infringment penalties.  Or maybe you just don't know what your talking about?

[AOFanboi]

An amount exactly equal to the loss incurred due to the lending.

Just to be clear: You do know that what you write is merely hypothetical, yes? That due to the "first sale" doctrine, people are free to do whatever they want with the physical object they bought (the book or CD), even toss it, lend it - or sell it "second-hand" at any price the buyer is willing to pay? (Except copy it, of course. I need to add that or someone will grasp the straw that I wasn't explicit about it.)

If someone sells their own car to someone, the manufacturer does not get anything from the sale. Same holds for books and CDs. Why do you feel it should be any different?

(Then again, it's a pity that copyright - meant to protect artists - is being abused to protect what is little more than designed industrial products.)

[Righ]

The sane approach to dealing with this is already in place, and simply needs extended to include personal broadcasters and listeners.

The gross revenues of the music industry in total are around some 11 billion dollars. Which is why Steve Jobs is up to some nefarious deal in his "lawsuit settlement" with Apple Corps. He can afford to, as can most major players in other industries. Its very clear to me that with the popularity of recorded music, the industry is selling far below reasonable expectations. Too much money is being demanded of too few people. Opening voluntry collective licensing to consumers would draw a huge increase in profits for an industry that is apparently unable to grow.

Or we could just keep the status quo, and criminalize an even larger percentage of our population than we already do under the War on Drugs.

[eldaec]

According to this logic libraries must be racking up billions in copyright infringment penalties.  Or maybe you just don't know what your talking about?

Public libraries get explicit exemption.

If someone sells their own car to someone, the manufacturer does not get anything from the sale. Same holds for books and CDs. Why do you feel it should be any different?

I don't feel it should be any different, and I'm not suggesting that in practice it is any different.

A lot of stupid stuff is codified into law.

I imagine a lot of the recent copyright laws, (nonsense like it being illegal to circumvent anything the publisher views as copy protection in order  to do something that is otherwise legal) will look just as bizarre and just as rarely/never used in 50 years time.

This was kind of my hidden meaning in my last paragraph.

/em makes note to avoid being subtle in future.

Then again, it's a pity that copyright - meant to protect artists - is being abused to protect what is little more than designed industrial products.

Again, key point, copyright law is not intended to protect artists, it is intended to bring as much material into the public domain as quickly as possible. Artist or industrial protection is an interesting side effect.

This is why it's reasonsable to consider most recent changes to copyright law to be broken.

I have yet to see a coherent argument for why the original laws (where copyright expires after 15 years) ever needed extending.

[HaemishM]

The sane approach to dealing with this is already in place, and simply needs extended to include personal broadcasters and listeners.

This sounds like a great idea to me. Especially if you allow P2P programs that charge for the software to reap some of the benefits of the licensing fees by bundling the $5 in the purchase price of the software. Not that many people buy P2P software, but still.

[pack1112]

You guys need to read the Oct. issue of playboy with the interviews from perry ferral, david drahman(ok i probably fucked that up who cares), chuck D, and some record exec.   Some of the things that are said in that interview are amazing about how many artists dont care how people are getting a hold of their music just as long as its getting out there....but for every artist that says this there is one who disagrees with that sentiment...They also brought up the great point that not only does the RIAA go after the people who download music illegally, but they also support the companies and such that sell blank disks and disk burners and such.....they are making money on both ends of this....anyways its a good article and they have naked computer characters in there also!

[Righ]

Naked computer characters you say? Angelina Jolie with pistols strapped to her otherwise naked thighs?

[Alkiera]

Naked computer characters you say? Angelina Jolie with pistols strapped to her otherwise naked thighs?

I assumed he meant Lara Croft retextured with no clothes.  Far less interesting than waht you suggest.

--
Alkiera

[Merusk]

So then you both missed previous threads talking about this?

It's not Lara or Angelina.  It's Bloodrayne, the woman from the newest Leisure Suit Larry game and a few others.  Here's a worksafe link to a CNN article about it.