BPI boss Geoff Taylor tells it like it isn’t
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- Once upon a time, Geoff Taylor, 41, worked for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s IFPI (International Federation of Phornographic Industry).
It goes without saying he’ s a lawyer and, for the past couple of years, he’s been head truth-basher at the Big 4’s BPI (British Phornographic Industry).
In her wisdom Auntie, aka the BBC, Britain’s publicly funded national radio and TV broadcaster, gave him free spin-space through which he dissembles about music industry events during the sue ‘em all years.
The item is also featured on the BPI site where we find, under the headline Ten years of Napster, ‘Dear oh dear. (Brushes away tear.) If only we hadn’t phuked it up when Napster started it all. (Sob)’
That’s the p2pnet summary, anyway. The full piece kicks off, “Napster was the Rosetta Stone of digital music. Until its release in 1999, few people understood the long term significance of turning sound waves into ones and noughts.”
[Digression #1] The Rosetta Stone is a, “multilingual stele that allowed linguists to begin the process of hieroglyph decipherment,” says the Wikipedia. Thus, In the reign of the new king who was Lord of the diadems, great in glory, the stabilizer of Egypt, and also pious in matters relating to the gods, superior to his adversaries, rectifier of the life of men, Lord of the thirty-year periods like Hephaestus the Great, King like the Sun, the Great King of the Upper and Lower Lands, offspring of the Parent-loving gods, whom Hephaestus has approved, to whom the Sun has given victory, living image of Zeus, Son of the Sun, Ptolemy the ever-living, beloved by Ptah … This is only a partial translation, but it relates clearly to Napster and P2P filesharing. Should Ptah perhaps be pfffft?
Geoff goes on »»»
Yes, the CD had introduced greater convenience and – to most ears – better sound quality; and the arrival of CD burning put the power of near-perfect replication in the hands of the consumer.
But until Napster, hardly anyone understood the tsunami that would be unleashed by combining the ability to copy digitally with the power of the internet to connect all the computers on the planet.
[Digression #2] The Big 4 still don’t understand, which is why they’re in such deep shit »»»
Napster understood the internet’s potential for decentralised music distribution, and offered it to consumers in a way that was simple to understand and use.
Many critics have argued that the music industry could have avoided some of the problems it faces today if we had embraced Napster rather than fighting it.
That’s probably true, and I, for one, regret that we weren’t [aren't] faster in figuring out how to create a sustainable model for music on the internet.
Legal obstacles
But this view also overlooks the formidable hurdles we faced [created] in 1999.
To make music fully and legally available on the internet [so Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and only them, could distribute it] meant clearing the rights in millions of tracks for a huge number of countries, agreeing how the revenue should be shared, implementing workable DRM [Digital Restrictions Management consumer control], developing technology to track all the downloads for royalty purposes [by spying on consumers], as well as creating a [low] quality user experience people would [never] pay for.
In 1999 Napster developed a great digital service, but did so at the expense of music, while the music business protected music at the expense of progressing online digital services. [Cough, choke]
Shawn Fanning and his P2P followers didn’t worry about any of those things, and weren’t prepared to pay fair royalties or to partner in a business model that could sustain investment in new music. [Cough, choke]
[Digression #3] Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music, BMG Music, Universal Music Group (Polygram having been swallowed by UMG) thought they could milk Napster dry by reconfiguring it with the same tired and outmoded business model they’ d been flogging in the last century. They wanted to turn the Net into their own private and exclusive marketing, sales promotion and distribution preserve and weren’t going to let anything — including their own customers — stand in the way. Today, under corporate guidance, Napster is a sickly shadow of what it used to be, stumbling and fumbling from one financial and marketing disaster to another. Just like the Big 4 labels »»»
Ten years on, it’s interesting watching other creative sectors [Hollywood] struggling with similar issues. In the meantime, the record industry has [not] gone through a transformation.
Online now contributes 13% of our revenue, we have a whole range of new business models such as WE7, Spotify and Comes with Music, and new ISP services – like the unlimited download service recently announced by Universal Music and Virgin Media – are coming online.
Young, innovative people with advanced digital skills are [not] thriving in music companies and transforming the ways our artists can connect with their fans. The music business is [not] now widely recognised as leading the creative sector in redefining itself for the digital age.
[Digression # 4] There are no creative people working for the Big 4. They’re all corporate drones who do what they’re told —- or else. »»»
New threats
But this innovation, and the vital investment by labels in new music, is constantly undermined by the various P2P successors to Napster.
In 2001, Napster was ordered to stop letting its members share copyrighted music
These companies take and exploit what musicians and artists create, without being honest enough to reward them. And the publishers of books, journalism, films, TV programmes and other media are now [not] lining up with us in the fight against illegal downloading.
Like us, they [don't] see how it will destroy their ability to create new content. So we are united in calling for ISPs to play a more positive role in steering consumers towards digital services that reward creators.
[Digression # 5] To date, despite eye-popping investments in time, money and political resources, the entertainment cartels have completely failed in their bid to have compliant governments compel local ISPs to become corporate copyright enforcers »»»
Some people are sceptical when we say that the music business loses hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue as a result of illegal downloading every year.
A case in point is the recent blog by The Guardian’s Charles Arthur saying “Why does the music industry persist in saying that every download is a lost sale?”
The answer is, quite simply, that we don’t – our figures [supplied by our own creative accountants] are based on a detailed analysis of actual spending behaviour in different age groups.
It is true that some people use P2P for music discovery and spend more on music as a result, but [we'll soon put a stop to that and] in the aggregate they are [most definitely not] heavily outweighed by the number of people whose downloading substitutes for purchases.
If the reverse were true, our business would be booming and not contracting right now.
[Digression # 6] The labels claim files shared equal sales lost. This year, in a 16-page opinion, “District Judge James P. Jones denied an RIAA request for “restitution” in a file sharing case, instead, “holding the RIAA’s reasoning to be unsound,” said Recording Industry vs The People. In his ruling, and discussing the RIAA / Lionsgate “theory of loss,” they, RIAA / Lionsgate, “assert that for each illegal download of music or movies on the Elite Torrents network, profits were diverted from legitimate sales the copyright holders could have otherwise made,” Jones wrote, also stating, “Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.” »»»
Harm done
There is simply no getting around the fact that billions of illegal free downloads of music every year in the UK mean that significantly less money is coming into the music ecosystem [read Big 4 coffers].
Music companies invest more money into Artists & Repertoire (the music industry’s Research & Development) than any other similar business – over 20% of revenue.
But illegal downloading means that artists are not getting paid for their work , and there is a direct knock-on effect on the number of new bands that music companies can sign and support.
In the long term, this will do [no] serious harm to the strength of music in the UK. That’s why BPI continues to lead the fight for creators’ rights on the internet and ISP responsibility, despite opposition from those who naively believe in an endless free lunch.
Most people in this country agree that musicians have a right to be paid for their work, and most of us want Britain’s unique contribution to the world of music to continue [to the sole and exclusive benefit of Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US)].
[Digression # 7] In the US, former RIAA unit SoundExchange collects $$$ for for copyright owners. This year, “why has $101 million stuck to SoundExchange’s fingers?” – wondered entertainment lawyer Fred Wilhelms, going on, “the answer should be obvious; SoundExchange can’t find the people it’s supposed to pay. And even more painfully obvious, SoundExchange doesn’t care. You see, if they don’t find those artists, or those artists somehow find SoundExchange on their own, SoundExchange will get to keep that $101 million all to itself and use it to pay its own expenses. When SoundExchange reduces its expenses, half that saved money can be used to increase payments to artists they HAVE found, and the other half will go to the labels who have registered. Seventy percent of the money which goes to the labels from SoundExchange goes to the four majors who run the RIAA. So the fact that SoundExchange has accumulated $101 million translates into a $35 million dollar windfall for the RIAA, a windfall created completely by SoundExchange’s indifference to its promises to artists. Undoubtedly, however, in the UK, artists get everything they’re owed in full, with no problems, and with no exceptions. Meanwhile, and finally, »»»
In 1999 Napster developed a great digital service, but did so at the expense of music, while the music business protected music at the expense of progressing online digital services.
In 2009, we’ve all learnt our lessons. Napster is now [fails to] run as a service which fairly remunerates artists and musicians, while the music business now [fails to] offers a great range of legal digital platforms.
We are [not] making encouraging progress in harnessing the internet’s unique power to connect people through music, but in ways that also reward artists and the labels that [do not] support them.
Napster was a technological revolution. But the social and cultural revolution that would follow from developing a sustainable ecosystem could be deeper and longer lasting.
“The invention of Napster and all that has followed may soon deliver its greatest legacy,” Taykor adds, “a renaissance in artistic creativity for the digital age.”
No need to stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
BBC – Napster – 10 years of turmoil, June 26, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Too bad these BBC don’t have comment section.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I honestly only read the first few snippets of this guy’s bullshit (primarily because — having debated staunch defenders of IP such as “Sam I Am”, I’ve pretty much heard all of their arguments, and they’re total bullshit.)
1. Nobody in their right mind is actually going to pay money to “license” a DRM-crippled file that could — and most likely, will — go dead at the whim of whatever RIAA corporate shit-fest they “bought” it from. We know that the RIAA/MPAA’s fondest wet-dream is to abolish the notion of “selling” content at all, and have everything “licensed” or semi-”rented” from them, and vast amounts of folks just aren’t going to play along with that scenario, even if — or especially if — it ends up killing an entire “industry” in the process.
The fact that companies have had to explicitly instruct their customers on how to BREAK the DRM (by transcoding or suchlike) indicates that DRM is just a horribly bad idea.
2. People aren’t particularly interested in paying middlement — whether it’s “retailers”, or talentless, waitress-killing douchebags like Phil Spector. (Read the Wikipedia article on the guy — he was way ahead of his time, in that he was vehemently opposed to stereo releases because it supposedly “took control away from the producer, in favor of the listener.” Standard-issue RIAA douchebaggery.)
But I digress:
People are even LESS willing to pay “middlement” (such as “label” guys) now that they know the REAL talent — musicians and songwriters — are getting shit on by the labels. They’re ESPECIALLY displeased by the incessant whimpering, lawsuits, and generalized monopoly-mongering involved in copy”right” term extension, or classifying signed artists’ output as “works for hire” owned by the label, or cookie-cutter fakes like Milli Vanilli passed of as real “talent”. In short, they’re really annoyed by everything the major-label “industry” as such — and for good reason.
3. EVEN IF the rise of p2p technology and the file-sharing scene DOES harm “the industry” by depriving them of billions upon billions, a significant number of folks would greet that with a resounding “good, about goddamn time!”
The RIAA/MPAA member companies have become the modern equivalent of the Tobacco industry — lying, unscrupulous corporate weasels anxious to collude with cronies in government, so as to keep screwing their own customer-base.
So it’s pretty doubtful that p2p represents “lost sales”, but even if it does, there’s a lot of folks who — justifiably — would figure that was pretty damn cool.
4. The REAL “talent” upon which the major-label “music industry” depends — artists — are defecting in droves. They understand that they’ll just get shit on if they sign, and recognize p2p “piracy” as a great alternative to corporate Payola bullshit, as a way to build the fan-base which any artist or group wants and needs.
The only ones bitching about the “threat” posed by p2p are big-label whores, and a few disgruntled quasi-Indie whackjobs like Indiana Gregg, who are probably doing it to drum up public visibility. (I mean, come on — was “gr8pop” or Indiana Gregg even on anybody’s radar before her TPB-related tantrum? I’d never heard of the woman, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that her stuff was actually available in your local record-store, anywhere — thanks, not coindicentally, to the very same RIAA corporate lobbyists she was so intent on sucking up to — or, one might say, sucking OFF.)
What sticks out for me, in regard to Napster, is the fact that Metallica — prior to their status as RIAA trophy-bitches who helped destroy Napster — were actually a “taper-friendly” band: in particular, they explicitly encouraged people to MAKE COPIES of their stuff and give it to friends, so as to create a fanbase.
(Pretty similar to the “Arctic Monkeys” — “bootleg”-friendly, UNTIL their corporate pay-masters say otherwise.)
That’s also why nobody takes Metallica particularly seriously anymore — it is simply impossible to look anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian and badass, while sitting in Congress, explicitly acting as corporate shills.
The only new “business model” that stands any chance of actually working out is leveraging the Internet’s potential to connect with a potential fan-base: Susan Boyle became the biggest thing since sliced bread, NOT because she was on “Brittain’s got talent”, but because the clip (and her tracks from that “charity” CD back in the 1990s) spread all over the Net like a prairie-fire.
The RIAA’s “business-model” was never about finding, recruiting, recording and marketing “talent”.
It IS all about monopoly: being the ONLY way to make good recordings (hence their routine attempts to lobby government to prevent decent-quality “consumer” equipment — “VCR = Boston Strangler”, “Home taping is killing music!”.
It’s about having the ONLY distribution-channels (Payola, media-consolidation, their periodic attempts to close the “first-sale” loophole, so they have TOTAL control over prices.) Remember kids, “first sale” is your friend.
It’s about totally destroying “fair use” and similar legal exemptions, so the corporate shit-in-suits can “monetize” any and all uses of the content for which they own the “rights”.
Above all, it’s about destroying the “Public Domain” by a process of starvation, coupled with vigorous, unrelenting propaganda. They want to transform monopolies such as copy”right” and patents — which are, at the absolutely most charitable assessment, mere “necessary evils” — privileges granted for a limited time, and for a specific purpose — into the “Sacred right of Property”. (Judging by people Like “Sam I Am”, sometimes their bullshit-campaign works.)
Behind all of it, is standard Corporate malfeasance and psychothapology — the relentless lust for maximum profits, with issues like customer choice, a vibrant public domain, artistic freedom, technological innovation, and even whether artists actually get paid or not, treates as mere “externalities” — somebody else’s concern.
Quite simply, no matter WHAT concessions they manage to buy from sympathetic cronies in various governments, the “major labels” — and the misbegotten “business-model” upon which they depend — are irretrievably fucked: at this point, even if they caved in completely –stopped begging ever-longer copy”right” terms, maybe even settled for a reduction back to something more reasonable, started selling non-DRM’ed tracks at a reasonable price, AND paying the artists’ the sign better than your average Walmart greeter, they’d STILL be trapped in the same — unstoppable — downward spiral, because at this point, it’s simply impossible for them to ever live down the bullshit they’ve done up to this point. (This is also why Bush II is exceedingly unlikely to be remembered by history as anything but a barely-verbal sockpuppet for the military-industrial-petrochemical complex, but that’s another issue.)
Honestly, I don’t think people don’t want to “pay for” music: it’s just that they don’t want to pay THE RIAA or any of it’s pampered sockpuppets.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
1. Pardon the bad spelling etc. (”Middlement?”?
2. I love the amount of psychological projection going on with the RIAA and suchlike:
“These companies take and exploit what musicians and artists create, without being honest enough to reward them. ”
Yup — sounds like the RIAA business-model to me
June 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
ya!
June 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I’m the Devil’s Advocate, and I approve this rant!
; )
Not to sound hypercritical or anything, Henry, but I need to ask… When you said, “Corporate malfeasance and psychothapology” were you thinking perhaps of saying “…psychotheology”?
: )
June 29th, 2009 at 1:18 am
“Not to sound hypercritical or anything, Henry, but I need to ask… When you said, “Corporate malfeasance and psychothapology” were you thinking perhaps of saying “…psychotheology”?”
Ummm….actually I was thinking “psychopathology”. I can’t type lately for some reason.
But yeah — I’m BAAAAAACK!
June 29th, 2009 at 2:05 am
“But yeah — I’m BAAAAAACK!”
Well, I for one, am glad you are!
Yeah I knew it had to be one or the other.
“psychopathology” definitely makes more sense.
: )
June 29th, 2009 at 2:20 am
“I for one am glad that you are”:
Say that in a few weeks, when I’ve managed to piss everybody off again (smirk)
Actually, the primary reason I was “gone” was/were these:
1. Personal life stuff which I’m not going to get into, except to say that it sucks.
2. Very busy with the music and suchlike. (Out of town quite a lot, actually.)
3. Backups and computer-related crap.
Anyway, long story short is, I’ve come to the conclusion that sometimes (quite often?) I can be a complete asshole, if I’m in the wrong mood and reply to discussions. (Admit it: you’ve all felt the whip-end of my “moody” side at least once!), so sometimes it’s just better for me not to even try and discuss things, because I’m even more of an asshole than usual
But anyway, I’m back.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:17 am
So I see they’re still bullshitting in the name of compensating the “artist” and “musician” work-for-hires that they themselves don’t fairly compensate. P2P has not been a revolution “at the expense of music,” it’s been a revolution at the expense of music BUSINESS. As always, the industry’s greatest fear is the fear of its own irrelevance.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Dont call your self an artist then
artists create art to be shared 1st then worry about money later
you cheapen culture and make it just for money your the wrong kind of artist
June 29th, 2009 at 8:19 am
My biggest fear in all of this is that one of these “half-assed” programs like Choruss or the UK Virgin deal will be just enough to convince mainstream customers that the industry is providing what they need – preventing any real change from occurring. The longer they continue to sue themselves into obsolescence, the more average people turn to p2p – leaving the industry to exsanguinate and making room for forward-thinking artists to break new ground. The industry continues to attempt to approximate what customers have loudly and clearly stated they want, but if one of these approximates are “just enough” I worry that it will sap a good bit of the current momentum.
On second thought, though, when people’s parents are using bitTorrent sapping the momentum is like trying to stop a truck with your foot.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
…”sometimes it’s just better for me not to even try and discuss things…”
To quote a famous line from Captain Kirk:
“We’re better off WITH you than without you!”
Given the choice between the most “heated” entry you’ve made, and the “least incomprehensible” entry made by another here (who shall remain nameless, and who’s handle begins with a “C”, ends with an “SS” and has “HRoNo” in the middle 8 P ), I think it’s safe to say yours would still be the last one I’d want to see deleted.
But, I’m glad to see you’re getting out for some air, though!
: )
June 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
personally, I enjoyed the ‘bitch-slap-Sam-I-Am-power-hour’.
I actually left him alone to allow Henry the professional courtesy…
June 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“I actually left him alone to allow Henry the professional courtesy…”
Yeah, sort of like how they cleared the dance floor for Tony Manero (Saturday Night Fever).
: )
June 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“My biggest fear in all of this is that one of these “half-assed” programs like Choruss or the UK Virgin deal will be just enough to convince mainstream customers that the industry is providing what they need – preventing any real change from occurring.”
@Steelwolf:
No worries there, as far as I can figure:
Why?
1. “Mainstream customers” already know the “industry’s” tactics are shit — hence the numerous studies that indicate that p2p users are also some of the RIAA’s best customers. (Which is odd, because I thought people were boycotting, so as to starve the beast, but that’s another topic.)
Put bluntly, REAL artists and fans have always seen the corporate “music industry” as, at best, a necessary evil. The “evil” aspects of it (shitty contracts, payola, etc.) could be overlooked as an unfortunate byproduct. The truly evil stuff went on behind the scenes — Valenti lobbying congress to ban the VCR, the propaganda campaign against “home taping”, the copyright extensions — all of that was, up until relatively recently, “under the radar” in most cases.
Then Napster happened, because the Net happened, and corporate spin no longer worked. Same for politics: look at Trent Lott — one little instance of sucking up to Strom Thurmond at a birthday party and his political career is, if not destroyed, then at leasr seriously compromised.
Same with the “Music Industry” — or at least the portions of it dominated by the RIAA and it’s various sockpuppets like the BPI, etc.
No matter how they attempt to “spin” things, somebody’s always out there, somewhere, un-spinning it.
2. Another issue is, what do you mean by their “customers?”
If you mean your run-of-the-mill CD buyer, that’s not the demographic they’ve ever really had to deal with, because those people aren’t really “fans” or music-lovers in the sense we’re talking about. The RIAA has always depended on two buyer-bases: trendy teenagers following the latest “fad” (which the RIAA mostly created), and the “real fan” types — die-hard music nuts with vast collections, weird tastes, or both — whether they were “scenesters” who followed a particular genre, or crazed eclectics, the fact remains that those two demographics were — and are — the biggest buyers.
Very few other people give enough of a shit to buy music recordings (even digitally) on a regular basis.
The great thing about the Internet world since Napster, is that p2p, music-blogs, and social-networking have really turned a lot of people on to music and art in general, rather than having it just be a “background” noise. That’s also why the Advertising scumbags are relentlessly recycling dumbed-down abominations based on classic songs. (Probably the worst version of this that I’ve seen recently is a commercial for poly-grip. They took “Bye Bye Love” (the Everly brothers), and turned it into a denture cream jingle. Damn.)
But there’s a lot of people who are “conscious” about music (and the music “industry”, and they are also the ones least likely to buy into the RIAA’s shit. Trendy teens following the latest “fad” represent short-term profits — just so long as their particular “trend” holds out. REAL music-fans are the big-money, and always have been.
The other “customers” the RIAA member-companies have to worry about, are the artists themselves, and trust me — they know they’re getting screwed. Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Radiohead, Trent Reznor, have all come out against at least SOME aspects of “The Industry”.
Hell, Moby’s openly advocated the RIAA be disbanded.
So the only ones actually still looking to get “signed” are people too dumb, or too desperate, to actually think it through — and/or trendy, manufactured, corporate-cutouts like the Jonas Brothers, but I digress.)
Trendy teens will do anything to be trendy — make a fad where they wear a bag of dogshit around their necks, and somebody’ll end up making a killing in the “Dogshit-in-a-bag” business. As to the other major “customers” of the RIAA member companies — REAL music fans, and musicians themselves — let’s just say it doesn’t look promisining.
Why else do you think they’re scrabbling so desperately for all these new laws?
No matter what they tell you, that’s not a position of “strength”, but of soul-deep terror and desperation: before, they could just “ease” their stuff through by incriments, and nobody much gave a shit. Now, we’ve hit the point with a sizable — and growing — segment of the world’s population (many of whom are also tech-savvy AND at least somewhat anti-Authoritarian), have begun to openly question why copy”right” and patents are “neccesary”, or at least, if they do more harm than good.
And that’s the really important part: when musicians and groups stop signing, a huge, grassroots opposition to the current state of IP law emerges, complete with it’s own political party and symbolism, and millions of p2p users simply do not give a shit anymore, the RIAA member-companies know they’re in deep, deep trouble.
So yeah, if you’re worried that they’ll keep manufacturing fads, and the trendy sheep will keep guzzling those fads down, then you’re probably right. If you’re concerned that they might actually manage to clean up their act and start offering musicians and fans what they want, then that’d actually be pretty cool.
Besides, look what happens to the “fads” they manufacture:
1. People guzzle them down uncritially, because it’s the “in” thing to do.
2. Eventually, it gets to the point where pretty much all you can find is the latest fad (the “disco craze”, boybands, milli vanilli, etc.)
3. People get bored/pissed off, and start destroying stuff related to the fad, and hating it (”Disco sucks”, the later careers of N’Sync, Milli Vanilli, etc.)
Eventually the “fad” created by the “industry” either gets to be appreciated because it actually has some esthetic merit (and, in so doing, develops a real fan-base), or it vanishes into a mix of obscurity/contempt. (The Macarena, for example.)
So I don’t really think you have much to worry about.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“he industry continues to attempt to approximate what customers have loudly and clearly stated they want, but if one of these approximates are “just enough” I worry that it will sap a good bit of the current momentum.”
How so?
I really doubt http://www.southparkstudios.com would even have been considered if people hadn’t done stuff like http://www.sp-zone.com, or allsp, or the plethora of other similar sites. Even if the above-ground “content industry” continues to “me-too” it’s way along, there will ALWAYS be people doing the DIY thing (whether it’s explicitly “legal” or not — hell, if it’s illegal, it’ll become a bigger draw, because as we all know “Forbidden fruit is sweetest”, and all that). The corporatards know they are totally dependent on the scruffy, outsider-fringe for good ideas (or do you think “Green Day” would have happened without the underground Hardcore-punk scene?)
Sorry, I’m rambling, but you get what I’m going for here…..
June 29th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
@ Henry and SteelWolf:
Choruss isn’t half-assed. It’s half vast. Ask Jim.
Cheers!