FLOG

"But still, after getting all that shit for free, you gotta give somebody something."

You can't go around makin' comments like that, especially in a disclaimer, if you aren't lookin' to open a few floodgates. With that...

...BLOG WAR!

Yes, I still STEAL music. First, let's dispense with the tired excuses P2P'ers resort to during these sorts of arguments. 1: Record companies are the incarnate of evil and they tend to treat their arists like doodie. 2: Bands make most of their $ from tours, not record sales, of which they get a tiny % of the profits.

Now then, I refuse to pay for music as long as it continues to be sub par and overpriced. There's simply no reason why a CD should cost more than $10. Period. Compare the retail price of the average CD to that of a DVD. $17 vs $20. The average movie costs anywhere from $40 - $60 million to make. The recording of an album runs a tiny fraction of that. Movie productions require hundreds of people. For CDs, we're talking about the band and a handful of engineers. The highest production cost of a single album, to date, is Michael Jackson's Invincible ($20 mil). Yes, there is additional $ pumped into promotion but movie companies invest even more more. In short, if you were to do a proper side-by-side comparision of production costs, you'd find that CDs should carry a retail price tag of around $5, tops.

Time to make a nasty little comment that sure to piss off everyone who reads this: Today's Music Isn't Nearly as Good as the Music of the '60s and '70s. Let's laser focus on a single genre: rock. Maybe I'm a stickler for the classics but the best of today doesn't hold a candle to that of the past. Is OK Computer as good as the '70s equivalent, Dark Side of the Moon? Not even close. I can't think of a single rock recording in the last 25 years that can hold its own to the likes of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones or, yes, even the those dang blasted Beatles. If a copy of Beggar's Banquet costs $17, something like Yankee Hotel Foxtrot should run about $6 (the fact that people went nuts for that record says more about modern rock than I really want to think about).

There's numerous new-fangled acts that I like but only a handful that I'd actually slap down hard earned cash on. Since I wouldn't be buying records by the likes of Amon Tobin anyway, why should I feel guilty about listening to pirated mp3s of Supermodified?

So there! Tbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!!!!

Posted by: Blog at April 5, 2004 4:13 AM

That's why I listen to old classical music. (As opposed to new classical music which still costs $17 a copy.) Average price of a CD on Berkshire records: $6.99.

Who's going with me to Renee Fleming and Alfred Brendel on the 18th?

Posted by: phooeyhoo at April 5, 2004 5:18 AM

Well, okay, Blog. I knew you'd say something, and I pretty much knew what you'd say. Not that I was even targeting you, specifically. In truth I just posted this as an interesting, and better, response to p2p downloads than that of the RIAA. But I knew you'd have words for any criticism, however triflin', of your precious right to download. Trouble is, I have no idea what your words have to do with my post.

Fine, so you think CD's are over-priced and music sucks. But if $17 is too much, isn't it reasonable to say that $0 is too little? You have, by your own account, several weeks (months?) worth of music piled up that you have never paid anyone a dime for. Are you going to honestly say that all of that is not worth money to you? That you don't maybe owe your own karmic balance some kind of donation for the free enjoyment you get from hundreds of other people's hard artistic efforts?

Because that's all I suggested. My post did not say "stop p2p downloading," nor did it say "start paying for CD's," or anything remotely of the sort. All I said was, here you go. Pay somebody. Contribute a bit to a good cause in an artist's name, at least, for the hundreds of hours of free entertainment you've siphoned off. How bad would 5 freakin' dollars be?

Posted by: FLOG™ at April 5, 2004 5:47 AM

"Today's Music Isn't Nearly as Good as the Music of the '60s and '70s."

Subjective comment, not germane to the discussion. And what are you doing going around knocking "OK Computer"? Nice bait, though.

Posted by: WWB at April 6, 2004 3:34 AM

"It was not a "retort" or a rebuke, beyond being a suggestion that maybe thems that takes for free also ought to give for free."

Dude, it's an out-of-the-clear-blue rebuke and your sentence here is completely contradictory. At this point, we may as we be arguing semantics. Who cares?

"Why does this distinction matter? Because of the difference in who gets a return on the investment."

Actually, actors and directors of high-profile movies tend to get a percentage of the profits from film screenings. Tom Cruise and other A-listers get profit-sharing stips written into their contracts along with those $20 million paychecks. A famous example of this is Jack Nicholson and his role in the first Batman. I can't remember the #s but I think he pulled in a cool $30 million, a staggering amount in 1989. Forest Gump, which earned over $300 million domestic, actually lost money, partially due to the stipulations in Tom Hanks' and Robert Zemeckis' contracts.

This topic is so incredibly convoluted, especially when movies are used as a point of comparison.

"Talk all you want about evil record companies. How do you justify bootlegging albums put out by indie artists on tiny, starving record labels? (In answering, please avoid anything like 'a lot of indie artists give away recordings free.' I want a solid principle that holds for all cases.)"

Hey, I'm the first to admit what I'm doing is wrong. Thus the emphasis on "STEAL" in my original post. On the other hand, what record companies are doing is also wrong (price gouging, etc). In the end, they and you are asking me to sympathize with jet-set record execs and successful recording artists. Even the smaller indie bands I enjoy are making a healthy living (from touring, not record sales).

Now I don't really have the $ to drop on CDs. In a sense, all those hard working execs, artists and others in the industry lose absolutely nothing when I download their music. I can't afford to buy their wares and what I'm taking isn't tangible. I'm not stealing a CD from a store that cost money to make. I'm stealing mp3s that costs them zip, zero, nada.

Furthermore, these artists and execs have given me no practical reason to start buying their overpriced discs. Back in the day, when you bought a record for $2.50, you received a lush booklet of lyrics filled with art. Posters, stickers, postcards were also often included. Due to the confines of CD production, these discs tend to include tiny, ugly booklets that, at the most, are three pages on recording info in small, hard-to-read typeset.

Instead of having to drive around town to at least three different stores (because none in PDX ever seem to have what I'm looking for) and shell out $15 -$19 for a CD, I can open up Soulseek and download whatever I want for free. Forget ethics, let's focus on practicality. Why should I buy music? What's the incentive?

I see P2P as a wake up call to the industry. If they want me to start buying CDs again, they need to support high-quality talent and drop their prices. Given the file-sharing wolf at the door, CDs should now be used purely as inexpensive promotional tools to sell concert tickets, DVDs, posters, t-shirts, etc. If the industry refuses to bend, the internet will eventually devour them.

Posted by: Blog at April 6, 2004 3:42 AM

I'm #100! I'm #100! I'm #100!

Posted by: WWB at April 6, 2004 4:31 AM

So, Blog, foregoing the dual rabbit holes of "rebuke / not rebuke" and "movie industry v. music industry," what you're saying boils down to this:

1) I know I'm stealing, and stealing is bad. But because I couldn't afford to buy CD's anyway, my theft has no effect on anyone. [Except, of course, the positive effect on you.]

2) I don't buy CD's because the record industry is not providing a product worth spending my cash on, and this "boycott" sends a wake-up call to the industry to improve their output.

3) While "boycotting" CD manufacturers, I get to download free music because it's out there and I'm a rational actor acting rationally: why buy when I don't have to?

So basically, you are engaged in a quasi-boycott that is a win-win for you: all of the "wake up call" to the industry, without any forbearance on your part by giving up the boycotted product. You acknowledge that this is theft and that it is wrong, and you have amassed hundreds of hours of free creative output that by your own admission you would not have under other circumstances.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. So why get so ticked off at the idea of a charitable donation in recognition of all the shit you have for free? Why is that so wrong of me or Wilco to suggest?

Anyway, I totally agree with you on the inevitable future of the music industry, which the RIAA is mounting a hopeless fight against. The idea of studio albums (CD's or downloads) as promotional materials paid for by concert proceeds or sponsors may well be a business model for the future. But that would require a titanic shift in the structure of the industry in terms of who invests in artist development. (Also, if you think artists get fucked over now, imagine how things will be when their concert promoter also owns their songs.)

For now we're in the present. Strictly for the sake of argument, which is to say we've finally past the point where I have any shred of personal affinity for the things I'm saying, consider this:

For most artists to attain the recognition necessary to make a healthy living off of touring or, if they're lucky, songwriting royalties, they need to begin with a quality studio recording. Most musicians are, by nature, dirty-ass broke, so somebody needs to cough up the cash to get this recording done. Record labels do that.

However, in the music industry's current form, little or none of an artist's subsequent touring income comes back to the record label that invested several hundred thousand dollars in the artist in the first place. The only way to recuperate the recording investment is by selling records. By not buying records, file downloaders take full advantage of a record label's financial investment and give it nothing in return. Is this fair? What effect might it have on future artist development?

Posted by: FLOG™ at April 6, 2004 7:26 AM

CONGRATULATIONS, WWB. You made the 100th comment on NEW FLOG™!

Now come the regrets: Did you do all that you could have with it? Shouldn't you have taken the bait?

Side Note Involving Further Nibbling At The Bait

"Compare the retail price of the average CD to that of a DVD. $17 vs $20. The average movie costs anywhere from $40 - $60 million to make. The recording of an album runs a tiny fraction of that."

Blog, your comparison might begin to make economic sense if the major source of income for a recorded album came from large groups of people paying $8 to $10 to sit in a theater and listen to the recording once, preceded by recorded ads for Coca-Cola and other albums they have no interest in. Failing that, it just don't hold up.

Posted by: FLOG™ at April 6, 2004 10:09 AM

"Trouble is, I have no idea what your words have to do with my post."

Huh? You posted a retort to P2P'ers and dropped a comment like "you've got to pay someone for something." I fired back in defense of file sharing. What's the problem? It's not like I jumped off topic and began babbling about Eggo waffles.

"That you don't maybe owe your own karmic balance some kind of donation for the free enjoyment you get from hundreds of other people's hard artistic efforts?"

Everyday millions of people share their wares on the internet in the form of blogs, websites and Flash movies. Many of them pump just as much time into their work as many recording artists. The difference? RAs make a living doing what they love whereas the rest don't. If Wilco has a problem with me listening to a bootleg copy of "YHF," they can go to Blog and download my "artistic efforts" to their heart's content. If you think this argument is ridiculous, hey, you're the one that kicked off this discussion by bringing up karma.

"Blog, your comparison might begin to make economic sense if the major source of income for a recorded album came from large groups of people paying $8 to $10 to sit in a theater and listen to the recording once, preceded by recorded ads for Coca-Cola and other albums they have no interest in. Failing that, it just don't hold up."

Tours are the music equivalent of a film screening. Plus, acts tend to charge anywhere from 2 to 10 times what a movie ticket runs. Plus, they're typically sponsored by cola companies and such. Admittedly, not as many people will see a tour but consider the lowly amount of capital invested in them to that of a film production. Furthermore, acts can also sell DVDs of their live performances.

DVDs are the film equivalent of CDs. Yes, CDs are passed around but so are those lil' movie discs. And you can't rent the later at a video store. Plus, CDs sell higher #s than average DVD.

As far as "bait" goes, don't pin this entirely on me. After all, you started this. AP: I didn't drop "OK Computer" to lure you into this. It's just the easiest comparison to make. "YTF" vs. "Led Zeppelin 4" doesn't work as well.

Posted by: Blog at April 6, 2004 11:33 AM

There's a lesson in here somewhere: disclaimers don't prevent anything

You posted a retort to P2P'ers and dropped a comment like "you've got to pay someone for something."

Yeah, like that but materially different: "You gotta give somebody something." Those words mean something entirely distinct from your rephrasing. It was not a "retort" or a rebuke, beyond being a suggestion that maybe thems that takes for free also ought to give for free. ("Giving for free", once again, is not the same as "paying".)

If you reconcile that by rightly pointing out that your internet content is, indeed, intellectual property freely given, fine. Good for you.* But why get your panties in such a bunch over the bland suggestion of a charitable donation?

Tours are the music equivalent of a film screening.

Nope. As you said earlier, tours are the primary money-maker for the artist. They have no clean corollary in the film industry, though they might if the director and actors went on tour to re-perform the story for money.

Rather than primarily benefiting the artists involved, film screenings are the primary income generator for the producers and distributors of a motion picture, who then pass on income to the artists as a cost of making the product. This is more akin to the economics of a recorded album than a tour.

Why does this distinction matter? Because of the difference in who gets a return on the investment. On a music tour, the investment comes from, and the return goes to, promoters, sponsors, and the artists. In film screenings and album sales, the return largely goes to the company that invested the money needed to create the product. So the comparison of tours to film screenings doesn't hold water. But nice try.

Since you've dragged me into this, I might as well ask an unrelated question:

Talk all you want about evil record companies. How do you justify bootlegging albums put out by indie artists on tiny, starving record labels? (In answering, please avoid anything like "a lot of indie artists give away recordings free." I want a solid principle that holds for all cases.)
___________________
*Let alone the fallacy of the assumption that your waiver of a right to profit off your product entitles you to steal somebody else's.

And, while we're down here in the footnote, I at least will be the first to admit that the reason my own online content is offered freely is that I know people are not willing to pay for it, whereas they're willing to pay bundles for Wilco's. Them's the breaks.

Posted by: FLOG™ at April 6, 2004 12:55 PM

A fair answer, but there's a few things I think you're overlooking.

Wilco is saying I'm under some sort of moral obligation to "give something back." No else is bothered by these qualms, why should I be?

For what it's worth, www.justafan.org has so far raised $5,600. Not earth-shaking, but it shows somebody out there has a qualm or two. Remember, my original post asked if file sharers had any qualms. If they didn't, as you obviously don't, they were free to ignore the rest of what I had to say. But for some reason you couldn't do that.

What makes you think [concert promoters would own an artist's songs if albums became free promos for tours]? If the recording industry was dissolved tomorrow, artists could become free agents of sorts. Concert promoters could invest in acts they deem worthy and split the proceeds from ticket sales.

If the promoter only invests in the tour, no, he would obviously not own rights to the artist's music.

But think about this a bit. Most musicians, as I said, have no money or credit. Especially unestablished (hence, new and interesting) musicians. Somebody needs to pay their bills while they're putting together an album. Granted, as you point out, recording an album is getting cheaper all the time. But time is still money. Artists have to eat and pay rent. And a free album still needs to be manufactured and distributed (Perhaps it could be distributed only online, but there are still some of us out here who value liner notes, and we'd like them even more if they were free.)

Now, if the record companies cease to exist, who is going to pay for all of this? The logical answer is the concert promoter, for whose benefit an artist's album would generate popularity.

Concert promoters are not any less parasitic than record companies when it comes to milking artists. Even in a world where albums are free, the owner of the rights to a song can make a lot of money on radio play and licensing to Nissan for minivan ads. So there's no reason to assume that a concert promoter, in contracting to front money for an artist to record an album, would be any less eager than a record label to secure a major or total share of the property rights to the artist's output. Artists would get as fucked then as they do now, except that the promoter would have a monopoly on the fucking.

The best example of this is the Black Album. It cost nothing to make and it's a sensation. Screw record promoters. Let word of mouth do all the work.

The fact that the Gray Album is the best example demonstrates the weakness of the point. Jay-Z + Beatles = Gimmick. The reason it got so big is that it was a headline-worthy gimmick. There is no good reason to conclude from this that a simple, well-crafted album, from an unknown artist, with no scandal or hook attached, could do anywhere nearly as well from word-of-mouth. Even today, with marketing, quality artists have to build their following over the course of several albums, during which someone must pay their bills (see above).

So in this marketing-free future you envision, I am forced to conclude that every artist who wants to reach a sizable audience needs to find a bigger, sillier gimmick than the last guy. We already have this situation to a limited extent in the Marilyn Manson-Eminem-Slipknot line of cases, and in the matter of "Who did that sexy little bitch kiss this week?" You're saying more of this would be good for music?

Posted by: FLOG™ at April 7, 2004 3:32 AM

Gray Album? Black Album? That does it. I either need to either get some sleep or a copy of "How to be Cool Like All the Hip Kids."

Posted by: Blog at April 7, 2004 6:14 AM

Yeah, more later. Or something.

Posted by: Blog at April 7, 2004 6:16 AM

"Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. So why get so ticked off at the idea of a charitable donation in recognition of all the shit you have for free? Why is that so wrong of me or Wilco to suggest?"

The tab button doesn't work in this feedback area for some reason. How do you adjust quote blocks like that?

Anyway, I refuse to pay because 1: everyone else refuses to pay and 2: I'm not stealing anything tangible. Wilco is saying I'm under some sort of moral obligation to "give something back." No else is bothered by these qualms, why should I be? Shucks, all the other file-sharers out there reading this can't even be bothered to comment on the issue.

"Also, if you think artists get fucked over now, imagine how things will be when their concert promoter also owns their songs."

What makes you think they would? If the recording industry was dissolved tomorrow, artists could become free agents of sorts. Concert promoters could invest in acts they deem worthy and split the proceeds from ticket sales. Bands would rise and fall by word-of-mouth and the quality of their music instead of the hype machine.

"For most artists to attain the recognition necessary to make a healthy living off of touring or, if they're lucky, songwriting royalties, they need to begin with a quality studio recording. so somebody needs to cough up the cash to get this recording done."

Not true. With products like Pro Tools out there, quality studio recordings can be recorded in an apt for next to nothing. That Black Album thing was put together in a bedroom. For lack of a better example, Moby records all his stuff on a laptop while sitting on his bed and that fucker's rich. If an artist is bothered by moral qualms, he could easily get his/her hands on a pirated copy of Pro Tools and record an album for absolutely nothing. For an additional $20, they could post the whole thing on the internet, stick it on Kazaa and spread the word via friends, etc.

The best example of this is the Black Album. It cost nothing to make and it's a sensation. Screw record promoters. Let word of mouth do all the work.

"By not buying records, file downloaders take full advantage of a record label's financial investment and give it nothing in return. Is this fair? What effect might it have on future artist development?"

See above. Also: I may not buy MM's next album but I've already dropped $17 on a ticket. There are other ways to make money besides CDs. I'm sure Issac and the rest made a pretty penny off that Nissan ad.

Posted by: Blog at April 7, 2004 12:22 PM

"On its merits alone it would have gone nowhere. Nice 'counter-example'.

Fine, I went with the best known and first thing that came to mind. There is no go-to example because, as you've pointed out, the only thing I could use here is something well-known and newsworthy. Here's a short list of a few bands I would have NEVER listened to if it weren't for PTP:

Wilco
Modest Mouse
Bikini Kill
Cornelius
Handsome Boy Modeling School
etc...

I'm sure this goes for plenty of other people that let merit rise above hype.

"This from the guy who began his argument with 'Today's Music Isn't Nearly as Good as the Music of the '60s and '70s.'"

Well, there's always a chance these people could be downloading music from that era. Huh? Huh? Nice cheapshot there but it doesn't make much sense.

"It is a system that allows you to seek and attain exactly what you are looking for. Seems to me this system, rather than encouraging better choices, simply mirrors and reinforces the bad or good taste of the individual listener."

I'm certainly not using Soulseek to trade Britney b-sides. It's filled with users that listen to every obscure thing they can get their hands on. Because of P2P I'm willing to give just about anything a try. It's not "reinforcing" any tunnel-view tastes for myself or anyone else. These programs allow people to see what is in other user's shared folders. From what I've seen, the average user has a wide-array of music from a million different genres.

A little bit off topic but what are your thoughts on live recordings and obscure tracks that can't be found anywhere else? I wouldn't have my copy of "White Stripes in Boston" if it weren't for P2P.

With that said, I've tossed down my gauntlet to the industry. P2P has its drawbacks, mostly in sound quality. I'd obviously much rather have a crystal-clear CD recording of something than a bootlegged mp3. If they want to stop being a scurvy pirate they've got to drop their prices to a reasonable level. There Is Absolutely No Reason Why A CD Should Cost More Than $10. And .99 for a mp3 is a rip off, plain and simple.

Posted by: Blog at April 8, 2004 5:58 AM

"But for some reason you couldn't do that."

Bah, this is more fun.

"Granted, as you point out, recording an album is getting cheaper all the time. But time is still money. Artists have to eat and pay rent. And a free album still needs to be manufactured and distributed."

Well, in words of Mr. Lewbowski, they could always "get a job." In between tours and recording, one member of Sleater Kinney, until recently, worked as a teacher. They also have that Rock n' Roll Camp thing going. If I'm not mistaken, a few members of the Cherry Poppin' Daddies would return to Eugene during down time and get part time jobs. One guy I used to work with, who belongs to a goth band popular in Germany, comes back to PDX and goes to Express Personnel. In this brave new world, unestablished musicians will have to work like the rest of us. Poor babies!

Yes, my words may as well be dribbling out of the mouth of a staunch conservative. I feel bad, really I do.

Right now, I could record an album for around $150 and put it on the iny-net. Surely, a four-member band could cough-up that kinda cash and still pay rent.

"there are still some of us out here who value liner notes, and we'd like them even more if they were free"

If it's linear notes you want, go to a band's website or All Music. If you want something tangible, you'll be paying $18 for a tiny, lil' book of crappy pictures and the same damn lyrics you can get on the iny-net for free.

"Artists would get as fucked then as they do now, except that the promoter would have a monopoly on the fucking."

So, what you're saying here is that artists will get fucked no matter what the outcome of the P2P war. If this is the case, I prefer a world where I don't have to pay for music.

"So in this marketing-free future you envision, I am forced to conclude that every artist who wants to reach a sizable audience needs to find a bigger, sillier gimmick than the last guy."

Bullocks. Granted, there would be some of that, there is right now, but still, bullocks. Your beloved Wilco is a great counter-example. Their battle with their record company and their move to stick YTF on the 'net was the best thing that ever happened to them. The album was at the top of every year's best list in 2002. They even squeezed out a documentary that played in theatres around the country.

There are thousands of bands and artists out there that would get no attention if it weren't for the internet. Do you prefer the days where 3 Clear Channel stations was the only music outlet for 99% of the populace? I sure don't. Because of P2P, people are listening to better music. There will always be Britney-styled lesbo antics and Eminem-flavored bullshit because Americans love sensationalism. There's nothing that will ever stop that. At least now there's a slight chance that something decent will slip into their ears.

Posted by: Blog at April 8, 2004 10:36 AM

Your beloved Wilco is a great counter-example. Their battle with their record company and their move to stick YTF on the 'net was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Yeah, uh, see: Gimmick. Or at least News Hook. As I've said before, YHF is what it is because of the story behind it (record company refuses to release record, record leaks on internet, much drama ensues with ironic result of band signing with other arm of same company, all while a fortuitously placed film crew diligently records everything). On its merits alone it would have gone nowhere. Nice "counter-example".

There are thousands of bands and artists out there that would get no attention if it weren't for the internet. Do you prefer the days where 3 Clear Channel stations was the only music outlet for 99% of the populace?

Pull over, dude. Where in any of my arguments have I suggested that I'm against the internet as a disseminator of information? There are other ways to gain exposure on the internet besides having your songs traded around. Streaming feeds, short samples of songs, promotional online videos, and song and album giveaways are all effective and frequently used methods of getting the word out in a manner controlled by the artist and/or label. This is great. But it's not relevant to a discussion of song STEALING.

Because of P2P, people are listening to better music. . . At least now there's a slight chance that something decent will slip into their ears.

This from the guy who began his argument with "Today's Music Isn't Nearly as Good as the Music of the '60s and '70s." Huh. Really, I don't see how p2p has any effect on the quality of music or of the public's musical choices. It is a system that allows you to seek and attain exactly what you are looking for. Seems to me this system, rather than encouraging better choices, simply mirrors and reinforces the bad or good taste of the individual listener. Which is why you can find 6,000 copies of "Oops I Did It Again" on KaZaA, but it took me two months to gap-fill my copy of Loveless.

So, what you're saying here is that artists will get fucked no matter what the outcome of the P2P war. If this is the case, I prefer a world where I don't have to pay for music.

Excellently put, and impossible to disagree with. But the vision that a world with free songs and no record labels would benefit artists is frequently tossed about by p2p advocates. It seems, at least, that I've succeeded in disabusing you of that notion. I'll take what I can get. Posted by: FLOG™ at April 8, 2004 11:20 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: