Members OAFCORE Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 As an artist I feel a deep connection with my material, as I am sure you all do as well. Corporate interests will have us believe that this connection is indeed ownership, and have for decades been doing what they can to get in on the profits of ownership. While I would like to be compensated (or at least recognized) for my efforts, I'm starting to think that the idea of ownership is becoming less and less important in today's new music economy. I mean, if you want to get all deep and hippy-like about it, does not the true ownership lie with the listener? After all, they are the ones who give it value, right? Of course artists realize value out of their own work, but only as they actually enjoy the fruits of their labor as a listener. Value in music is not realized as the simple gratification in creation, but rather from the work itself. I guess what I'm trying to get at is a philosophical approach to the music business, where the copyright and the ownership of the material is an afterthought. Music is essentially free these days, so is copyrighting your material really THAT important? What if we stopped trying to make money on our perceived ownership of our music and focused on the tangible, unique representations of our art (live performance, merchandise, etc...) that cannot be re-produced infinitely on the internet for free and downloaded by anyone. Why even TRY to make money off the copyright? Redefine the asset from the recorded music (copyright) to the emotions we instill in our listeners, and use those intimate connections to make a profit. It used to be that bands would record an album and then tour to support it. The more people they played their music for on tour, the more people bought their album. I feel as though the paradigm has now done a complete 180. We now record an album to support our tour and our recordings have become nothing more than a marketing device. If you are able to reach a larger audience through giving away your music for free shouldn't that eventually pay off in larger ways than if you hadn't? Won’t you be able to sell more shirts, hats, concert tickets, and advertising on your website? Am I really saying anything new here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted August 20, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 20, 2012 Actually, we have repeatedly noted that the money is now in the tour tix and merch, not in song sales, except for major label pop/hip-hop/top40/country acts. The music industry is in a state of flux, but that does not mean that songwriters should roll over and play dead as far as collecting money for their creations...licensing is another outlet, as are ringtones. Without copyright (and publishing), these income streams would not exist. That music is, as you posit, 'free', however does not preclude the value of intellectual property. If you have never sold a song, or worked with someone who has, you may never understand that. But it really is no different than someone who writes a novel, film script, or stage play. Their product is also intended for the pleasure of others, the key difference being that most writers do not get to perform their work. So if you denigrate the value of copyright, then you also put a chokehold on these other creative people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OAFCORE Posted August 20, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 20, 2012 It really is no different than someone who writes a novel, film script, or stage play. Their product is also intended for the pleasure of others, the key difference being that most writers do not get to perform their work. So if you denigrate the value of copyright, then you also put a chokehold on these other creative people. These professions are also in for a new shift. It's already happening with film and cable. Hell, I haven't paid for cable television or bought a DVD in YEARS. I watch everything through the internet. I do subscribe to Netflix, but only because we don't watch that much TV and it's simple and I don't have to dedicate a large portion of my harddrive to downloading movies. If I was as passionate about movies as I am about music you better believe I'd be downloading movies like crazy! With the Kindle and iPad books will moving in the same direction soon too if it hasn't already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nijyo Posted August 20, 2012 Members Share Posted August 20, 2012 If music has intellectual property value than why are so many people unwilling to pay for it? You can go onto iTunes and download a song for less than a dollar, but people would rather stream it on YouTube for free, or download it for free somewhere else. It is a mistake to think this way. While yes, there are folks who will go through the effort of actually going to Youtube, pulling down the file, and then converting it into something they can listen anywhere, it's just too much work (and too technical) for most folks. Things like iTunes, Spotify, Rdio, etc etc have made getting cheap access to legal streams and downloads all but brainless. They're impulse buys now. Now, one can easily make the argument that the (increasingly mythical) major-label signed, non-Top 40 artist isn't making as much per-sale as they used to, and you'd pretty much be dead on. However, if you're a non-Top 40, non hip-hop influenced group, and you're not going the indie route, you're doing it wrong IMHO. Maybe the industry needs to stop viewing "piracy" as a theft, and more as an asset. Maybe success in music is now defined not by how well your music sells, but how well it trades.If you're talking about the music industry, none of that matters unless you can actually monetize the results of production. These professions are also in for a new shift. It's already happening with film and cable. Hell, I haven't paid for cable television or bought a DVD in YEARS. I watch everything through the internet. You're far from the average TV or movie viewer, though. While the percentage of teenagers / young adults that will spend the time and money to torrent a TV show or movie is higher than the general population, the number that actually go through that effort is relatively low overall. I do subscribe to Netflix, but only because we don't watch that much TV and it's simple and I don't have to dedicate a large portion of my harddrive to downloading movies. If I was as passionate about movies as I am about music you better believe I'd be downloading movies like crazy! With the Kindle and iPad books will moving in the same direction soon too if it hasn't already...Therein lay the rub. There's a small number of folks, mostly teenagers and young adults who are technologically proficient, who want to enjoy the fruits of others' labor, but not pay for it. This, fortunately, isn't the standard attitude (in spite of some more alarmist press chatter), but it's a common one on the Internet in certain subcultures. To be sure, not just the music industry but the entirely of the large-scale content production industry is in a state of transition where their revenues are not as consistent or large as they were used to when they were the only game in town. However, that isn't really a good reason to say that IP is meaningless. If I make a painting, it doesn't belong to the viewer. Likewise if I record a song, it doesn't belong to the listener. It matters not at all what the manifestation in the real world is of that work, the idea and implementation (both in combination, many people have the same idea, but the implementation is what makes the work unique) are mine. If you want to utilize it, you do so on my terms, or not at all. My terms may be similar to Jonathan Coulton's, where you can download for free or pay for better, but that's his choice. However, if he decided to always charge for his works, it's not proper for the listener who doesn't like his choice to circumvent it and "get it for free" anyway. In a perfect world, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted August 21, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 21, 2012 If music has intellectual property value than why are so many people unwilling to pay for it? You can go onto iTunes and download a song for less than a dollar, but people would rather stream it on YouTube for free, or download it for free somewhere else. Even though the music industry and many respected musicians have vilified pirating, people still do it. For them it's not a moral issue, and for them the song is not even worth $.99. Think about that for a second...If this is really a moral issue, people are sacrificing their moral beliefs for less than a dollar? That doesn't make sense, and it's not like we're talking about a few people here. We're talking about large enough of a population to create a serious shift in the industry. Once again, I ask the question, if your music is free how many more commercials, and movies would it be in if it wasn't? If label A licensed all of it's music for free and label B didn't, who would have the best exposure? Who do you think would sell more concert tickets, merchandise, and advertising on their website?Maybe the industry needs to stop viewing "piracy" as a theft, and more as an asset. Maybe success in music is now defined not by how well your music sells, but how well it trades.These professions are also in for a new shift. It's already happening with film and cable. Hell, I haven't paid for cable television or bought a DVD in YEARS. I watch everything through the internet. I do subscribe to Netflix, but only because we don't watch that much TV and it's simple and I don't have to dedicate a large portion of my harddrive to downloading movies. If I was as passionate about movies as I am about music you better believe I'd be downloading movies like crazy! With the Kindle and iPad books will moving in the same direction soon too if it hasn't already... Technology is moving so quickly that the traditional industry methodologies simply can't keep up. Decades of controls that were in place to generate income for content providers are being washed away like they were written in sand below the high tide mark. But, just because people can do things utilizing new technology does not necessarily mean that the value of IP/media content is nil. It means that the means of access have outstripped the means of monetization, that's all. Look at it this way: The industry has prosecuted a number of people for theft/piracy, and won virtually every case they brought with astronomical penalties...yet people still pirate, so there is still a perceived value, or no one would risk prosecution! So the point is that it is so easy to get it for free, why pay? Forty years ago, when cassette decks proliferated, people recorded songs off the radio...Piracy? Arguably, but they still wanted the music, and they had the means to collect it for themselves....without paying the artist or the publisher or the record companies...so really, this is nothing new. And to be honest, the entertainment industry never will catch up to the tech, as they are generally bloated bureaucracies with levels of inept management types who are only there to line their own pockets. Once they begin to strip away the old guard, and slim down, they may make inroads, but they just are not forward thinking enough to stay abreast of, let alone ahead of, the juggernaut of technology. And when the time comes that no one can make a living writing music, books, stories, or sculpting, painting, etc., we will all, as a society, have lost out. The entertainment industry needs to rethink things, and in many cases, artists must lower their expectations, but when art has no value, when creativity is no longer considered worth supporting, then we are all doomed to endless mediocrity... and re-runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lord Lav Posted August 22, 2012 Members Share Posted August 22, 2012 I think Seth Godin's opinion on all this is very relevant to this topic. I personally tend to agree with him; [video=youtube;93m_-62FIlc] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted August 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 22, 2012 Godin isn't telling us anything we don't already know, though...because no one currently has an answer to the media dissemination miasma the industry created by not embracing the internet digital revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted August 22, 2012 Members Share Posted August 22, 2012 It used to be that bands would record an album and then tour to support it. The more people they played their music for on tour, the more people bought their album. I feel as though the paradigm has now done a complete 180. We now record an album to support our tour and our recordings have become nothing more than a marketing device. Your version of reality doesn't take into account the songwriter who neither records nor tours. There are tons of them. Should they get nothing for the success their songs generate for others? These professions are also in for a new shift. It's already happening with film and cable. Hell, I haven't paid for cable television or bought a DVD in YEARS. I watch everything through the internet. I hope you realize the fact that other folks paying for these services allows you to get your content free because you're still in a minority. Once everyone starts doing what you're doing, say goodbye to stuff worth watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OAFCORE Posted August 23, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 23, 2012 I hope you realize the fact that other folks paying for these services allows you to get your content free because you're still in a minority. Once everyone starts doing what you're doing, say goodbye to stuff worth watching. This is an incredibly elitist view. Say goodbye to stuff worth watching? Seriously? Have you watched Jersey Shore? That ship has sailed long ago. Your tastes do not matter. There are LOADS of WORTHLESS content being distributed to the masses every day. Our job is not to judge the content, it is to provide it, and monetize it to every accepting consumer available. Which is why it makes sense to do everything you can to give away your music to reach the greatest number of people possible and then try to turn those fans into dollars. Whether it's merch, tix or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted August 23, 2012 Members Share Posted August 23, 2012 He/she just needs to figure out a better way to make money, other than sitting back and riding on the hard work of others. Ha ha! And you call ME elitist? So you don't think a Bernie Taupin had any thing to do with the "hard work" of Elton John's success and basically just rode on his back? Or a Paul Overstereet who wrote over 25 country hits? You don't think it's the songs that become hits for the artists? Wow. Say goodbye to stuff worth watching? Seriously? Have you watched Jersey Shore? That ship has sailed long ago. Your tastes do not matter. There are LOADS of WORTHLESS content being distributed to the masses every day. There always has been, but that worthless crap helps finance better material. It works that way in TV, movies and music. Crapmovies like "Transformers" rake in lots of money and help finance art films. Pop crap like Kei$ha and JayZ used to finance development deals for unknown artists. Music is ahead of TV and film in the death spiral because it is so much easier to pirate. But ask yourself why we have no superstars like we did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? One reason is the multi-record deal, also called development deals. New bands like Santana, CSN, Cream, etc etc signed three record deals. This meant that a partnership between the label and the artist would develop them into acts with staying power. They aslo signed alot of one hit wonders, like Melanie,and Mungo Jerry, and Lobo, and a whole butt ton of others. Was it a perfect system? No. Lots of bands failed, and lots of bands got screwed. But the point is, once a band got successful and made a ton of money for the label, they could sign more unknown bands and develop them, and better absorb the loss of the failures. In short, much of the crap they signed financed the development of the quality bands, because in a pop culture, quality always takes more time to develop and catch on than does the fluff. Once you remove the profitability, you inevitably remove the production of art, since it is commerce that funds art and not the other away around. The idea that if you just remove all capitalism from art, that art will flourish is nonsense. Which is why it makes sense to do everything you can to give away your music to reach the greatest number of people possible and then try to turn those fans into dollars. Whether it's merch, tix or whatever. Which is also, once again, an incredibly myopic view of the music business. Once I give away my CDs, how many people will then go buy one? Especially when it gets uploaded to a torrent site? T shirt? Tickets? Bands are playing for free now to get gigs. Sometimes they're buying tickets to their own gigs just to get a crowd. How many T shirts does a touring band have to sell to stay on the road? Touring bands are competing with local bands who are also selling T shirts and playing for free just to get the gig. But even that is beside the point. How insulting is it to an artist to have to rely on being a clothing salesman to support himself because people feel entitled to their music without having to buy it? Lastly, you are still forgetting about songwriters, as well as recording engineers, booking agents, and all the people needed to produce a national touring act. What do they get paid with? A box of T shirts? Or maybe a big bag of "whatever." Or maybe you think a successful artist can wear every hat in the business-m producer, recording engineer,mixing and mastering engineer, own a studio, write the songs, rehearse, tour, be a graphic artists, produce his own promo, work the national media, do interviews, make T shirts, be a booking agent, road manager and transportation captain, and on and on... and be great at all of them, and still have a life. This is in fact one reason why the music business has suffered . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted August 23, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 23, 2012 Basically, lets not blame the victims here, let's fix or create a new system that works. Godin made some cogent points...one being why did the industry let Apple take control of the means of distribution, a long cherished asset of the record industry? Look at Apple...the biggest corporation in the world now ($-wise)...and it isn't on computer sales, people. Had Sony done this, there may have been a light at the end of the tunnel, but it didn't. Why didn't the industry buy out Napster and its offspring? That would have kept them in control of distribution; instead, they sent it underground, the rest relinquished to Apple's iTunes. Every record industry bigwig should have the famous Pogo panel tattooed on the inside of their eyelids: "We have met the enemy, and he is us..."So how does one compete with iTunes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MargeHowel Posted August 23, 2012 Members Share Posted August 23, 2012 I mean, if you want to get all deep and hippy-like about it, does not the true ownership lie with the listener? After all, they are the ones who give it value, right? Of course artists realize value out of their own work, but only as they actually enjoy the fruits of their labor as a listener. Value in music is not realized as the simple gratification in creation, but rather from the work itself. How the value is realized is up to each creator. One thing to consider is that monetary value isn't the only value. The US is pretty lax on the "moral rights" (that's the actual legal term), but many many other countries aren't.But even monetarily, copyright law allows the creator to take different approaches to valuation If you are able to reach a larger audience through giving away your music for free shouldn't that eventually pay off in larger ways than if you hadn't? Won’t you be able to sell more shirts, hats, concert tickets, and advertising on your website? The thing is, copyright law ALLOWS that. You can give your material away, you can set up different licensing structures...copyright law can even make things MORE free. You know the CC "share-alike" provision...cc is a type of copyright license -- the reason it has power to require the share-alike element is copyright Am I really saying anything new here? nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MargeHowel Posted August 23, 2012 Members Share Posted August 23, 2012 He/she just needs to figure out a better way to make money, other than sitting back and riding on the hard work of others. So composition is not work...hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nijyo Posted August 23, 2012 Members Share Posted August 23, 2012 So how does one compete with iTunes? I know this was semi-rhetorical, but basically it boils down to: deliver a product that is better, deliver a product that is less expensive, or deliver a product in a way that is more convenient. Spotify, Rdio, etc attempt to address of some those. I'm not sure how you'd deliver a product that is "better", though, since "better" is so subjective in the arts. Perhaps in that case the question would be more "how can we address niche audiences with a product they will like more", which, of course, runs into the problem of netting enough to make it a worth while commercial endeavor (especially since those "niche" audiences are, in an increasingly large number of cases, already being addressed by independent efforts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.