The Pirate's Dilemma: notes

[Cain]

I disagree.  The outspoken "I should be able to download everything for free" retards are not helping, and people who think like that deserve to be treated with contempt.  However, those arguments are a strawman and Matt Mason, the author of the book, has repeatedly stressed he has never agreed with such people.

Those who are calling on weakening copyright, either in terms of duration or scope or via other methods are in fact giving both a balanced and pragmatic solution to the issue, in short giving real answers that can be put into practice right now.  Equally, changes to methods of distribution are going to disembowel bigger industries if all they do is repeatedly try to outlaw them (as the music industry is trying to do by shutting down P2P networks, where many underground artists do give away work they own freely) and should be considered as part of any successful business plan.

If we get locked into a binary you want artists to starve/lets uphold the status quo and ignore how fucking bad it is argument, then this thread is not going to progress and we may as well not bother even discussing the issue.

[LMNO]

Whoa, not so fast, Cain.

I was just trying to clarify (speaking as a mother musician).

I agree copyright is pretty out of control.  I feel that fair use should be granted if you manipulate an existing piece of art towards another purpose.

I also feel that information should be free.

And I feel that people who produce information should be compensated somehow, not always monatarily.

I do download music occasionally, and I also give my music away constantly. 

I suppose what I meant in the last post is, what can an information creator do to weaken copyright laws while also being compensated for their work?

[Cain]

OK, but I wanted to get my foot in the door before the thread did head down that direction.  Because once it does, we may as well deep six it and never look back.

In open source programming, often the most basic of programs (internet explorers, word processors etc) are coded for free.  However, customized and advanced programs typically come with a more expensive users fee.  If you stick with a basic product as a free service, a hook or sample if you will, but provide more services at cost, that seems to be one workable system.  A good music industry example may be live shows, if you have people who know how to put on a fucking awesome show.  The deejays in Jamaica, for example, made their money off alcohol sales for the most part.  The music was a hook, to draw people in, not the product itself.

Thats one way.

Another is to offer free recording sessions to artists who sign up with a certain label, like say if iTunes started to produce and not just distribute music.  You'd have to have some caveats about who would be covered by this (maybe bands that have a decent reception at iTune sponsored gigs or something, designed to promote local bands), but you still drastically lower the entry level, and use a more efficient, more cost-effective and consumer friendly method of distribution.  iTunes recoups the losses through a cut of the royalties.  Sure, they end up taking less from each individual band, but they're bringing more and more bands in, not desperately trying to use the law as a cudgel to hold onto their few prized cash cows.  I believe it would balance out.

[Requia ☣]

The music industry needs to stop treating this like a legal battle, and start treating it like a memetics fight, cause that's where they're losing.  Every time they claim its illegal to rip your CDs to your computer instead of paying for it a second time (admittedly, I think it is outside the US), or sue someone who doesn't own a computer, more people end up going 'fuck it' and download whatever they want without feeling guilty.

Focus instead on the ethics of the issue, it won't actually stop piracy, but it'll get people to buy stuff out of guilt.  Of course, at this point its a lost battle, since (regardless of the truth of the matter) nobody believes the artist gets anything significant from the CD sale, and the RIAA, as well as various DRM companies, have been fleecing the actual recording companies by charging for really bad ideas that have trashed people's opinions of the recording industry.

On top of it, the random terror lawsuits, and shutting down Morpheous/Grokster, has driven piracy from the gnutella protocol, which is a pain in the ass, frequently results in a crap track, and makes it nearly impossible to get a whole album, (my experience anyway) to P2P, which makes it simple to get ahold of an artists entire discography, as well as trashed the sound quality even on the CDs, which means there's no reason for even the audiophile crowd to bother laying down cash, as well as reducing the number of people who even care about sound quality, since they've never heard anything else.

[Requia ☣]

In open source programming, often the most basic of programs (internet explorers, word processors etc) are coded for free.  However, customized and advanced programs typically come with a more expensive users fee.

This is very, very rare in open source, I can only think of one company that successfully does this (whose name I forget, but they make CRM software).  Most of the money in open source comes from support contracts (which is where most of the money in closed source comes from as well, outside of Microsoft anyway).

This doesn't actually invalidate you're point, I just don't like open source associated with crippleware.

[Cain]

In open source programming, often the most basic of programs (internet explorers, word processors etc) are coded for free.  However, customized and advanced programs typically come with a more expensive users fee.

This is very, very rare in open source, I can only think of one company that successfully does this (whose name I forget, but they make CRM software).  Most of the money in open source comes from support contracts (which is where most of the money in closed source comes from as well, outside of Microsoft anyway).

This doesn't actually invalidate you're point, I just don't like open source associated with crippleware.

I heard Linux does a fair bit of this (what I referenced), though I am not an expert on programming and economics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In open source programming, often the most basic of programs (internet explorers, word processors etc) are coded for free.  However, customized and advanced programs typically come with a more expensive users fee.

This is very, very rare in open source, I can only think of one company that successfully does this (whose name I forget, but they make CRM software).  Most of the money in open source comes from support contracts (which is where most of the money in closed source comes from as well, outside of Microsoft anyway).

This doesn't actually invalidate you're point, I just don't like open source associated with crippleware.

Agreed, to a point. Some of the developers that are creating "Web 2.0 Components" for various CMS solutions (Joomla, Drupal, Moodle etc) are basically creating Open Source (not necessarily GPL) solutions, but you can only use them (and the associated code) if you are a subscriber to their site, which is $30 every 6 months, or whatever. They're also making about $30 a hour doing customizations to the existing components and modules for specific user needs. It's definately got ESR's Bazaar sort of philosophy and feature customizations are getting done in just a few days in many cases... so the response to the userbase seems 1000 times faster, and they're willing to pay for it.

While it may not have the purity of Stallman's vision (he is a dirty smelly hippie), I think its a pretty useful implementation of the general philosophy. And, as I mentioned before, I think Community Websites for musicians would probably be a good way to make money from music, without worrying about pirates.

[LMNO]

Yeah, the Free Software Foundation splits it into two latin words for "free"... which I can't remember right now.

One of them means "you never have to pay for anything", which is what they're not about.

The other means "the basic tools of creation are free", and basically says that you're welcome to build it or modify it yourself, no charge.  But if you want someone to do it for you, you'll have to pay.

Kind of like the Computer Store is like Home Depot:  it will sell you the tools and hardware (Hammer/nails/wood).

Then you can build whatever you like.  But if you suck at it, you can hire a carpenter (programmer) who will make it for you.

The metaphor kind of breaks down when you factor in the ability of the user to make perfect copies of the carpenter's work, but that's kind of what this thread is about, isn't it? 

What's the best model to frame the Idea of Information Sharing?

[Cain]

Its entirely possible you cannot frame this in the terms of past models.

[LMNO]

Its entirely possible you cannot frame this in the terms of past models.

I agree 100%.  I am willing to stop trying.


So; we brainstorm.

[That One Guy]

Its entirely possible you cannot frame this in the terms of past models.

I'd agree completely as well. With the dawn of the information age, the old copyright restrictions on intellectual property are outdated at best, and should probably be rebuilt from the ground up. The fact that it's so insanely easy to make a perfect copy of any piece of digital information (whether a picture, song, book, video, whatever) really kicks out the basic foundations of current intellectual property concepts, which are almost universally concerned with duplication and usage in a pre-information-age system.

Do I have any ideas on how to change things? Not really, although it's definitely something I and many people I know are giving a LOT of thought to.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The metaphor kind of breaks down when you factor in the ability of the user to make perfect copies of the carpenter's work, but that's kind of what this thread is about, isn't it? 

What's the best model to frame the Idea of Information Sharing?

The problem I see is that the musician has not had the same sort of deal as other artists in the 20th century. The Carpenter, the Painter, The Sculptor etc. all spend their time and effort to create a single product, an original. Then they sell that Original for lots of money (if they're lucky), the person who buys it, or perhaps the artist themselves (depending on the agreement), can then make cheaper copies to sell to the masses.

In the Recording Industry, the musician spends their time and effort to create a single product, an original. They then get an advance and have to help pay for various costs in order to try to make money off of popularity and sales of the cheap copies. The model is fucking stupid for the artist. However, I think that the artist can change that now. The reason that the Recording Industry existed was promotion and distribution. The free and easy information access, now makes their value null and void. I think that musicians now have the opportunity to create a model more in line with traditional Artists.

In my vision, I see Artists or groups of artists creating community web sites. It costs X to join the site and joining gives you access to music, live concerts broadcast over the web, forums with the bands, live chat with the bands (audio, video, text), interactive contests etc etc etc. Rather than the website being a vehicle for the product (like most band sites are now), the web presence would become the product. The Musician and the Graphic Artist would create an environment that would be worth money... like a really awesome Pink Floyd Concert with flying pigs and lasers, except its inside Firefox.

It could go even further. Traditionally, artists make most of their money from taking on commissions. Consider some of the greatest pieces of art that we know through history, from 'The Magic Flute' to the Sistine Chapel, all because someone hired an artists to do a job for them. I mean if I and my fiancee were  huge fans of a particular group, I would probably pay well for that band to write a song for our wedding... or maybe one to propose to, or maybe as a gift. Maybe bands could sell live interactive concerts for parties. After all, it wouldn't cost terribly much to have two-way video, so the band can see the dance floor/audience and a nice projection screen could be streaming the band in real time, full wall, everyone has front row seats...

But then, I've been eating and breathing community sites during this development cycle, so you may want to ignore these ramblings.

[Cain]

Its certainly one method that is worth considering.  Paying a monthly fee to a site, which gives you free download of all the artists on the listings, is a plausible method. 

I think most people honestly want to support artists.  They really do.  However, the inflated prices of CDs, the lack of choice in the music industry (buy-outs and cracking down on legitimate competition barred from competing on CD terms due to basic entry costs has essentially reduced the industry to 3 major corporations, who control the majority of the industry) and the dire state of radio mean that finding bands they enjoy, and figuring out ways to help support them, is very hard.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Its certainly one method that is worth considering.  Paying a monthly fee to a site, which gives you free download of all the artists on the listings, is a plausible method. 

I think most people honestly want to support artists.  They really do.  However, the inflated prices of CDs, the lack of choice in the music industry (buy-outs and cracking down on legitimate competition barred from competing on CD terms due to basic entry costs has essentially reduced the industry to 3 major corporations, who control the majority of the industry) and the dire state of radio mean that finding bands they enjoy, and figuring out ways to help support them, is very hard.

Indeed, maybe a possible application for technology like Pandora radio to introduce consumers to artists?

[LMNO]

Truth be told, I wouldn't really mind going back to the mid-80's DIY punk/hardcore mode.  Local bands, locals scenes, record econo, independent labels, tour, scratch out a living being supported by a scene that's willing to help artists directly.

To this day, if I go see a small touring band that's even maginally interesting, I'll buy some merch to get them fed or get to the next city.

Forseeable problem:  "Local scene" thinking doesn't consider global internet implications.