Apple, Big Music symbiosis
p2pnet.net News Opinion:- Big Music and Apple have an interesting symbiotic relationship.
Apple is fast losing its original identity. In the space of a few short months it’s gone from being the maker of too-expensive computers to the maintainer of a web outlet selling and promoting Big Four record label cartel tracks at a rip-off dollar-per-download.
To Warner Music (USA), EMI (UK), UMG (France) and Sony-BMG (Japan, German) music doesn’t have much to do with music. It’s ‘product’ aimed at the lowest (and therefore largest) common denominator.
As an article in The Economist said recently, “Even Wall Street analysts are questioning quality. If CD sales have shrunk, one reason could be that people are less excited by the industry’s product.”
Apple isn’t selling music. It’s brokering a commodity. And the commodity it’s dealing is a low quality loss-leader for its iPod mp3 players. Equally important, iPod is also one of the primary means of survival for the corporate music industry, which is currently suing its own customers as fast as it can go in an vain attempt to stay afloat as the waves of change sweep over it.
The cartel members are being caught in one lie after another, and their tired platitudes are being questioned more and more often. Their biggest untruth, that their sue ‘em all campaign against file sharers is succeeding, is now being deconstructed on an almost daily basis.
When a publication such as The Economist, read by world government leaders, writes a lead article underlining Big Music’s failure, or inability, to grasp the realities of the 21st century music market, you know the writing is on the wall.
Enemy submarine
It’s like the black-and-white WWII movie where the bad guys in the enemy submarine know they’re done for, but they’re hell-bent on torpedoing everything in sight before they themselves finally sink to the bottom.
One of the only reason the members of the Big Four record label cartel are still afloat (and impeding the growth of the future of music while they wallow) is because Apple and iPod are acting as life-preservers.
“The iPod and iTunes store are a shining light at a very bleak time in the industry,” Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) said recently.
Apple’s ’success,’ due almost entirely to non-stop PR and the ever-faithful mainstream media, gives the entirely false impression that there’s a corporate online music business.
There will be one, eventually. But it hasn’t arrived yet. Not by a long shot.
That Apple has sold 125 million tracks since it introduced iTunes is headlined around the world as a major triumph.
It’s taken since September, 2003, for Apple to ’sell’ these 125 million files. In the real world of online music, however, in the same time frame, something in the order of 16 billion files moved from computer to computer via the p2p networks. But you never see those statistic headlined.
Nor do you hear of record label shareholders loudly wondering why label executives haven’t quickly moved into this new, and potentially enormously profitable, marketing, distribution and sales arena.
Never-Never land
The iPod is the Walkman of this decade. And you need mp3 music tracks, not tapes, to play on it.
Whose mp3s?
According to most mainstream press reports, Big Music’s shabby 700,000 tracks because sadly, the media apparently believe in the Never-Never land dreamed up by the music industry.
In the real world, hardly anyone, relatively speaking, uses Big Music online product, not even for their beloved iPods.
They either burn their own tracks from their own CDs, trade them offline with friends, or download them from one of the p2p networks.
Offline, in the ‘physical’ world where ‘consumers’ are easily controlled and buy what they’re told to buy, there’s little awareness of the music revolutions happening online.
But that’s changing. And fast. Every day, thousands, if not millions, of people log on for the first time to discover they’re not ‘consumers’ any more, but customers – customers who have a huge selection of music, not product, to choose from.
Similarly, the major components of the mainstream media are finding they’re no longer on the crest of the communcations waves, but are, rather, struggling in the Net’s currents of truth and knowledge.
“Much will depend on whether the majors choose to address a problem that is just as important as piracy: these days they rarely develop new artists into long-lasting acts, relying instead on short-term hits promoted in mainstream media,” says The Economist.
“That has turned off many potential buyers of new music. In future, using the internet, the industry will be able to appeal directly to customers, bypassing radio, television and big retailers, all of which tend to prefer promoting safe, formulaic acts. That could give the majors the confidence to back innovative, edgy music.
“But much smaller independent labels and artist-management firms can do the same, offering them a way to challenge the big firms head on.”
iPod and corporate music supplied iTracks are keeping Big Music alive for the time being. But that won’t last. When the tide turns, as it inevitably will, Apple and its business partners such as U2 may find themselves in deep water, again.
But this time, there’ll be no way back to the surface.
Jon Newton
NOTE:-I accidentally double-posted this item. The first post garnered three flames. They’re below:
======>
COMMENT - You are the dumbest person in the whole freakin’ world. Your argument is so completely lacking in common sense or reason, I will not even digify it with a response. Nuff said.
RESPONSE – “You are the dumbest person in the whole freakin’ world. Your argument is so completely lacking in common sense or reason, I will not even digify it with a response. Nuff said.”
You already contradicted yourself.
You responded.
Now who is dumb?
================
COMMENT - What a stupid and biased comment.
Why don’t you go search for some WMD somewhere else ?
Apple is ABOUT technology.
MUSIC is content. Nothing to do with Apple.
We don’t care if the music we listen comes from the big 5 or the big Cahuna.
We just want a great music player, great jukebox software and a music store
================
COMMENT - Ordinarily I’d take the time to reply to an article with a reasoned response, but this is article contains the most screwed-up rhetoric and logic I believe I’ve ever encountered. I’ve never seen such erroneous information and unmitigated vitriol for a GREAT company, such as Apple, in my life. Jon, you are a sad excuse for a “journalist”. Wait… do I hear Matt Drudge calling your name.
In that I don’t “subscribe” to your pathetic site, I notice I am automatically identified by you as “Anonymous Coward”. At least your site is consistent about one thing: Its ugliness.
Get a life. And while you’re at it get a thesaurus, a dictionary and a literary coach.
RESPONSE – Speaking of *unmitigated vitriol*, there’s nothing like a few well-rounded insults to make a reasoned response, I always say
October 30th, 2004 at 11:43 pm
I’m a completely unbiased anonymous coward with a PC and an iPod. I like the article. Its a good read. I’ve never bought an itune track in my life and i never will.
October 31st, 2004 at 12:04 am
Jon, you’re unclear about the reasons for your obvious dislike of “Big Music.” May I suggest you do the research and write a reasoned piece arguing your position. You can then reference it at the begining of an opinion piece like this.
If you dislike the music industry because it is attempting to protect its investment then you need to truly look at the economics of making music in 2004 in the USA and the ethics of theft. If your arguement is about the mainstreaming of pop music, don’t bring straw men (i.e. pricing structures and lawsuits) into it.
And what does Apple have to do with this? Really? Their profit comes from the hardware, not the content. If you truly understand copyright law in terms of music then you know that Apple has done more to help the movement of content across platforms more than anyone.
The number of P2P transactions you report may be accurate, but they are not legal.
October 31st, 2004 at 12:41 am
Ipod the work of the DEVIL???
its probably evil, and possessed.
The ipod is probably the evil child, spawn by apple to serves its master…
the big Music company?
Get a life dude, you are pretty screwed up!!!
October 31st, 2004 at 1:09 am
I totally agree with your sentiment. It’s criminal that they feel they can charge outrageous prices for what is essentially a very “shoddy product”. On the CD side you have the moronic loudness race (Google for it) which goes a long way to ruin quality. On the download side of things you have low quality lossy files, with DRM on top of that. Anyone who spends money to download this crap is a complete and utter fool who is seriously misinformed. But like iPods, lossy files (such as mp3’s) suffer from an “I’m so cool” factor that is completely undeserved. But that’s sheep for you. It’s old, it’s outdated, and it’s time has come. But what can I say? After all, it’s their money to throw in the trash. So much like you, I borrow or buy my CD’s used whenever I can. Yard sales, flea market, used stores. Around here there is certainly no shortage.
Anybody who does not believe that the recording industry as we know it, and their corrupt business practices, is coming to an end only needs to consider this. The current generation of youth (and even my own generation a bit for that matter) was raised on the concept of sharing and p2p. Well, guess who is going to be running the country in a few years? Mark my words, over the next decade we’ll start to see a change, and for the better. You can either adapt or be crushed by it. You can already see it’s beginnings brewing, and thankfully the media is slowly starting to wake up and see the wool that was pulled over their eyes. It’s all downhill from here.
October 31st, 2004 at 1:11 am
Hi:
I’ve only just seen your post, so in haste (it’s Halloween and I’m taking my eight-year-old daughter to a party : ) just a couple of thoughts:
I’m not a marketing expert. I’m customer who long ago gave up buying music industry ‘product’ not because I wasn’t willing to pay for it, but because I was tired of being charged outrageous amounts for consistently shoddy ‘product’. Long before the advent of mp3, I was buying tapes, records and CDs at second hand stores and yard sales. It was the only way I could get value for money.
I’d willingly pay up to 20 cents, say, for for an mp3 track and if I had access in depth to music industry catalogues, I’d probably rack up quite a bill, downloading hard-to-find and ‘out of print’ items. And I’d pay $5 or $6 for a CD. There are even one or two current items I’d buy. I doubt if I’m alone in this.
Anway, I dislike the music industry for a lot of reasons, but the two most important (for me) are: it came into being during an era when it was considered ’smart’ and ’savvy’ to Never give a Sucker and Even Break. It’s now the 21st century, but the mindsets of the people who run the labels are still locked into that mode of thinking and of doing business; and,
I detest its sophistry and the way it disdains its customers, characterizing them all as potential criminals who have driven the music industry into developing DRM and other ‘devices to protect themselves and their products.
What does Apple have to do with it? In my eyes, by way of its association with the music industry, Apple has gone from being a cool company to a rapacious corporate entity with the same kind of scruples as the entertainment industry. And that’s a shame.
Cheers!
October 31st, 2004 at 1:16 am
“WITHOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY MUSIC !!!! Wake up or shut up.”
Good god, who let the morons in? Without the corrupt aspects of the recording industry (and we all know who they be by now) there would actually be MORE MUSIC, which means MORE CHOICE, and much of it will actually be PRICED REASONABLY and of HIGHER QUALITY than the current fare. But as long as dimwits like yourself continue to support corrupt organizations, they will continue to flourish. See, I can emphasize by typing in ALL CAPS like an idiot too, so what I say must be true.
October 31st, 2004 at 1:21 am
Whats the matter you don’t like Apple being a success?
WITHOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY MUSIC !!!! Wake up or shut up.
October 31st, 2004 at 3:43 am
I couldn’t agree less with your opinion piece.
Please think about writing something more factual and informative – that usually takes less talent and then there wouldn’t be any pressure to convince anyone of anything.
October 31st, 2004 at 5:00 am
so you’re all for people stealing music? You one of them who says music should be free and readily accessible by anyone with a net connection?
apple’s solution (now being copied by microsoft and others) benefit both artist and the consumers….. ITMS is a great avenue for independent labels to compete against the big four on equal footing…..
P2P is a great technology but is definetely used by the wrong people for the wrong reasons… stealing… “hey, that was a great song by Britney! i’ll get it off Kazaa for free… why should i get a cd or pay a buck for a legal download when i get the same thing for nothing off P2P networks?”
Butchers don’t sell meat for free. Lawyers don’t give legal advice for free. Accountants don’t give tax advice for free…. so why do some people see music as a free product? Songwriters, artists and everyone involved in those recordings do this for a living, and downloading their work FOR FREE, WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION BECAUSE YOU CAN IS STEALING…. Hope people realize this…..
The author seems to have the above mentality for saying that $1.00 for a song is overpriced…. Songwriters, who sometimes spend months or years on one song won’t think so…. Artists who spend hours in the studio with top personnel and equipment won’t think a buck a song is too expensive…. people who buy regular CDs at fifteen to twenty bucks won’t see it that way… only people who get this product illegally at no cost will think it’s too much…. everything is too much if it’s over zero
October 31st, 2004 at 5:10 am
Jon and Shoddy Product,
On one side I’m confused, if the product is shoddy (you mean over compressed, I believe) why do you want it?
On the other side, I believe you need to do some math. Go to your local commercial real estate agent and get the price for a 3 to 5 thousand square foot building, with at least 12 foot ceilings, preferrably higher. Put at least $200,000 dollars of interior work into it.
Buy a recording console: $200,000 is low
Buy a concert grand: $50,000
Buy recorders, monitors, amps, assorted control room gear: $50,000-200,000
Mics: $10,000 up
Let’s not worry about insurance, office staff, or other items.
1 Engineer: $50 hour minimum
Okay, now we have the initial investment up till a few years ago when ProTools and DAW dropped some of the recording hardware down to $10,000 -$50,000
There is no record company in this picture, just the studio and engineer. No Producer, no A&R, no contracts. This is a good studio in today’s world. Some are much, much more. Others are far, far less.
And you want to pay what per song?
My name is David, BTW
October 31st, 2004 at 5:22 am
The artist may actually want a lower price, I don’t know. But the record company is getting too much as a percentage. I buy my CD’s and don’t share. I would like to get 1 dollar downloads for full quality music. MP3’s should be lower. But the most of the artists really need a higher percentage.
David
October 31st, 2004 at 5:54 am
Good comments on the cost of recording music. Maybe I’m missing the point of this P2P.Net article but it sounds like it condones a serious break-down in our civil society because somebody thinks the prices are too high. No changes to the copy right laws are offered that would compensate the parties involved While the emerging legal system for on-line music distribution is dismissed as insignificant. There’s no way that illegal down-loading music on grand scale can continue without it affecting the quality of the music being produced. No company is going to invest is a product that they can’t protect
October 31st, 2004 at 6:22 am
Exactly.
David
October 31st, 2004 at 7:36 am
take two aspirins, remove head from butt, buy a cue and call in the morning. Oh yeah, please don’t breed, we already have someone stupid as pres.
October 31st, 2004 at 10:06 am
Of course, no one in their right mind would even bother to build a studio if they thought they weren’t going to be able to turn a profit from it. Unless they are utterly stupid of course. Then they deserve what they get obviously. So, if a studio only gets built because the owners are reasonably sure it will be profitable, your example kind of falls apart.
Regarding over compressed music on CD’s ruining the dynamic range and resulting in clipping more often than not, versus buying a wonderfully warbly lossy DRM file that has absolutely no added value because you don’t get a booklet (or any other special features that may be on a CD), it comes down quite simply to choosing the lesser of two evils. Maybe you’ve heard of that saying? After all, can’t forsake music altogether now, can we.
PS: I don’t download lossy crap off of p2p either by the way, for what it’s worth.
October 31st, 2004 at 2:56 pm
You said, —On one side I’m confused, if the product is shoddy (you mean over compressed, I believe) why do you want it?—
No need to be confused, David. As I clearly said, I, “long ago gave up buying music industry ‘product’ not because I wasn’t willing to pay for it, but because I was tired of being charged outrageous amounts for consistently shoddy ‘product’.” In other words, again as I clearly said, “tapes, records and CDs”.
By ’shoddy’ I meant pre-mp3 ‘product’ priced to gouge and with only two or three (at the most and if you were lucky) decent tracks. Mp3s are lossy, but they’re OK for limited applications such as for use with iPods or, better, on one of the non-restrictive mp3 players. For other music, I still go to second hand record stores, Goodwill, garage sales, and so on.
Studio costs? Sure. But they were amortized long, long ago.
I don’t regularly download mp3s, btw, and I haven’t for a long time. I did when it all started, but I DLd just about everything I wanted early on and I now have a small collection of Bad Company, Bill Broonzy, Canned Heat, Jimmi Hendrix, Mose Allison, Jaco Pastorius, Jacques Loussier, Memphis Mini, Elvis and Gerry Lee, some Bach, etc. All for my own personal use while I’m working, putting out p2pnet stories. I don’t have an mp3 player. I can’t afford $300, or whatever.
Yes. My mp3s are in a directory, and Yes, that directory is open. But I don’t ‘trade’ in these items, and I don’t sell them. I suppose they’re available to anyone else who likes the same kind of music, in which case, good luck to them.
I’d have happily paid a reasonable amount (20 cents max) to DL this stuff, and I’d happily pay $5 or $6 for a CD (or even better, $2-$4) which I could then rip and listen to in the same way. And this directory wouldn’t be online.
But I can’t do that because out of its vast catalogues, the venal music industry is only prepared to force the same 700,000 or so cookie-cutter tracks down peoples’ throat via iTunes and other plastic sites of its ilk at a ridiculous $1 a download. A $1 for a lossy mp3? Come on. But that’s right in line with Big Music rip-off practices.
As Janis Ian says here (read the whole thing, David – http://p2pnet.net/story/1873), “When is it enough? What would it cost us to come back to reality? To live in a world where 100,000 in sales is not only respectable, but the sign of a job well done? To convince the community at large that we’re not out to screw them, but that we want to work with them, and for them?”
The cartel isn’t interested in fair dealing or value for money: it’s only interested in extorting as much as it can for as little as it can get away with. And Apple plays a large role in keeping that cartel in business.
This is starting to feel just like old times, back when I wrote an item laying into Apple for running a disgusting ad deal with Pepsi and the RIAA. You remember? When it made public examples of a bunch of teenagers who’d been sued by the RIAA to market iTunes and iPod? (http://p2pnet.net/story/677) I see it’s now doing another deal with Pepsi to push iPod.
But that’s another story. Maybe ; )
October 31st, 2004 at 3:30 pm
In other words, you’re jealous because you can’t afford to buy an iPod and you don’t want to pay for the music like everyone else.
Get a life, like someone else said.
October 31st, 2004 at 4:15 pm
I just wanted to note that the iTMS is not a loss leader for Apple. It makes a tiny profit (but that’s still profit).
October 31st, 2004 at 4:33 pm
Great article! Like many of your other readers I really really like Apple products BUT I do not mistake a great product for a great company. Especially one which attempts to justify the RIAA’s irrational and insane attacts on music lovers. Apple’s products are excellent, no question about that, but I will never use iTMS. I do not want my music locked or restricted. Besides, it’s nearly impossible to find anything even slightly obscure on there. I use p2p to download mp3 tracks for my iPod. Oh yeah, when i find music that I really like I BUY the CD! I like to look at the album art and info plus I want to encurage the record label to produce more music like it.
October 31st, 2004 at 4:50 pm
I mentioned Janis Ian in response to a flame from ‘David’. And let’s not forget Joni Mitchell, who’s just received Canada’s hightest civilian honour (http://p2pnet.net/story/2875 – way to go Joni !). She’s yet another internationally acclaimed artist who’s not overly keen on Big Music.
“I’ve been screwed from the beginning,” she says. [...] the deal that I got was just atrocious. I mean, it was like slave labor”.
Back to Apple, as another poster says in this thread: “I do not mistake a great product for a great company.” The Reader’s Write also says: “I use p2p to download mp3 tracks for my iPod. Oh yeah, when i find music that I really like I BUY the CD!”
Same here.
Cheers!
October 31st, 2004 at 5:13 pm
Jealous? heh
The reason I can’t afford to buy an iPod is because I work full-time on p2pnet, 7 days a week. And No, I’m not getting rich on it (http://p2pnet.net/story/2620).
But the lack of $$ won’t be forever and when things improve financially, I sure as hell won’t be buying anything Apple or using iTUnes. And I sure as hell won’t be visiting any of the other Big Music supported, Big Music backed, Big Music supplied download sites, all carrying the same dross at the same ridiculous $1 (or more) per download.
Cheers!
October 31st, 2004 at 8:45 pm
steal
>verb (past stole: past participle stolen)
1 [with obj.]
take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it[...]
- dishonestly pass off (another person’s ideas) as one’s own[...]
- take the opportunity to give or share (a kiss) when it is not expected or when people are not watching[...]
- (in various sports) gain (an advantage, a run, or possession of the ball) unexpectedly or by exploiting the temporary distraction of an opponent.
- [baseball] run to (a base) while the pitcher is in the act of delivery.
2 [no obj., with adverbial of direction]
move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously[...]
- [with obj. and adverbial of direction]
direct (a look) quickly and unobtrusively[...]
>noun [in sing.]
1 [informal] a bargain[...]
2 [chiefly N. Amer.] an act of stealing something[...]
- an idea taken from another work[...]
- [baseball] an act of stealing a base.
–The New Oxford Dictionary Of English
So why is sharing files not stealing according to this definition of the verb in that context?
Because a property has to be physical.
You cannot return something you did not take.
Taking means to “remove (someone or something) from a particular place”
Copying a file leaves the original file intact, thus it needs not be returned and is not in fact taken at all.
Intellectual property is an invention of lawmakers that does not fall into the same rules as physical property simply because it is NOT physical property.
More information about “Intellectual property” at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
November 1st, 2004 at 12:36 am
In order to write this you used a personal computer. If, as I assume, you own the computer, then you have agreed to certain contractual agreements by using the system software as well as other various software to run the computer. Within those contracts you have agreed that you own hardware and liscense the use of the software. (of course, if you’re running Linux, then this doesn’t hold. Linux is the only legal and moral choice if you want to deny your agreement to liscensing contracts.) The same is true for music or movies for that matter. The end user does not own the rights of the recording, simply the right to play it back.
I suggest that if you want to make any non physical element legally fair game for “sharing” on the internet, you will find the internet collapse very quickly as few ISP’s, tech corps or communications companies would be willing to be a part of it. Instead a new internet that is wholly controlled by corporations would take over. And to use it you would have to, wait for it, agree to their liscensing contract.
TANSTAAFL!
David
November 1st, 2004 at 1:07 am
Flame, Jon? Where have I flamed you? I disagree and challenge you, yes.
Janis Ian and Joni have been screwed by the industry. No doubt. The record industry is absolutely about maximizing profit, that’s the law for a publically held company. They get sued otherwise. Recording contracts are terrible and continue to get worse.
If Janis and Joni and other like minded artists want to change the system by creating a new one, they can. They can create music and post it freely, as can anyone else, it is a free country after all. But if you want to dictate the terms of how somebody else runs their business, who they hire and promote (the accountants), the best option available, the only legal or moral one, is to disinvest completely. Stop listening to any music other than freely distributed music.
BTW, interesting at the end of Janis Ian’s article, there is a copyright notice, which you included. Seems she wants to control her content.
David
November 1st, 2004 at 1:19 am
You wrote
—Of course, no one in their right mind would even bother to build a studio if they thought they weren’t going to be able to turn a profit from it. Unless they are utterly stupid of course. Then they deserve what they get obviously. So, if a studio only gets built because the owners are reasonably sure it will be profitable, your example kind of falls apart.—
Like any business, many studios are built annually and fail. They do it for love of the art as well as making a buck. People take chances, sometimes they fail, sometimes they live hand to foot for a long time to make it work. Art can make you do strange things.
My comment on compression was in response to comments made earlier about “shoddy” cds that are only made to be “loud”. Generally, this is compression, lots of it. Honestly, when you hear 24bit music, I cannot help but think you’ll want to buy it. But at $20 bucks a pop? I’ll stick to used cds and radio for now, thanks.
David
November 1st, 2004 at 1:30 am
Jon, you wrote
–By ’shoddy’ I meant pre-mp3 ‘product’ priced to gouge and with only two or three (at the most and if you were lucky) decent tracks. Mp3s are lossy, but they’re OK for limited applications such as for use with iPods or, better, on one of the non-restrictive mp3 players. For other music, I still go to second hand record stores, Goodwill, garage sales, and so on.
Studio costs? Sure. But they were amortized long, long ago. —
So one objection is only 2 or 3 songs were decent by your standards? Isn’t this the same standard the record execs Ian lambasts use in demanding more hits from their artists on a single record?
Amortized costs only work if the studio succeeds, and at those prices they better, or else it’s their skin. And studios have to buy new equipment, maintain old equipment and rent what they can’t afford regularily. This ain’t cheap.
Check out http://www.mixonline.com or http://www.tapeop.com and see what reality is by the people who record the music for a living. Read the forums at Tapeop and listen to the studio owners who’ve lost everything. This isn’t pretty.
If the artists and the audience want to change the model, then do it!
David
November 1st, 2004 at 2:29 am
unfortunately i could not tell what your reason for being was until i figured out your have got to be the most unintelligent person born – ever. it’s jackasses like you that take money out of my pocket – as a musician – by giving my product to whom ever – with out any right to. it’s hard enough in this world to get by why don’t you do us all a favor and drop off the planet.
November 1st, 2004 at 3:22 am
I really think your arfticle is out of left field. Your comment on formulaic acts and one hit wonders is way off base. Most of the “product” that the big record labels have to offer are high quality artists. Weather you like that style of music or not they still take the time to write, record, and produce the “product” that the the big labels sell. There is also a reason that the big labels need to stay afloat in these new digital era’s. OPbviously you have no idea of how much it costs to record an entire album let alone a new album from every artist in your catalogue every couple of years. The record labels pick up all the costs of production through distrobutionplus they usuually pick up the touring tab for the artist as well. Most labels only make a few thousand dollars on each act every year. So what for corporate domination. Just be happy that they are around because if not you might not know of half of the bands you love. Even indie labels practice business much as the way the big 5 do. You go from A&R to production to distrobution to touring. And all the while you are in jeopardy of losing your investment on usually a single person. So get a grip, buy an iPd and go download some Manilow.
November 1st, 2004 at 4:57 am
Funny, I never used the word legal.
I only objected to the use of the word stealing to describe p2p sharing.
For legal issues, please consult a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
I do happen to have a Debian system that works fine thank you.
Also, when I buy a computer it is mine and I am hereafter entitled to use it in any and all manners which pleases me as described in property laws.
As for software, once you’ve paid for it, you are free to use it as you please.
A license which prohibits normal use of the software would not be enforceable because it woudn’t hold out in court.
To clarify, you could go in court to get your money back once you figure it’s useless.
And I do not see what running a particular operating system changes as for the legality of what else you do on your computer.
So, unless you buy useless software which is rather dumb, you CAN in fact use it as you like.
If you are meaning restrictions posed by legislations defined in the laws of your locale,
it is not in fact the license of software which determines the legality of your actions.
Rather it is your government which passes laws and the courts which enforce them.
Further, regarding music, there is the notion of ‘fair use’ under which I am entitled
under Canadian law to keep copies of recordings I own, timeshift TV programmings, etc.
Also, not to be a smart ass, but in my country we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
So, in closing, saying that if you are sharing you are stealing is pure defamatory speculation.
And you should probably keep that in satires.
November 1st, 2004 at 5:15 am
“Seems she wants to control her content.”
And that, my friend, is the big problem with the music industry:
THEY control your work, not you (the artist, be it composer, singer…).
People want to profit from their own creation,
not to mention deciding when and how to release them.
Instead, the suits decide what and when you must create to appeal to as many people as possible.
And they keep the lion’s share of the money of the sales.
And while the studios have to pay for equipment, crew and production
the whole marketing spending is a nightmare of epic proportion.
They spend much more on promoting the “product” than on making it.
They even call marketing “Research & Development” in their budgets.
Makes you wonder what they are researching.
How to maximise profits maybe?
Meanwhile, they have an agreement with media aggregators (radio, newspaper, television…) so that only their “products” get live time.
It used to be that you coudn’t “break out” without the big corps
(incidentally illegally) paying for airwave time.
With the internet the costs of advertising to a large audience is only the cost of the bandwidth and so is the cost of distribution. This undermines the vile monopoly that the music monopoly is desperately trying to keep alive on life support.
So are artists trying to become their own little music corporation?
Maybe.
But then lots of small providers is good for competition and ultimately for the customers.
November 1st, 2004 at 5:22 am
“Isn’t this the same standard the record execs Ian lambasts use in demanding more hits from their artists on a single record?”
You forget that it is the suits who decide when to release an album.
Instead they could release it “when it’s ready” but they want to recoup their money as fast as possible.
I’m sorry, but if you want to invest in music but do not have the patience to wait for the work to be done, you get what you deserve.
And giving contol of content to people other than the artist means that the art is going to suffer.
Especially if you don’t want to take chances and try to replicate an existing success.
Big risks can bring great rewards, they say.
But they never said small risks would work all the time though.
November 1st, 2004 at 5:48 am
—Funny, I never used the word legal. —
The dictionary definition did use it.
—-As for software, once you’ve paid for it, you are free to use it as you please.—
Perhaps in Canada this is true, I don’t know. In the USA my copy of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Digidesign Protools and many others all have very specific clauses limiting how the software may be used. May I use Photoshop on more than one computer, yes, typically a desktop and a laptop, with limits that it not be used at the same time on seperate computers. That is against the liscense agreement.
May I resale the software. Maybe, maybe not, many do not permit the liscense to be resold. If I don’t like the terms, I don’t have to buy or use.
–Further, regarding music, there is the notion of ‘fair use’ under which I am entitled under Canadian law to keep copies of recordings I own, timeshift TV programmings, etc. —
I don’t know Canadian Fair Use law. In the US it is largely vague, IMHO, and yet to be thoroughly tested. But I doubt Canadian law allow you to buy copies of recordings (DVD discs, VCRs tapes) and grant you ownership of said copies. I expect you have purchased a liscense to view them within restrictions. Can you make a backup copy? I can’t imagine a court having trouble with that. Could one sell a backup copy while keeping the original. Not in the US. Could one share the copy via P2P, not legally within the US.
Steal? I never said steal in response to you. I’m signing posts, I didn’t accuse you of stealing.
Is P2P sharing of data that has been copyrighted without permission stealing? I would judge it so.
November 1st, 2004 at 6:11 am
—You forget that it is the suits who decide when to release an album.—
Didn’t forget, this wasn’t the issue. Ian refers to “suits” who now are demanding more that one or two hits on the first album, with no 3-5 albums to build up. Jon was commenting on his dislike of buying an album for only a couple of good songs at a high price. I don’t understand your point. (Perhaps you don’t see mine?)
—I’m sorry, but if you want to invest in music but do not have the patience to wait for the work to be done, you get what you deserve.—
I’d quote the rest, but the point can also be made that you get what you deserve getting in bed with the record companies under their contracts and with their rules. No one forces artists to sign.
Are the artists up to taking the “Big Risks” to break death grip the companies have on the music business? Many small indies are showing promise, but the rewards are not necessarily a pile of money.
November 1st, 2004 at 6:23 am
As I said in another post, no one forces artists to sign the contracts. If they don’t want to deal with the devil, then don’t. The biggest threat of the internet to the music companies is not theft, but the fact that it gives artists the chance to go without them. This is the best of all possible worlds.
My question is: when Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, U2 or Peter Gabriel sell their music only off of their site and charge 1 dollar per song, will you all pay or use p2p and share?
David
November 1st, 2004 at 7:07 am
“The dictionary definition did use it.”
Fair enough, but the issue of legal permission is only employed in the context of “tak[ing] (another person’s property)”.
I was focusing on the taking part.
“[...]That is against the liscense agreement.
May I resale the software. Maybe, maybe not, many do not permit the liscense to be resold. If I don’t like the terms, I don’t have to buy or use.”
True.
The problem hits when companies create not exactly new formats that they then try to keep anyone else from working with.
Then they get enough people using it so that if you want to work with the documents you have to purchase their software…
Ex: word, acrobat…
Of course there are usually free alternative created eventually.
Point is, it can be from inconvenient to impossible to not use such software depending on your work.
So more power to free as in freedom software!
“[...]But I doubt Canadian law allow you to buy copies of recordings (DVD discs, VCRs tapes) and grant you ownership of said copies. I expect you have purchased a liscense to view them within restrictions.”
Well, it is my understanding that a copy is a property,
and that you can do what you want with your property
_in the privacy of your own home_.
Whether you can do so in a public place is usually less true.
As an example, you can buy a movie and invite 30 people to watch it in your home.
But you can’t do it in a public place like a school, since that would count as a “public performance”.
Of course I could be completely wrong…
I’m not a lawyer.
“Can you make a backup copy? I can’t imagine a court having trouble with that. Could one sell a backup copy while keeping the original. Not in the US. Could one share the copy via P2P, not legally within the US.”
Ah, but since the companies actively try to prevent you from making backups you might not be able to.
It is not unreasonable (to me) that you might download a backup someone else made since you can’t do it yourself. I’m not saying everyone who is sharing copyrighted works have an original copy, just that it is possible.
Reasonable doubt, right?
If you try to make money by offering “backups” for sale,
it is rather obvious that you are selling counterfeits.
But if you do not make money it is less obvious.
And you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right?
“Steal? I never said steal in response to you. I’m signing posts, I didn’t accuse you of stealing.”
I never said you did.
I said p2p sharing should not be equaled to stealing.
But it might not have been clear, I admit.
I was using the general “you”, as in “you shouldn’t use the passive form when…”
Did I mention english is not my first language?
There might be some grammer hiccups.
“Is P2P sharing of data that has been copyrighted without permission stealing? I would judge it so.”
But for stealing to take place you have to “take” something from someone.
When you share you are multiplying something.
It sure as hell can break the law, but is it stealing?
If I came to see your car (assuming you have one) and examined it without modifying it in any way, then made a replica without ever taking anything from you and without knowing the way it was originally built, would I be stealing from you?
I think not.
Even if I then selled the car I made, I would not be taking your car from you or from the car maker.
If I had stolen the plans to make the car then the car maker could accuse me of stealing the plans, but I didn’t.
Otherwise, the car company could then say I made unfair competition by using the car as a template and in so doing making a profit from their labor.
That can make sense.
But it that stealing? Rather it is unfair competition.
So now replace car with song and car maker with music company.
Sharing a song doesn’t remove it from their catalog.
It doesn’t make a CD disappear from their storage.
To make a copy of the song you didn’t steal or used their equipment or their experience in recording and mastering a song.
You might have broken copyright laws, but you didn’t steal anything.
You might have caused them a loss of profits, but they would have to prove that.
But saying that p2p is an unfair competitor (to their monopoly) doesn’t have the PR *bang* that “stealing” has.
So the music companies will probably continue saying copying is stealing, that sharers are pirates (?) and that if it’s free you stole it.
And I’m sure that those who have monopolies consider competition as stealing, but is it?
What it is is an insult to anyone that has worked in producing free software, used it or cherishes freedom in their software.
Ok, this is insanely long. Oh well.
Peace.
~wolphin
p.s. a fun webcomic for those who made it here:
http://www.frozenreality.co.uk/comic/bunny/
consider it a virtual cookie? ^^;
November 1st, 2004 at 7:25 am
“As I said in another post, no one forces artists to sign the contracts.”
Yes, I was actually agreeing with your post.
I was just pushing the thought further.
The answer to your question, from facts I’ve gathered,
is that fans will buy quality stuff from artists they like,
whether they be musicians, singers, webcomic artist, etc.
What matters is making a connection with your fans
(or letting them connect to you) and proposing fun stuff.
Also, if it’s easy and convenient to get said nifty stuff,
then that can’t hurt either.
Bottom line, if an artist I like sells music I like on their site
I’d buy it, although I would prefer a CD with booklets and stuff.
Actually, I have done so in the past.
http://www.lamusic.com/velvetchain/
Click store.
You can even take the songs you like and make your very own
“Custom Made, Full-Length, Personalized Velvet Chain Album”!
$17.95 is a bit pricey though.
I’m not so much into that music right now though, I find it a bit too sad.
Tempus fugit.
~wolphin
November 1st, 2004 at 7:49 am
Ok, that’s confusing at 2h31 AM.
Let’s recap.
Jon says albums are not worth money asked since the quality is not there.
You said the execs used the same reason to ask artists to “produce” more “hits”.
Yet, execs do not give the time to artists to create such “hits”.
Not to mention that you never know what is going to be a hit,
and that artistic endeavors cannot be forced.
Thus I was referring to the fact that artists do not decide to release inferior products, thus they are not the ones responsible for it.
The execs are since it is, right or wrong their decision.
They are also responsible of course if the album is a success.
If you were not saying that the artist was responsible for making incomplete or “cheap” albums then I did not in fact understand your point.
“I’d quote the rest, but the point can also be made that you get what you deserve getting in bed with the record companies under their contracts and with their rules. No one forces artists to sign.”
True.
But the studio emphasises very clearly that you cannot succeed if you are not in their contract.
They point out that they have the airwaves in their pocket and that only “music industry product” can get to the national resellers’ limited shelves space.
They do not tell you this to offer their help but rather to say they will use their bottomless pockets to bury you if you don’t agree to their terms.
And if you sign and later realise you’ve been had or you disagree with the record company on something you can’t back out.
They own everything you make and can decide not to release it.
It’s like you’re their slave.
That’s bad.
“Are the artists up to taking the “Big Risks” to break death grip the companies have on the music business? Many small indies are showing promise, but the rewards are not necessarily a pile of money.”
It is a big risk to make music your only job unless you’re already successful, just like it is for writers.
Some try it more or less part time though.
I know of one at least:
http://www.lamusic.com/velvetchain/
Peace.
~wolphin
November 1st, 2004 at 8:18 am
Wolphin,
No time or energy to respond point by point, many of which are solid good points.
–If I came to see your car (assuming you have one) and examined it without modifying it in any way, then made a replica without ever taking anything from you and without knowing the way it was originally built, would I be stealing from you?
I think not. –
Depending on what you mean by “examined it without modifying it in any way” this could be construed as backward engineering, clearly a no-no in the US.
–So now replace car with song and car maker with music company.
Sharing a song doesn’t remove it from their catalog.
It doesn’t make a CD disappear from their storage.
To make a copy of the song you didn’t steal or used their equipment or their experience in recording and mastering a song.
You might have broken copyright laws, but you didn’t steal anything.
You might have caused them a loss of profits, but they would have to prove that.–
I’m a bit rusty here, bear with me. Copyright law in terms of music in the US has multiple components.
1. Lyric and tune (what would be in a songbook/sheet music)
2. Recording of the lyric and tune, i.e. the physical recording, aka the masters (Mechanical Liscense)
3. Right to perform lyric and tune in public venue (Performance liscense)
The artist and publisher control #1
The artist does #2 and the Record Company sells it, usually setting the contract to make themselves the owners of the “masters”
#3 has to do with concerts, radio and television performance
The Mechanical liscense is not for the mechanical element, ie the tape, the record or the disc, but the information stored on the medium. This pertains to digital data.
Purchasing a disc does not give one ownership of the data, but a liscense to use it privately. I argue that sharing that data in a p2p violates the private aspect of the liscense and the RIAA probably thinks it’s tantamount to broadcasting the data, which then comes under #3.
The theft is in the copying the exact digital duplicate of the waveform (or even a compressed but sonically similar waveform) and then distributing it publically. What one has paid to liscense, another now is given. Who loses? The artist, publisher and record company.
Would you still argue this if there were no record companies and the artist got 50% of the profit?
What about other data? Is all data on the web free because we don’t “steal” it but make copies?
If only “property,” and by that I’m interpreting you to mean tangible property, can be stolen, this in essence will condemn artists to remain slaves, whether to the record companies or p2p networks who “share” them as soon as they come out.
The times have changed, property is not simply land or a thing, not in the digital age. I cannot draw another conclusion.
David
November 1st, 2004 at 8:28 am
Wolphin,
Simply put, the industry needs to die, the art needs to live and so do the artists. Does p2p have a positive role to play in the artist’s living?
Music has been made for millions of years before the record companies and will continue to be made. Don’t give them so much power.
I’m tired, peace,
David
November 1st, 2004 at 1:48 pm
It’s good to see people talking.
I have a point of view. You may not agree with it, but I can express it and other people can agree, not agree, slag it, whatever. But the fact is: none of this would be happening without the Net. And none of us would be communicating like we are.
P2p is a catalyst that’s already forced a huge amount of change on the way the members of the Big Four record cartel do business. It’s also forced them to more or less openly acknowledge that they see only ‘consumers’ with nary a customer among them.
The re-emergence of the ‘customer’ concept – a ‘customer’ being someone whose wants and needs have to be carefully considered – is very bad news for the music industry. They like ‘consumers’ who buy what they’re told to buy and who believe what they’re told to believe.
Apple is helping to keep drastically these outmoded business practises alive. It has no choice. The music business has dragged it from relative obscurity into the floodlight. It’s not about to give that up and every time it gets the mainstream media screaming about the latest Apple product release, by default, it bolsters the completely erroneous idea that the corporate music online business actually exists. It doesn’t.
This is a shining example of the application of a time-honoured commercial process which goes: if you repeat something often enough, sooner or later, it’ll become fact. Or at least, that’s what the corporate music companies are praying will happen. Again.
But the ‘fact’ is: that was the way thing worked before the Net came along, allowing people everywhere to talk to each other without having their thoughts spun, filtered and re-issued by corporate interests.
The labels as they’ve existed up until now are now are all-but dead. Soon, you’ll see the ‘new’ Big Music ‘adopting’ p2p and raving about it, saying it’s been all for it from the beginning.
The labels continue to be venal, but they’ll be forced to revise their business models.
The lawsuits will gradually stop, offline prices will fall, catalogues will be opened to ‘new’ corporate sites (backed and supplied by the industry, of course) and deals will be made with commercial p2p operators so they can offer music from the labels’ catalogues – not just the paltry 700,000 tracks they’re currently trying to re-sell over and over again.
And while that happens, in the real world of music, independent companies and artists will continue to build Big Music’s first competition – the genuinely alternative music businesses where customers are seen as people, not cash-cows.
Cheers!
5:45 am, Pacific (and that’s my excuse if this is just thoughts rather than a learned, carefully constructed ‘paper’ ; )
November 1st, 2004 at 6:10 pm
—P2p is a catalyst that’s already forced a huge amount of change on the way the members of the Big Four record cartel do business. It’s also forced them to more or less openly acknowledge that they see only ‘consumers’ with nary a customer among them. — and so on…
Sigh.
No more. Enjoy your universe.
peace, David
November 1st, 2004 at 8:12 pm
You too.
Cheers!
November 1st, 2004 at 11:03 pm
“Simply put, the industry needs to die, the art needs to live and so do the artists.”
Well put.
“Does p2p have a positive role to play in the artist’s living?”
I think so, in making the costs of distribution near zero$.
“Music has been made for millions of years before the record companies and will continue to be made. Don’t give them so much power.”
I don’t.
Their paper empires will soon be blown away.
(Word is not yet out as to how long ’soon’ will be though.)
Peace.
~wolphin
November 2nd, 2004 at 4:44 am
Okay, some of this post contains parts of legal texts but I have not verified them and my thoughts may not be correct/accurate.
Feel free to point out if I misinterpreted something or other.
“Depending on what you mean by “examined it without modifying it in any way” this could be construed as backward engineering, clearly a no-no in the US.”
Are you sure?
What about when Real adapted its software to work with the ipod recently?
They must have reversed-engeneered the format used for the DRM apple used.
That seemed fine, from a legal standpoint.
Or is it okay to do it when you’re a big company that can defend itself in court?
“I’m a bit rusty here, bear with me. Copyright law in terms of music in the US has multiple components.
1. Lyric and tune (what would be in a songbook/sheet music)
2. Recording of the lyric and tune, i.e. the physical recording, aka the masters (Mechanical Liscense)
3. Right to perform lyric and tune in public venue (Performance liscense)”
Actually, if you looked at a typical music contract, I think you would find that the record company is the one who ends up owing all three, and the artist only gets a residual payment at every use of the creation.
But I do not have facts backing this up, so moving along.
“The Mechanical liscense is not for the mechanical element, ie the tape, the record or the disc, but the information stored on the medium. This pertains to digital data.”
Actually, it is not the representation that is copyrighted, it is the performance and thus how this information is used that is the subject of copyright.
see Monolith for more thought on this:
http://monolith.sourceforge.net/
“Purchasing a disc does not give one ownership of the data, but a liscense to use it privately. I argue that sharing that data in a p2p violates the private aspect of the liscense and the RIAA probably thinks it’s tantamount to broadcasting the data, which then comes under #3.”
And yet some argues that the license allows you to share that music with friends as long as it’s not in a public place.
As for sharing the data over p2p, there is legal precedent in Canada that it is not illegal under certain circumstances.
See the ruling in the pdf provided in this story about the proceedings by honourable Justice Konrad von Finckenstein of the federal court of Canada in this case of CRIA vs John and Jane Doe:
http://p2pnet.net/story/1118
At page 13 it is stated that:
“[25] Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board of Canada, Private Copying 2003-2004 decision, 12 December 2003 at page 20.”
And without quoting the detail which you can go check for yourself, it later states on page 14:
“[28] The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of a shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.[...]”
Now that is not bullet proof protection, since CRIA failed in this case to present compelling evidence of wrongdoing or of the public interest in revealing the identity of the file sharers. Could it have done so? It is unclear at this point. Furthermore, the exclusive right to make available is included in the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty but it has not yet been implemented in Canada.
Still, it goes a long way into showing it is legally possible to share music on p2p for personal use.
“The theft is in the copying the exact digital duplicate of the waveform (or even a compressed but sonically similar waveform) and then distributing it publically. What one has paid to liscense, another now is given. Who loses? The artist, publisher and record company.”
I dispute this, since nothing was taken from any of them.
It is a loss of profits. Not stealing, not theft.
Also, it is not guaranteed that a file shared is a lost sale.
What indicates that a sale would have taken place instead?
“Would you still argue this if there were no record companies and the artist got 50% of the profit?”
About whether the word stealing is badly used? Yes.
I have not argued about whether it is MORAL or not.
It is not my point at all. Morality is for everyone to decide for themselves.
“What about other data? Is all data on the web free because we don’t “steal” it but make copies?”
I did not say data was free.
I did not say sharing data doesn’t cause loss of profits.
I did not say to share everything and never to buy.
What I did say is that sharing is not stealing.
Besides, ““Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.”
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
This is not property law we are talking about, rather it is copyright law.
As Estey J. stated in Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357 at 372-373 and included in the same ruling as above from Justice Konrad at page 12:
“…copyright law is neither tort law nor property law in classification, but is statutory law. It neither cuts across existing rights in property or conduct nor falls between rights and obligations heretofore existing in the common law. Copyright legislation simply creates rights and obligations upon the terms and in the circumstances set out in the statute. This creature of statute has been known to the law of England at least since the days of Queen Anne when the first copyright statute was passed. It does not assist the interpretive analysis to import tort concepts. The legislation speaks for itself and the actions of the appellant must be measured according to the terms of the statute.”
Of course, this is still Canadian law.
My feeling is that calling copyright infringement stealing does not reflect the reality of the situation.
“If only “property,” and by that I’m interpreting you to mean tangible property, can be stolen, this in essence will condemn artists to remain slaves, whether to the record companies or p2p networks who “share” them as soon as they come out.”
Wrong, they would be able to perform anywhere they want and sell what and when they want.
It is the contracts with the industry that removes their choice.
Consider free software like Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation.
They still sell CDs for those who want them.
In fact, you can sell any software under the GNU GPL license to anyone you want at any price you want.
If anything, not being in a monopoly gives more chances of selling a product.
“The times have changed, property is not simply land or a thing, not in the digital age. I cannot draw another conclusion.”
Ok, let’s close with an “authentic” (maybe) chinese proverb:
寧為太平狗﹐不做亂世人。
“I rather be a dog in peaceful times, then live as a man (woman) in turbulent times.”
(Source: http://www.openface.ca/~dstephen/chprov.htm#107)
March 17th, 2005 at 2:48 am
I agree. I still believe an I-pod is cool though. I just wouldn’t use it legally. I’d download free songs instead of being an idiot and filling the 10,000 song storage space with $10,000