"Music will become regarded as a throwaway item"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
The idea that the market can fail is false, imo.

Let's stop funding roads, then. And schools.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
So musicians should spend years being effectively homeless, pennyless and nearly starving beggars in the hope that it might pay off?

Clearly yes, according to those who are seeking to justify their own mean-spiritedness and desire to steal.

That one-off example is wildly innapropriate for most bands.

Begging is hard, but it need not entail starvation. In the States, many start-up companies beg. It's called "angel investing" or "family, friends, and fools investing."

On the other hand, some endeavors don't get funded. Just a fact of life.

[Elok]

Bah. They give us Britney, Ashlee, Avril and all the rest, then expect our sympathy? Mind you, I don't download music at all (PC has no speakers, refuse to join the iPod herd), so I'm no threat.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

finally

[Sirotnikov]

Cort, I'm sorry dude, but I really don't think that everyone should be able to make a great living off music.

There was a growth in the market and the growth in supply has been much greater than in demand. This means that the amount a person is ready to shell out for a 5 minute hit is much smaller.

Your market can no longer be based on CDs. And online costs can not approach that of CDs too.

Because making a recording should cost alot less.

But regardless of that - there is simply much much more to choose from. And half of it can be copied for free.

You have to face the market change and find ways to change the value of what you do.

I realize that you're upset - but you really can't blame the market for going where it does.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Agathon
Time to trot out the old warhorse.

Copyright is not like other property rights. The concept of property is ancient, yet copyright is only two to three hundred years old. But it's not just an age difference. Copyright is a fundamentally different kind of right in that has always been viewed in law as conditional on its benefiting consumers. So calling copyright violation a violation of property rights is misleading.

The fundamental justification for copyright is that allowing people to charge for use of copy will encourage people to create worthwhile ideational goods that benefit everyone. I simply do not care if you disagree, those are the facts, and every single US court decision about copyright has, to my knowledge, upheld this utilitarian understanding of it (it actually explicitly says this in article one of the US Constitution).

I quote: "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

The whole point is to promote these things, not to recognize some spurious pre-existing notion of "intellectual property". Copyright is a wholly conventional and legal fiction. It does not, and has never embodied some intrinsic ethical right.

At present, we find this notion of copyright – the notion that benefits consumers – under attack. More and more, those who own copyrights want to recast it as a traditional property right, which may be held in perpetuity (or at least for a very long time). Technological change, along with digital rights management is allowing these people to curtail traditional fair use rights.

There's also no a priori reason why the funding of art should be through the market system. All the best art is already funded largely through non-market mechanisms, so the loss of much of the junk isn't anything to cry about.

Moreover, given the increased power of creation and distribution that the internet enables, it isn't clear that we really need the same copyrights we used to have. Things like books and recorded music used to be much more expensive to make and distribute, and hence some form of protection for investments was necessary to encourage people to take the risk in the first place. It's not clear that this still applies in many areas of human endeavour.

But our glorious lawmakers aren't listening and aren't even considering this. Their view of copyright seems to be that the point is to screw the consumer. That's why I'm not allowed to rip a DVD I've paid for to watch on another device, and that's why I have to sit through garbage copyright notices that I can't fast forward and don't want to watch. It's also why I'm apparently not allowed to lend my music to friends, except under ridiculous circumstances, or that I will have spyware surreptitiously installed on my computer if I try to play a CD on it.

Thus, if we want more consumer friendly laws, our only real option is civil disobedience. It's not like we can afford to bribe politicians like content corporations do. I don't see why consumers should stand idly by while Sony, Universal et al dictate to us.

QFT! (I hate when Aggie makes sense )

The only thing I have to add is that when I was younger, before music on the internet, I used to record songs all the time from the radio on my cassette recorder and no one ever thought twice about that. I also just don't feel sorry for stars who already have millions of dollars and I don't feel sorry for an upcoming musician because they're not the first to shoot for the top and not make it. They can settle into the quiet world of middle class normalcy like the rest of us.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
So musicians should spend years being effectively homeless, pennyless and nearly starving beggars in the hope that it might pay off?

Clearly yes, according to those who are seeking to justify their own mean-spiritedness and desire to steal.

That one-off example is wildly innapropriate for most bands.

AFAIK the Kellys, although living in theoir tour bus never were truely pennyless or starving, they got enough to survive during thois time.

But any new band that doesn´t want to make contracts with the large recording labels wouldn´t have to do it exactly like the Kellys.

I don´t say that musicians should release all of their music for free, what I say is that releasing part of their tracks from time to time for free might be very good from a career standpoint (and I say that it often might not be wise to go to the large recording companies but instead a better idea to try it on your own [or with smaller companies]).

But I agree that making music might not pay off at the beginning of the career, but is that so unusual?
Even scientists who are fresh from university and have studied many years there are often forced to take on second or even third jobs because the reseacrh jobs they get don´t pay their full living costs.
Musicians could do the same, i.e. in the beginning when they´re more or less unknown devote part of their time with other jobs and only then switch to making full time music when they´re popular enough to know that they will make enough music to pay all of their bills.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

But I agree that making music might not pay off at the beginning of the career, but is that so unusual?
Even scientists who are fresh from university and have studied many years there are often forced to take on second or even third jobs because the reseacrh jobs they get don´t pay their full living costs.
Musicians could do the same, i.e. in the beginning when they´re more or less unknown devote part of their time with other jobs and only then switch to making full time music when they´re popular enough to know that they will make enough music to pay all of their bills.

I'm not demanding instant success for anyone. Many musicians are prepared to gave some hard years, and most will need to subsidise their music with their jobs.

This is not a thread demanding that anyone who picks up a musical instrument gets immediately given a huge living by the world - as perhaps some people may have interpreted it, like Sirotnikov - it's simply saying that musicians are as entitled to get paid for their recorded music as any anyone else is entitled to get paid for their work which someone uses.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

For me, that would be the nail in the copyright's coffin. It just shows that whatever copyrighted work it is, it didnt have enough market value to earn money without a government mandated monopoly.

No it doesn't. It shows a market failure because, absent that government mandated monopoly, there's no way to create DanS's tollgates and very little content is produced at all.

Excellent, young padawan. Your powers grow apace.

[Sandman]

You could always have state subsidies (and all the problems those entail) for musicians. Other cultural stuff gets them already.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sandman
You could always have state subsidies (and all the problems those entail) for musicians. Other cultural stuff gets them already.

So do musicians. The best ones anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
You could always have state subsidies (and all the problems those entail) for musicians.

That's pretty much a worst-case solution.

Other cultural stuff gets them already.

That's not a recommendation.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Sandman
You could always have state subsidies (and all the problems those entail) for musicians.

That's pretty much a worst-case solution.

Other cultural stuff gets them already.

That's not a recommendation.

I don't disagree. The US doesn't go in for it much and it's been good. It's not a recommendation, but it is politically possible. At least for music the middle classes like.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by MikeH
My brother's band are currently full time with their band, making money out of gigs, radio play (Radio1/2/6music/xfm etc) and limited edition record sales. Currently building up single releases/airplay before their first album comes out. Another group of friends of mine have just released their first album on Jeepster (Belle and Sebastian/Snow Patrol's label) and I bought it off Amazon. Things are changing, but if you are good enough, popular enough and hard working enough you can make money off touring and you can still sell records and merchandise.

I'm not interested in the Charlatans record but Radiohead are also making their newest record available for download for free (well you can choose how much you pay from £0.00 upwards) but also selling a £40 version on double CD + Double LP + bonus ****. I love having physical CDs.

http://www.myspace.com/peteandthepirates - Brother
http://www.myspace.com/sixnationstatetheband - Friends

Yeah, I've heard them on the radio a couple of times...

[Sirotnikov]

This is not a thread demanding that anyone who picks up a musical instrument gets immediately given a huge living by the world - as perhaps some people may have interpreted it, like Sirotnikov - it's simply saying that musicians are as entitled to get paid for their recorded music as any anyone else is entitled to get paid for their work which someone uses.

I agree that musicians should get paid for their work.

Question is what do you define as work.

I think that live concerts are better venues for profit, than merely recording an album.

When you're a young band, an album is just a way to draw crowds, and concerts are a good way to get known and attract a following. Then you can sell merchandise.

But I think that many people today expect recorded music alone to make enough money. That, together with bloated production costs, leads to insane pricing.

If I'm not willing to shell out 17$ on an album of a huge rock start, there ain't no way I'll do that for an album of a small unknown group.

I will, however, pay up to 17$ for a live show. And I will go to live shows repeatedly, more often.

It is not true that small unknown bands don't attract audiences. I went to a dozen of small unknown bands based on the fact that they had a concert near me and were not very expensive.