Ad-Sponsored Music Piracy is a Mythical Threat to Musicians
David Lowery, musician with Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven supports Trichordist and is angry that recorded music doesn’t pay like it used to. (Clinton Steeds CC-BY)
A small but growing number of formerly well-compensated musicians are rallying around a new empty catch phrase: “ad-sponsored piracy”.
As far as I can tell, this idea gestated in the bitter womb of The Trichordist, an echo chamber for musicians who are too scared of changes in technology to discuss solutions. Instead, they spew dangerous propaganda about the “new exploiters” of musicians, namely technology companies. Though they continually remind readers that they’re “fighting for the artist”, though there seems to be no sort of plan or strategy other than complaining.
Look, I think we can all agree all types of businesses exploit people on a fairly regular basis. But I believe I’ve made it clear that technology companies are more ethical that the business forces that dominated music in the past. They are far from perfect, but at least they’re trying to find solutions.
The Trichordist went way out on a limb, grabbing screenshots of ads from major corporations being displayed alongside free music downloads of popular artists. This shock-and-awe tactic is presumably to incite fans to petition the advertisers to pull their ads from these sites.
Unsurprisingly, this attempt has backfired horribly. When the Dead Kennedys and Lou Reed posted the aforementioned Trichordist posts on their Facebook pages, their fans were quick to point out how stupid the posts were, and how out of touch Trichordist and the artists (or more likely, their embittered management) were for posting them.
Eric Kennedy wrote on the Dead Kennedys page: “…that shit is from a year ago, and I can pretty much guarantee that site doled out more viruses than songs. Stick to reposting whatever Black Flag is posting on FB in the future.”
Jay Conner added: “It is utterly astounding that somebody directly involved in the industry on both the business and artistic sides could be this uneducated about how internet advertising works. Particularly since he, you know, runs a blog dedicated to the internet and its ethics.”
Here’s the problem with so-called “ad-sponsored piracy”: it’s a mythical threat. It’s a fake problem cooked up by butthurt musicians who saw their market share crumble when the music business model shifted away from charging for access to recorded music.
I don’t have to get long-winded to prove it. Anyone with a basic understanding of how Internet advertising works understands that these ads appearing on these sites does not equate to companies sponsoring the site or its contents. It’s doubtful they even know where 99% of their ads appear.
And even if they did, anyone with a basic understanding of copyright law and how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act works knows that any site that makes available copyright infringing material must remove it immediately at the request of the rights holders. Reed and the Kennedys can play the victim all they want, but if they feel their copyrights are being infringed, they do have legal recourse to deal with it. Instead they are just complaining, and their fans are totally turned off by it.
Furthermore, even if we assume these sites were committing copyright infringement, most people understand that copyright law — and much of society, really — has been hijacked by corporate interests. In reality, free access to music is a good thing for most musicians because a chance to be heard is a chance to be paid. Pre-Internet, very few artists were heard, a minority were paid, and a tiny minority were paid fairly.
In fact, I think Lou Reed and Dead Kennedys would actually benefit from having their music available as a free download, largely by tech-savvy young people. If you look at the artistic merit of both these artists, I think popular opinion would agree they’ve been on the decline creatively or at least nowhere near the work they’re widely known for. Let’s say nine out of ten kids might come along and download “Walk on the Wild Side” and they hate it, or they like it but not enough to be curious about discovering more Lou Reed tunes (purely hypothetical, because kids stream music these days). One out of ten is going to love it so much they’ll seek out more, and along the way there will be plenty of opportunities to pay the artist far more than what they would make selling the track on iTunes to ten kids. That’s the new business of music, and it’s a much more fair shake for musicians than one given by the labels, lawyers and lobbyists of the past.
As for the Dead Kennedys? I’m sorry, but they’re not the Dead Kennedys if Jello isn’t in the band. He’s on record calling the band a ‘cash scam’ and that’s what the band is purely about now: making money. The art is gone. Forget musicians, fans are being exploited.
So you see folks, the myth of “ad-sponsored piracy” is really just the product of desperate musicians at the end of their careers. The primary purpose of copyright law is to create a rich and thriving culture — economic compensation is a part of it, but not the whole. Why would we deny thousands of musicians the right to be heard and to be paid just so washed-up artists like Dead Kennedys and Lou Reed (more accurately, their buisiness teams and labels) can squeeze some more dollars out of a good run that happened decades ago.
If The Trichordist were serious about fighting against musician exploitation, they would be fighting against the corporate corruption of copyright and fighting for Internet freedom. By their rationale, even Spotify qualifies as ad-sponsored piracy because of its almost non-existent royalty payments in the face of hundreds of millions of dollars of ad and subscriber revenue. But Spotify pays 70% of revenue to artists, just like iTunes. Somehow one is morally bankrupt and the other perfectly legitimate. It’s absurd. I’m no great champion of Spotify, but put up against iTunes they look like Mother Theresa. And like I said, music downloads are approaching their high water mark and will be all but a memory as a new generation grows up on streaming, so the myth is already hopelessly outdated.
In the future, I would like to see The Trichordist discussing some actual solutions instead of throwing tantrums. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you some topics:
• Building a culture of entrepreneurship among musicians
• Crowdfunding as a way to finance an album without signing an exploitative contract with a label
• Marketing as discovery, not as manufacturing popularity or generating music sales
• Music for music’s sake, not as a product but as a service
• How digital services for musicians democratize the industry
• How digital technology dramatically cuts the expense of music production and marketing
You do realize that Google is tracking over 200,000 infringing domains that do not comply or recognize the DMCA right? So your entire theory is bonk given that if there is no DMCA enforcement and there is no mechanism against infringing sites profiting by distributing the artists music illegally.
I realize, but I don’t see how that changes anything. There are always going to be domains that don’t comply with the DMCA, just as there will always be citizens who don’t obey the law. But there absolutely is a mechanism against infringing sites. There is appropriate legal recourse for that under both the DMCA itself and the many international IP treaties (if the domain is outside U.S. jurisdiction, as it often is). You can claim they are doing something illegal, but until legal action is taken, these domains are not guilty of anything. You should do more research into international copyright treaties.
Google has not felt compelled to “blacklist” these 200,000 domains (an exaggerated number to be sure) because it is under no legal obligation to do so. Case closed.
It seems like you’re trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it’s that same kind of dangerous thinking that is threatening Internet freedom right now. I think your comment is bonk.
Oh, and here’s what the Ad Tech Industry says itself:
http://digiday.com/platforms/why-is-ad-tech-still-funding-piracy/
And then there’s this from the White House, because you know, this is such a “mythical” issue that it requires the attention of the President of the United States of America:
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130715-905698.html
Did I say it was a “mythical” issue? No, I said it was a “mythical threat”. The myth is that somehow “ad-sponsored piracy” is a threat to musicians.
The links you provide only prove that it is a threat to the corporations controlling the IP industry. They are using their enormous lobbying and legal resources to fight it. But there is no threat to musicians.
Are the advertisers sponsoring or supporting the domains? Of course. Does that equate to sponsorship of copyright infringement? No. Even if a court of law finds the domains liable for copyright infringement, the advertisers are in no way LIABLE for the copyright infringement. The best legal argument you could make would be to prove that the advertisers knew these sites were infringing, which is notoriously hard to prove in a court of law. Otherwise, they are well within their rights to advertise where the most traffic is.
You fail to grasp the reason this fake problem exists in the first place. Advertisers want to be where the traffic is. All the traffic is on the torrent sites because that’s what musicians and their fans want. The only ones who don’t want it are those who profited from an unfair system of exploitation of rights to access recorded music.
Furthermore, so-called piracy wouldn’t just magically disappear if these companies stopped paying for ads. It will only evolve. A casual glance at the history of piracy shows this cycle. You should really check out ‘Pop Song Piracy’ if you think otherwise.
And none of what you say invalidates my other points that free access to music is a net benefit for musicians and their fans.
Sorry Zac – you just need to get educated. Google has been caught red handed more than once, like here:
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/02/07/google-advertising-money-and-piracy-a-history-of-wrongdoing-exposed/
These sites make 100% of the advertising revenue by illegally distributing the artists work for profit. That money is paid by the Ad Tech corporations. That even makes the old school record labels look GOOD by comparison… sad day.
Free access to music is a net benefit to musicians and their fans WHEN the musician makes that choice for themselves to grant consent and negotiate compensation. Or do you just work for free, and/or never negotiate what you get paid?
I knew you would get around to saying something along the lines of “free access to music is OK in certain cases but a musician should have a choice as to whether access to their music is free or not.” I’ve had that exact same conversation a million times.
In capitalism, the market decides. And the market has decided access to music will be free, much the same way the market decided television would be free.
These sites that make “100% of the advertising revenue by illegally distributing the artists work for profit” are an unfortunate symptom of the companies musicians sign their rights over to not adapting to market realities.
Know what another unfortunate symptom was? The record business losing $3B in market value. If you’re going to equate labels with musicians (I’m careful not to), then I would say the record business is more to blame for musicians’ revenue woes than a handful of Russian MP3 sites who make $0.00001 per click.
Can we talk about the 40+ other revenue streams besides selling access to recorded music and how they will come to dwarf the $5B access to recorded music industry? I mean, for example, in 10 years more albums will be crowdfunded than released by labels. My band made several thousand dollars this way. Throw in pay-what-you-want albums, a couple of sync licenses, a few boxes of T-shirts and a couple tours and we’ve got a living.
I think you and all the haters have your hearts in the right place but you’re fighting the wrong fight. If you want to try to negotiate the price of access to recorded music in an age where access costs virtually nothing, where production and marketing costs are lower than they’ve ever been… be my guest. I think most musicians and most fans have already moved on.
I noticed you’ve been hawking courses on how to make money with music.
Shouldn’t those courses be free? BTW, only the most profoundly ignorant musicians want their material on torrent sites.
I see what you did there 🙂 The content that comprises the course is available on YouTube for free. You have to pay to take it on Udemy. We’re trying to raise money for non-profits. We would do pay what you want but I’m not aware of an eLearning platform that does that.
I’m afraid you’re wrong about musicians wanting to be on torrent sites. Most musicians don’t make a living let alone break even playing music. Torrent sites give them an opportunity to share their music freely and create opportunities to generate revenue. There are plenty of studies proving that free access to music generates greater demand for that music and more opportunities to generate revenue. Google it.
Do you not agree that a chance to be heard is a chance to be paid?
The only thing you’ve proved with this article is how stupid you are and how hypocritical your entire position is. Talk out of both sides of your mouth much?
I’ll make this as simple as possible, so you don’t miss the point. You’re defending business owners that operate sites that give other peoples work away so they can scam enough traffic to sell advertising. Did I get that right?
Now, your pissing on the guy who did the work, but saying nothing about the guy whose making money off it. Did I miss something.
Hi Will –
Yes, you missed the point — I’m guessing it’s because because you already had your mind made up that my position is stupid and hypocritical.
I’ll make this as simple as possible so you don’t miss the point this time.
Q: What if everyone decided not to pay?
A: The corporations that hold 88% of the rights to music would lose their stranglehold on the music economy and culture and music would flourish creatively and economically. There would be more people making more music of greater depth and diversity, and more people listening with greater frequency. There would be more opportunities for musician-entrepreneurs to make money. There would be less professional musicians but far more music. This has already begun to happen thanks to the impact the Internet has had on music. It will only continue as access to music approaches free.
I’m disappointed that you’re the fourth person to disagree with me here without offering any type of counter-proposal or solution.
Unfortunately Zac – professional musicians (those who make a living making music) are worse off than they were during the label era. How can you hate record labels who gave musicians contracts and compensation but give a free pass to illegally operating and infringing businesses who give musicians neither consent or compensation? Seems like a pretty big disconnect. As for as solutions go, it’s pretty easy if there is the will to do so.
1) Follow the Money to Ad Networks and Payment Processors
2) Stop the Money from Ad Networks and Payment Processors
This is about corporations ripping off all artists, musicians and creators without “sharing” a penny with them or giving them the ability to opt out. That’s just unfair and wrong and does not allow for a robust and sustainable marketplace.
As for non-professional musicians. There always have been and always will be hobbyists that don’t care about making money. But that’s very different from professional careers. If you are truly a music fan I’d be surprised if weren’t a fan of professional musicians who have released albums on labels (major and indie). So this all seems like a bit of sour grapes, which as they say makes for bitter wine.
No one has the right to take consent and compensation away from individual creators, and especially to fund the corporate profits of silicon valley’s 1% of the 1%. That looks like exploitation, not empowerment to me.
The professional musician is unquestionably in decline. I wrote a whole post about it: http://www.mediapocalypse.com/the-steady-decline-of-the-professional-musician/
It’s unfortunate for professional musicians. If given the choice between less professional musicians and more music, I’d choose the latter. That’s what the market is choosing.
Free access to music is kind of like when the tens of thousands of vaudeville performers were out of jobs once the phonograph industry took hold. Have you researched the history of the music business? I have researched it exhaustively, and I can tell you what’s happening now has many historical analogues. It’s a cycle, really. In a way, it’s how music renews itself. Change is difficult.
We agree that corporations ripping off artists sucks. The difference is that prior to Internet, getting ripped off was the only option. Now it’s one of several, and the least attractive at that. So I understand why musicians like yourself (I’m presuming here) who made money before there were other options are super pissed-off. Just like those vaudeville musicians who lost their live music jobs to the new generation of recording artists.
What I want to do is find solutions for both of us. What I want is a sustainable music business. That doesn’t happen by putting the free access to music genie back in the bottle. Nor does it happen by embracing models that concentrate profits into the pockets of the Silicon Valley 1%. It happens by CHANGING the business of music and recognizing that the same model that worked when studio and marketing budgets were seven figures doesn’t work when they’re four figures. That digital distribution costs pennies vs. all of the money to ship vinyl, cassettes and CDs to stores and then back to the label (but still counting them as gold records.) I hope I don’t have to break all that down.
As long as musicians believe that signing their copyright over to a company to get a 1 in 10 chance of possibly making a living is more fair than access to music being free but making their own luck with the opportunities to engage a fan and get their money, positive change will be hard to come by.
No one has the right to take consent and compensation away from individual creators,
You do not have the right to an impossible thing. Perfect control is impossible and it isn’t even desirable for society as a whole.
There’s one way to totally control every copy of what you produce: never release it.
So this all seems like a bit of sour grapes, which as they say makes for bitter wine.
So he’s sour grapes for acknowledging reality, but inflexible, aging, tech-averse acts that used to make money aren’t?
Lowery’s point of view is essentially, aggressive panhandling. “You have money. I want it. Give it to me.”
Your comments are delusional, Zack. First off the real number is 34% of music sold is indie. Second of all your free will create such a wealth of great music. You’ve had over a decade and those who actually can make money like Radiohead, Trent Reznor and Amanda Palmer are all concerned about making a living.
I didn’t need a lot of time to think about your position. I’ve been to this rodeo before. But I do have a question for you Zack. Name another profession outside of those whose work can be copied, digitized and distributed online, where the workers are expected to perform for free? Piracy is on the decline, because young people who thought they might want to dedicate their lives to creating, who are smart enough, are now going to get a degree in programming, so they can make a living. In some cases off the very people at one time they dreamed about being themselves.
If I’m delusional, so are most musicians and their fans. Yours may be the majority position among professional musicians, but when you invite all musicians and their fans to the rodeo, it becomes a minority opinion quickly.
Source on the 34%? Mine is Nielsen SoundScan 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry
I don’t understand what this means: “your free will create such a wealth of great music”. Just ask yourself this: is there more music being released and listened to than ever before? Are there more musicians playing and recording and composing than ever before?
Piracy is on the decline simply because the controllers of 88% of music rights have started to succeed in leveraging their legal and lobbying might to fight it, after a decade of incompetence. Are you really defending the industry that lost $3B in market share by taking a decade to adapt to market realities, and then only by rewriting the law to protect an antiquated business model?
Of course young people are going to get a degree in programming instead of music. Increasingly, musicians are also programmers. We’ve only begun to see the beginning of that cross-pollination but it will be exciting stuff that I believe will cause the next big revolution (and economic windfall) in music 10-20 years down the road.
I never said musicians would be expected to perform for free! Did you read the post? I mention tons of other ways musicians are making money. You act as if recorded music royalties are the only revenue stream for musicians. If you come from the “old school” music industry, well, I can’t blame you because that’s the way it was. That is no longer the case.
Do you really think that if everybody stopped paying for access to music, music would somehow suffer? I believe the opposite. I believe it will flourish. I have all the evidence I need because music IS flourishing… not because piracy is on the decline, but because more people are making more music than ever before. Pretty hard to argue with that.
Zac no one wants to go backwards. Musicians just want to retain their hard won rights for consent and compensation. It’s that simple. In your blind rage of labels you are burning down artists rights to just compensation for their labor.
Why are you offended by the idea of making massive corporations and companies ripping off musicians responsible for their actions?
There is no empowerment if LESS people can actually make a living. You don’t seem to do the simple math that getting paid LESS means getting paid LESS. Less = Less. Ripping off musicians to fund corporate interests is not innovation Zac, it’s just simply exploitation and it’s worse than it’s been in over 50 years. If anything has taken musicians back to the 90s it’s the internet… the 1890s…
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/05/22/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
Thanks for the enlightening article Zac. Being a web comic artist, effectively making me a content creator myself, I understand a hundred percent that no creative field is ever going to be perfect. But nevertheless, it has improved a great deal in terms of access and contact.
What we must never forget, as recited by Rick Falkvinge, is that ‘When the winds of change blow, some people build shelters, like Ellen Seidler with her film ‘And Then Came Lola’, while other people build windmills, like Nina Paley with her film ‘Sita Sings the Blues’.
I guess the point here is that nothing changes the fact that content creators like myself have to hunt for our income now. Because quite frankly nobody actually owes you anything if you’re doing this solely for yourself.
Well said. In the future I’ll try to focus more on building my windmill than blowing up other people’s shelters. Hopefully they will invite me in at some point to have a discussion we both find constructive.
Zac, Soundscan focusses on sale through traditional channels; most of the indie artists you reference, sell through alternative channels. Also your indie sales info is from 2011. There’s more current, more accurate information. If you’re serious about following this topic you may want to check out A2IM. Here are the stats I referred to: http://goo.gl/Vn6HAn
Why people like you piss me off, is that you have the arrogance to believe that it is your right to decide what happens with other people’s work. If you and your friends want to give your work away that is your business not mine.
At the end of the day, you have no valid argument for your position, you simply grew up in an environment where copyrighted work couldn’t be protected and people took what they wanted to. An open source replicates the same challenges that take place during a riot, like just what took place in Huntington Beach. The difference is you can do it behind closed doors and most of your friends are doing the same.
Ultimately, it is about your integrity Zack. You have no right to take this stuff, you just can.
Thanks for the stats. I’ve collected many industry stats from many sources include A2IM. I don’t think it surprises anyone that A2IM’s stats show indies having a larger percent of the market than Nielsen Soundscan does. As you point out, the distribution channels they are scoped to are apples and oranges. But I probably should have presented two contrasting stats to show the range.
I’m sorry to have pissed you off! But maybe it’s a healthy reaction.
I’m not sure you understand how old I am. I’ll take that as a compliment!
I grew up during the height of the music industry and contributed mightily to its coffers. During my teenage years I pretty much spent all the money I ever had on music and music equipment. I continue to spend more money than I should on both!
Comparing open source to a riot? If that riot is a necessary start to a desperately needed revolution, then I’ll take it.
Like I said before, I’ve heard the “musicians have the right to choose whether access to their music is free” argument a million times. Is it really up to you, or up to the gatekeepers of access?
Would you agree that music has primarily spread by listeners sharing songs freely with other listeners on cassette, CD-R or MP3 playlist? That wasn’t your choice.
Would you agree that when listeners have free access to music, they discover more music to love, and musicians have more opportunities to be paid because they have more opportunities to be heard?
Would you agree that free access to music disrupted the control of media conglomerates so that indies and independent musicians could gain more market share?
Would you agree that free access to music is what fans want?
Would you agree that free access to music forced innovation in a stagnant, complacent industry?
Would you agree that free access to music leads to more fans and thus more potential customers?
And what of the numerous ways musicians are making money today other than from selling access to recorded music? Shall we just ignore those?
My integrity is unshakeable. Who are you to judge? How are YOU going to bring about “fairness” in the music industry? By putting technology companies out of business? By decreasing the market share for indies and independent musicians? By halting the sharing of songs between fans? By preventing new artists from being discovered due to back catalog hegemony?
Let’s stop focusing on how I’m pissing you off and get constructive. What are your constructive ideas for improving this situation?
“The environment for looting?” That’s the way the internet will be, forever.
Every single person has a perfect copy machine on their desk.
Every single person has a high speed internet connection.
The internet operates based on the fact it’s decentralized, without a single “choke point” (after all, it was created originally as a defense department project to allow infrastructure to survive a nuclear war).
The internet is central to modern life in the developed world.
At most, movie and music industries are a $20B industry. By contrast, pet food is a $21B industry. The internet, vital to the function of the entire modern world, will not adjust its reality for a $20B industry.
Better get used to acknowledging these factors as an inevitability.
Worst of all, complaining about these things won’t help anyone, ever. The whac-a-mole game will never stop. It’s destructive and hurtful to pine for 2000.
Zac is absolutely correct to describe these musicians (seriously? The Dead Kennedys? What Jello Biafra called “the world’s greediest karaoke band”) as out of touch, inflexible has-beens. I shudder to think a fossil like Lowery is teaching music business. That’s like a creationist teaching geology courses.
Looting isn’t capitalism. Smashing store windows and stealing the merchandise isn’t competition.
In the old days, songwriters could not be ripped off by even the most unscrupulous record labels without signing a (bad) contract.
Today, Big Tech rips off the songwriter regardless of how savvy he or she might be. Silly Con Valley tells us that copyright is stifling innovation but there’s nothing new or innovative about fencing stolen property.
Tell Wall Street looting isn’t capitalism.
“Big tech rips of the songwriter” is just as useless a generalization as “big labels rip off the songwriter”.
Exploitative businesses rip off the people they exploit. Technology offers opportunities to get out from under the thumb of label exploitation. Labels offer no new opportunities.
That’s the trouble with your perspective: overvaluing content and undervaluing services used to bring it to you.
Napster was a revolutionary technology using digital distribution and infinite scarcity that changed music more than eight Beatles, yet it was dismissed because “without our content, they’re nothing.” Actually, we’re now finding out without our services and distribution, your content is nothing.
Zac, you should really quit while you’re behind. You’re arguments are getting so thin, it’s sad. Perhaps blogging’s not you’re thing.
Wall street, hell yes they totally ripped us off. to Al D’s point, artists choose to sign contracts, the labels aren’t just co-opting someone else’s work without permission for their financial benefit.
What don’t you get about, you have the freedom to distribute whatever is yours, where ever you want. You have no argument. You’re toast. You have no point of view. It’s not about the artist, it’s about you. You feel entitled to someone else’s work without their permission. Grow up. Contribute.
Will, most of this is a pathetic attempt at insulting me. Say something of substance. The thousands of people reading my blog would appreciate it.
The conversation is complete, at least for me. But I would be curious to know your age.
I’ll share mine. I’m 64. I started seeing/hearing music in 1965. I saw the stones with brian jones, I saw the Beatles, Bangladesh, Last Waltz, Lowell George Tribute, Duane Allman many times, I was fortunate I saw many, many, many bands.
I was a DJ in college, I worked in record stores, I did some work for ABC Records > 1st Tom Petty, First Steely Dan, I managed club bands for years, I owned an indie record label.
NYC ( Fillmore East > Boston ( Tea Party ) 67-72 SF / LA 1972 – 2004.
Got it, you took an extension course at Harvard with Lawrence Lessig and you’re in your thirties.
My professor was Terry Fisher. Larry spoke during the course, as did some folks who would share your point of view.
“What we must never forget, as recited by Rick Falkvinge.” What’s that a manifesto?
Well at least Zac, you’ve surrounded yourself with like minded pseudo-revolutionaries. I tend to hang out with musicians, filmmakers and people who actually work in the industry.
And yes they are professionals, not hobbyists who are thrilled if someone actually listens to their “work”. I did find your point about the masses deciding what should happen to the work of professionals particularly valid and revolutionary..
From my side of the “conversation” I had lunch with Ellen Seidler yesterday. And the documentary your “associate” meant to refer to was “Pop-Up Pirates” not here feature film that was distributed without her permission by your freedom fighters.
There you go again making assumptions when all you know about me is what you read on a social network.
Sorry that you and your friends feel so perturbed. FYI I constantly debate these issues with friends and colleagues some of whom are rock stars signed to majors, some of whom are incredibly talented musicians who never had a break. Some make their living as authors and filmmakers, others have written several books or made several films but never made a cent. Some have won multiple Grammies, some are punk rockers who only make music to piss people off.
On some issues we agree, on some we disagree. But we have the dialogue in a civil manner without insulting each other with ad hominem attacks.
Could today’s professional musicians might be tomorrow’s truckers?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/08/message-to-57-million-truck-drivers-no.html
The “market” doesn’t get to “decide” what’s free and what isn’t. If you live in a city with an underfunded police force and high crime rate, and local gangs break into your house and take whatever they want, does that mean the market has decided that you don’t own your belongings? No – it means that law enforcement isn’t doing its job. The reasons for that are complex and unavoidably political, but they have nothing to do with a functioning market economy.
You wrote: “…So you see folks, the myth of “ad-sponsored piracy” is really just the product of desperate musicians at the end of their careers….”
Let’s just list what is wrong with this single statement. There’s a lot.
First off, it takes the most slimy, condescending tone toward an entire population, with an ageist bent. As if an “older” musician is somehow a “spent” and “over-cooked” musician. Big fallacy there.
Second, it utterly ignores (or is simply profoundly ignorant of) the fact that the typical musician at the end of their career worked for a very long time based on the premise of a “back-loaded” compensation structure, where royalties on future sales was essentially the sole income stream. You work this year for nothing, with the sense that it would produce a year’s income over the next 15 years, in the form of sales royalties. It’s very difficult for someone who has only ever done wage work to understand, that these “desperate musicians” worked for years based on a compensation structure that has been categorically destroyed, after the fact.
This is very much akin to you working for several months for a company, expecting a paycheck at the end of the three months, only to find out on the last day of the contract that the company was closing it’s doors the next day and there would be no paycheck. Yes, indeed, the musicians are desperate, because they’re seeing what amounts to their pensions being destroyed and gutted.
None of those “old” musicians would have worked and created under those kinds of terms, had they known that there would be no back-loading.
And on the subject of the value of “exposure?” Well, the other day, I sat down and poured myself a hearty bowlful of “100,000 people saw my youtube.” Spoonful after spoonful of all that exposure, I shoveled into my mouth, chewed, and swallowed. Guess what…afterwards I was still just as hungry as before I started. Turns out, you can’t feed yourself with “100,000 people saw my youtube.” Also, I wrote a “100,000 people saw my youtube” check to my landlord. Today, I live in my car. Turns out, Landlords much prefer actual currency.
Throw a solution at me.
I’m sorry reality and the march of inevitability progress interfered with your business plan, but reality has a way of imposing consequences. Ignoring reality never got anyone anywhere.
A business model problem on your end is not a crisis on anyone else’s end.
The notion “mailbox money” (a term I love) would be indefinite is a delusion unique to musicians in the label system. If any other type of creative professional wants money, they have to WORK for it and keep on working.
And once again, your quote about YouTube likes shows you totally fail to understand the significance of this. You use the infinite good (YT vids) to leverage the finite. The video is used for leverage and promotion. If you don’t get that, no wonder you can’t make money online.
Interesting philosophy Zac, “everyone is equal when everyone is equally poor.”
Meanwhile, it’s OK for corporations the size of nation states to deny the Constitutional rights of individual citizens for corporate profit. LOL.
PS, here’s what Google’s Chief Economist says in response to this nonsense put forward by Larry Lessig and John Perry Barlow…
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/05/01/effs-john-perry-barlow-is-wrong/
Still waiting for you to propose a single solution.
By the way, Copyright is NOT a constitutional right, nor is it a human right (how could the right to control the speech of others be a human right?), but an outcome oriented, statute-granted monopoly created for practical purposes that can be retooled if it is unsatisfactory.
It’s in Section 8, which outlines powers granted to the Federal government. If Copyright is a constitution granted right, then the ability to issue a Letter of Marque is a constitution granted human right. Sure.
Incidentally, I’m not an abolitionist, but it’s interesting to note that ending copyright would be constitutional, but infinite, perpetual copyright would NOT be.
from an earlier comment:
As for as solutions go, it’s pretty easy if there is the will to do so.
1) Follow the Money to Ad Networks and Payment Processors
2) Stop the Money from Ad Networks and Payment Processors
We’ve already been over this. There is no mechanism to do #2.
I’m not asking for a solution to shut down so-called ad-sponsored piracy sites. I’m looking for a solution for musicians to be compensated more fairly. Shutting down these sites does nothing to accomplish that.
Isn’t it obvious that the “will” is not there to do so because it’s not worth doing?
Solution. Get to the heart of the matter and get the truth out. Artists whose work can be copied, digitized and distributed on the Internet are finding it increasingly difficult to earn a living.
The Public needs to know that without their financial support, working, professional artists will become a thing of the past and as a result our society and quality of life will be severely diminished.
I’m getting that truth out: http://www.mediapocalypse.com/the-steady-decline-of-the-professional-musician/
We just disagree on the cause. You say it’s because piracy robs artists of revenue. This may be true of the 75% of music rights controlled by four labels, but for most musicians a chance to be heard is a chance to be paid.
I say it’s because the cost of music production, marketing and distribution is a fraction of what it once was, and charging for access to recorded music is no longer a viable business model. Instead of artificially restoring it by making music harder to be discovered and heard — killing competition and denying value to fans — musicians need to adapt to take advantage of new revenue streams, new business opportunities, and the resurgence of old models like live performance and physical product.
I don’t think that will happen…because it hasn’t happened. In 14 years since Napster, there’s been more music, more movies, more art than at any point in human history available to more people. The notion culture will end without copyright is like believing land will stop existing without strong real estate law.
People want to support artists, but he’s the technological reality: you lost the war on file sharing. It’s your Vietnam; a whac-a-mole game you get deeper and deeper into because you think morally about it, instead of hard and cold and rational. Reminds me of the drug war; prohibition is a total failure with collateral damage more destructive than the substances themselves.
The war on file sharing will never be won. Ever. It will never stop. Again – ever. The solution is to adjust to that reality.
In a world where every machine everywhere can make infinite copies, the notion of selling individual copies is laughable.
Every single new technological change was greeted by the idea it would destroy culture. This is just the latest version of that. Culture doesn’t work like that.
And you don’t get away with attempting to criminalize the normal behavior of a generation. It doesn’t work like that.
“The notion culture will end without copyright is like believing land will stop existing without strong real estate law.”
No Julian, land would not stop existing, there would just be open warfare and squaters. You appear to have an aversion to order, so perhaps you would like to add anarchy and revolution to free-file sharing.
Here’s what I do believe Julian Perez. That these are people with integrity, who believe paying for other people’s work is the right thing to do. Clearly, you and your friend Zac, do not share this belief. Trying to convince people like yourselves that hiding out and rationalizing your bad behavior is some right is something omnly you can deal with.
I’m here to simply set the record straight. Artists like anyone else deserve to get paid for their work. And Artists like everyone else get to decide what happens with their work.
Frankly, you guys always lose me when you play the corporate label card, because I’m here for the artists and the record labels do pay the artists, even if you don’t like how much.
So you keep doing what you’re doing and I’ll keep doing what I’m doing.
Fare Enough, Julian?
I’m tired of saying this, but when it comes to files, we’re post-scarcity. In a world where everyone has on their desktops and in their pockets a perfect, flawless copy machine that can make infinite copies, the notion of asking people to pay for individual files is unrealistic and unworkable to the point of being laughable.
Actually, I am very pro-law and order, because types that disagree with the reality of anti-file sharing are like proponents of Prohibition. Laws that are universally flouted undercut law and order. There should never be such a thing as a “generation of outlaws.” If social norms and technology conflict with law, it is the law that changes…not behavior, social norms, or technology.
You can’t have it both ways —
If you release music digitally, then it’s going to be ‘stolen’ … that’s the nature of the beast. That’s reality, regardless of any laws passed … it’s not enforceable. If you take away one way to do it, people will find another way. And yeh, someone will make some kind of ca$h out of it somewhere in the game.
It seems that some people want to control how people listen to their music online. This is not only an uphill battle, it’s potentially impossible. You’re talking about changing the way that the internet works — a free exchange of information and media will inevitably result in piracy.
Y’all are caught up in the digital trap yourselves! Digital recording, digital distribution, and on and on and on … don’t believe the hype folks! They’re trying to talk us into this $hit, but you don’t have to accept it.
The solution is to focus on physical media. Many here seem to be unaware, but CDs still sell more than digital downloads — CURRENTLY. Best Buy and Target carry vinyl. You can still get your album manufactured on super quality cassettes for way cheaper than vinyl or CD. Record players, tape players and CD players are still being manufactured. And anyone can buy ’em for a couple bucks from a thrift store. There are niche markets out there for this stuff, and well … niche markets often move into the mainstream in time. People are attracted to novelty. Within a few years, an iPhone will no longer be novel … and Google Glass is testing the consumer’s limits let me tell ya !
Paying consumers still prefer physical media. People have no problem paying for something that they value. A virtual product has no real value.
Personally, I think the download craze will settle down as reality sets in. Make your own path and do it your way. Good luck!
“I wish we’d drop the pretense that giving away music will lead to income streams for those (unknown artists) who do it. For most people it never will and it isn’t necessarily for lack of talent.”
– Suzanne Lainson
PS: A big problem with ‘free’ is that it does not imply quality… particularly when your an unknown artist. A mute point perhaps, because most unknown artists cannot even give their music away for free in the first place.
A big problem with ‘paid’ is that it does not imply quality… particularly when you’re a massively successful artist. A moot point perhaps, because most unknown artists now give their music away for free as a way to earn fans and an opportunity to be paid. Also, grammar lessons.