.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, February 08, 2007


So Steve Jobs recently implied that he's no fan of protecting the rights of songwriters and musicians either, and he's apparently set on finding a way that will allow Apple to fuck over the people who actually make the music.

I guess the excess associated with Rock music over the past few decades has come back to bite us - though I never personally blew an advance on hookers and blow, I still live in the hope that I can make some sort of a living making music.

I suppose I'll have to sell all my recording equiptment and just concentrate on playing live.

Will the Technocommies allow me that? Are they gonna come after the live thing as well?

I don't know how they could, but I'm not as smart as they are. They'll come up with something I guess, because they hate me.


Since we last discussed this topic on this board, I've done an incredible amount of reading and soul searching on this topic and even now own an iPod. I have listened to the proponents of open access to music and now consider myself fairly well versed in their thought processes and ideas on how they think the business of selling music should work, and after all this I've come to the same conclusion as you have here. I just cannot understand how the proponents think they should be the ones to dictate how an artist sells his music. They vilify the labels for protecting artist’s intellectual property. They're careful not to name artists in their screeds when demanding music be free to all, when shooting arrows at the labels, but how can they NOT know that artists support the labels protection of their music. I don’t see any major or minor artists demanding that their label sell unprotected music on iTunes. I believe artists like the fact that their music is protected from theft. The fact that P2P thieves continue to steal music is a SEPARATE issue and I personally don’t believe that the fact that many do it is a reason for artists and labels to “find a new way to monetize” their art. Unethical people steal it so you should give it away and figure out a way to make money pimping yourself by putting a Mennen Speed Stick banner in back of you while performing.

Here’s another twist too. So Bob Lefsetz et al say the money should be sought in touring. I guess their suggestion is that artists make up all the lost revenue from stolen music P2P by touring, yet the major complaint amongst concert goers (certainly me) is the high price of tickets. Major acts get hammered for high ticket prices while their music gets stolen all day long. I say guys who think like Bob on this issue, non-musicians that is, are exactly as Chrispy once described, “pure consumers, adding nothing and taking everything”. Sometimes I find it hard to reconcile his and others thoughts with the fact that some of them are real fans of music. I think they have a hard time with the fact that they themselves may possess enormous business acumen; but still cannot create the valuable commodity (music itself) themselves. This frustrates them and their position is disappointing to me.

I’ve enjoyed owning my iPod so far. I have had no problem buying CD’s and ripping them to my iPod. I have purchased a couple of albums from iTunes as well (would rather have purchased the CD’s). When my wife and I listen to music together we listen to vinyl or CD’s, when it’s late at night and I want to tune out in bed while she sleeps, I listen to my iPod. The iPod also allows both of us to plug it into the car stereo which is pretty cool. I enjoyed the iPod when fly to Phili last week. Having said that, I still do not feel compelled to go out and steal music form any of the P2P sites. I want to own my music. If my HD crashes, I want to have my CD’s. I think that while subscription music services are cool and have an application, I really do not ever see them as being a substitute for owning your own music, no matter how many unscrupulous people exist out there.

I don’t know who will win, but it will be a sad day in music when artists completely lose the right to their own intellectual property. And they wonder why the business is in the crapper.
It's a total mob mentality - they'll be looting soon.....oh yeah, they already are.
i think you guys are mixing up two issues;

free music and digital rights management

i am not a proponent of free music. artists should be able to charge whatever they want for their music.

but i am a proponent of eliminating digital rights management. it's telling that only 3% of all music is bought online when it's clearly an easier and quicker way to get the music you want.

the real issue, though, is the one jobs points out in his letter. the music industry continues to sell music unprotected in mp3 format on CDs allowing Tony and everyone else to rip the mp3s and put them on their iPods and elsewhere.

but for some reason that i can't fathom, it's not ok to sell the music that way online.

what Apple and the music industry needs to do is build a vibrant digital market for music. when they do that, artists will be much better off than they are now.
CD's are AIFF files, which are 16 bit, and much larger than MP3s. Sure you can easily convert the AIFF to a mp3 or an aac file or whatever - that cat is out of the bag...BUT...until a UNIVERSAL SYSTEM that protects those who create the content is in place, buying the CD, or buying a DRM protected file on-line are the only artist freindly way to go.

Only 3% - huh......that's telling, looks like more people, like Tony and myself, still want a physical product.

buying a cd is the same thing as buying unprotected mp3s

there is no difference

almost everyone rips the CDs to get the songs on their iPods and other digital music devices
Screw the record labels...That is all.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?