But WHYYYYYYYY is there no music on MTV?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

FUCKING BOARD HAS EATEN MY REPLY TO CAIN 4 TIMES.  LEAVING FOR A WHILE, TO GO PUNCH SMALL ANIMALS UNTIL THEY EXPLODE.

I hate when that happens. But yeah people have always stolen music. Those of us who are old enough to have bought a cd or a cassette tape have done it at least once too. But theft is still theft. The internet just makes it incredibly easy to do so and has also fostered a mindset that since information is free creative works should be as well.

[Cain]

Damn.

I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet.  Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.

My internet at work is PISS AND BALLS.  We have 200 people in our IT department, and all THAT accomplishes is that our password cookies reset every time we log off.  And the internet is 1/3rd as fast as the shit I have at home, which I assure you does not require 200 NECKBEARDS. 

Granted, I AM fucking off via the internet, and could easily do 99% of my job without it, but my sense of American exceptionalism is seriously taking a beating, here.

You could always punch neckbeards until they explode.  Small ones, if you wish.

[Doktor Howl]

FUCKING BOARD HAS EATEN MY REPLY TO CAIN 4 TIMES.  LEAVING FOR A WHILE, TO GO PUNCH SMALL ANIMALS UNTIL THEY EXPLODE.

I hate when that happens. But yeah people have always stolen music. Those of us who are old enough to have bought a cd or a cassette tape have done it at least once too. But theft is still theft. The internet just makes it incredibly easy to do so and has also fostered a mindset that since information is free creative works should be as well.

Yeah, and the best part is, the legal and ethical sides of the argument are completely divorced from each other.

If I right click and save on a picture of the Mona Lisa, am I ethically or legally wrong?  Probably both, but who is suffering?  The artist is dead, and the persons owning the property are not going to continue producing artwork.  I am uncertain about this.

If I download a song, I am both.  And while the recording companies suffer for it, the artists suffer as well, and I see no upside to that.

[Doktor Howl]

Damn.

I hope these aren't the same small animals that power your work's internet.  Or else I ain't ever gonna see that post.

My internet at work is PISS AND BALLS.  We have 200 people in our IT department, and all THAT accomplishes is that our password cookies reset every time we log off.  And the internet is 1/3rd as fast as the shit I have at home, which I assure you does not require 200 NECKBEARDS. 

Granted, I AM fucking off via the internet, and could easily do 99% of my job without it, but my sense of American exceptionalism is seriously taking a beating, here.

You could always punch neckbeards until they explode.  Small ones, if you wish.

This is America.  They only come in one size, and that size isn't "TripZip".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The mona lisa is a bit different because if the concept of copyright existed back then it still would have expired centuries ago. If i remember correctly us law states copyright is still in effect until the last contributor has been dead for seventy years.
I think one of the problems with how napster went was that musicians didnt do a particularly good job helping people realize how the music industry works and why screwing over a large corporation affects the listener and even the fans. So instead we here metallica sounding like whiney rich guys.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

CAUTION: UNINTENTIONAL RANT AHEAD

It's not like artists should be PAID or anything. That's for people with Real Jerbs^(TM).

IN A PERFECT WORLD*,

Musicians would be paid like any other artist. Unfortunately for musicians, music is not a temporally limited medium like painting or sculpture. A musician's piece of art is easily copied with absolute fidelity. In times past, a musician could expect to be rewarded for sales of the medium on which his or her music was reproduced; but in today's world that medium is pure information, which inherently strives to be free from the values that are attached to limited, physical objects.

Music is indescribably valuable as an art form, and producing it ought to be rewarded. But like anything for which one expects to be compensated monetarily, it must have more than a sentimental value in order to be worth actual money. So it seems like rather than engineering larger, more dangerous and more draconian measures to try and postpone the plainly inevitable future where digital information is free by definition, it would make more sense for musicians to capitalize on the things they do produce that are physically and temporally limited: their performances.

A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Of course, there are many musicians who already embrace this reality. In general, the ones who don't aren't actually musicians. They're business people and contest winners who happen to be good at singing and/or playing an instrument, and what they produce isn't actually music, it's corporate-backed jingles engineered specifically to hook people into soulless and artificial subcultures, either to deepen the divide they feel between themselves and other parts of society, or worse, just to get them to buy shit.

I don't buy the idea that P2P filesharing is evil, even when it comes to the "livelihood" of musicians, because all the real musicians I have met in my life are absolutely DYING for people to hear their music. They will give that shit away for free themselves (on the Internet). Not because they are hoping for someone to turn around and buy their entire catalog from a record store (a what store?) but because they are hoping to seduce listeners with their art, and convince them to show up at their next gig, so they can build a following and eventually live off a combination of performance and reputation. Like any other actual artist does.




*In the ACTUAL world, thinking like this has a greater-than-zero probability of landing you in prison.

[Doktor Howl]

Either you own what you create, or you don't.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is. Music is the first of the major arts to succumb to digitization, but it has succumbed and there's no putting the cat back in the bag. I do think, though, that the economic and logistical arrangements surrounding the music industry are still striving to understand what everyone's job is in this age of information. Some people may be left without a role at all (looking at you, major record labels), but for obvious reasons the musicians can't be the ultimate losers unless society decides we just don't want to have music around anymore (and I don't think that's very likely).

I believe things will run their course somewhat naturally, and though I can't predict what they will look like when the revolution is over, I can't imagine that the whole human race will say "well, there's no money in making music, so I guess I'll just bottle up all this funk and rhythm, and be an accountant instead." On the other hand, just because society has enshrined rock stars and entire royal families of pop for the last century doesn't mean that is the "natural order" of things. I think ultimately we will return to the more historical model where the centerpieces of musicians' careers will be their performances, with the added benefit of people being able to listen to their music even when they're not around.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It will evolve but major labels will continue to exist. The days of the recording sound guy are going to be over though since anyone can make a decent quality recording using their laptop if they toy around with it enough. That will become the musicians job as will distribution. The label will retain the roles of promotion and booking and courtroom matters. Like i said i think its a good thing just that the roles and logistics still need figuring out.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I mean theoretically in this century you can become a career musician and quit your day job without ever signing to a label given sufficient organizational skills networking skills spare time and good timing/luck. And thats whats great about it. But try finding a musician with all of those qualities.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Before the commercial viability of recorded music, musicians played shows, got paid. They also played events, at restaurants, bars, etc. because you couldn't just pay for an electronic music delivery system if you wanted music. The venue made most of the money, of course, but the musicians got their cut. You could copyright compositions, of course, but not performances.

After the commercial viability of recorded music, being a star became a thing, but most of the money went to those who distributed the music. The musicians, nonetheless, got their cut.

I don't know about all the moaning about things changing. I'm not convinced that music filesharing is a bad thing, I just think it's important for everyone to figure out how those musicians are gonna get paid, because if they don't get paid for it, they won't have time to make that sweet sweet music.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Before the commercial viability of recorded music, musicians played shows, got paid. They also played events, at restaurants, bars, etc. because you couldn't just pay for an electronic music delivery system if you wanted music. The venue made most of the money, of course, but the musicians got their cut. You could copyright compositions, of course, but not performances.

After the commercial viability of recorded music, being a star became a thing, but most of the money went to those who distributed the music. The musicians, nonetheless, got their cut.

I don't know about all the moaning about things changing. I'm not convinced that music filesharing is a bad thing, I just think it's important for everyone to figure out how those musicians are gonna get paid, because if they don't get paid for it, they won't have time to make that sweet sweet music.

Exactly. It's one thing if a musician opts to give music away for free for promotional purposes so that they can get to the point where people will pay for it, but at some point, it's got to at least pay for itself, if not turn a profit. And like I said earlier, generally speaking, if you're out there and playing, you're lucky to break even. Because if you play far away, you're not just paying for lodging and food, you're also paying for gas, vehicle insurance, string replacements, drumhead replacements, fixing any Spinal Tap moment, etc. And it's quite nice to get a check in the mail from CDBaby, even if it is for $11.

[Doktor Howl]

Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

Ethically speaking, it's still theft.