"Music will become regarded as a throwaway item"

[Kuciwalker]

Copyright isn't for the benefit of the artists. It's for the benefit of the consumers, so we actually have content to purchase. The pirates are basically just leeches off of legitimate consumers.

[Arrian]

And they're not even the cool kind of pirates. Boo!

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Aeson
Being entertained is not a right.

You can say that the good content will be compensated for in other ways. But what you mean is that you want to get something for nothing.

The end result of this line of thought is that we get sensationalistic crap. Anyone who produces anything of value that isn't lowest common denominator is stomped out of the market. You get huge disparities in compensation that are more tied to marketing than content. The content suffers, the consumer gets crap, but it's crap you can take at will. Gee, thanks.

Got Britney?

sure it is not a right per se, but it is not the entertainers right to put people in jail for finding other ways to get entertained, than the entertainer envisaged.

It IS a two way street.

In any case my point is that even if the cd $$$ dries out, there are plenty of other avanues to exploit in that business which will make millions/ regular pay pretty much as they do now (only the different route)...

The current way of doing business in music industry in particular is the "creation" of crap ala Britney/spice girls/girls aloud/backstreet boys... etc, etc etc, than mass marketing it using hte already accumulated funds and skmming teenagers out of $$$ making the marketing investment return with a profit.

Take out the investor in tha t crap, things will even out, than people like Cort, without massive corporate backing will have a fairer chance (hey music vs music only, or to a much greater extent) to actually make some $$$, as the third party interested to sell its product (the distributor) is out of the game.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

well if you think that protectionism is the way forward

Check the definition of protectionism, dude. It has nothing to do with copyright...

OK it is not protectionism is the economic sense of the word, fair point.

How woudl you call it "law protection". Or back to the basics "copyright".

Copyright isn't for the benefit of the artists. It's for the benefit of the consumers, so we actually have content to purchase. The pirates are basically just leeches off of legitimate consumers.

however what is at stake here is not "copyright" itself, it is "enforcement of copyright" (resulting in what I above called protectionist effects)...

You will have the content to purchase no doubt, as the music market will not dissapear with the lack of "copyrigh enforcement" vs consumers via the legal system, which is what is really at stake here.

I am all for enforcing the artists copyrights, in case someone makes money off their work, as in if Corts music is used for an ad unpaid, as the art in that case is actually creating someone else £££ so he should get compensated for it. Enforcing that is actually viable, and law is capable of dealing with that.

But the point is not only in capablity, it is in acknowledging the fact that without consumers there is no famous artist either, so it is a two way relationship, from which "jail option" for one party should be removed for the benefit of both.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
sure it is not a right per se, but it is not the entertainers right to put people in jail for finding other ways to get entertained, than the entertainer envisaged.

Entertainers don't put people in jail. Law enforcement does if someone breaks the law.

Take out the investor in tha t crap, things will even out, than people like Cort, without massive corporate backing will have a fairer chance (hey music vs music only, or to a much greater extent) to actually make some $$$, as the third party interested to sell its product (the distributor) is out of the game.

You have it backwards.

Relying soley on concerts and mass marketing means requiring a higher level of investment to break into the market. Even merchandising requires a higher initial investment than content reproduction, and of course relies on content dissemination to already have occurred.

You'll still have the big machines churning out lowest common denominator stuff. All you're really accomplishing is to eliminate return on the one low investment avenue that content creators currently have.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Arrian
Exactly what I was thinking

You do this often (say what I was thinking, better).

Before posting (seriously at least...) I always ask myself, "What would Arrian do?"

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think there is at least one band who proved you wrong already, and that is in the midst of competing with corporate sponsored bands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic_monkeys

it is the fanbase that creates the income, and you can now reach it much easier, and the content distribution is a doddle... if people start to listen to you, and you are quality, the rest is history.

As in you start from a webpage and local venues, minimum investment, millions can hear your copyrighted (as in you can charge for it when used to make £££ still) music for free, and once they know you they will come to Wembley for sure... of course you will start first touring here there and everywhere, but the road will be open not via some music manager who will open the door for you if he likes you and he is powerful enough, but via the music itself...

it will not be easy, but it is not easy now either, if anything one could argue it will be fairer, as it's music vs music a lot more. And while people fear "new" stuff, it is here to stay and those who embrace it earlier better it is for them.

[Provost Harrison]

Whatever your opinions of intellectual property, pirating, etc, etc, the fact is that the world has changed and it is now a different game. Even though the record industry battles on to protect it's intellectual property it is quite clearly fighting a losing battle. Your only hope is to adapt somehow. I hope that it will finally bring record prices into line with what they should be.

[Aeson]

Certainly the ease of mass distribution makes publicity easier now. It's the "new radio".

From your link:

Their debut album Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, released on 23 January 2006, became the fastest-selling debut album in British music history and received critical acclaim, winning both the 2006 Mercury Prize[2] and the 2007 Brit Award for Best British Album. The band's second album, Favourite Worst Nightmare, was released on 23 April 2007 and sold over 225,000 copies in its debut week and was also nominated for the 2007 Mercury Prize.[3]

Selling albums? This refutes your claim that artists should have to rely on alternate income streams, and that "their" music should be free.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

but did I say "prohibit album sales"?

All those sales came on top of free music distributed via the net (edit: which created this fanbase that bought the CD once it went for sale despite having the music available on the net for free! ). Does this require law enforcement?

We "music fans" like to own stuff made by the people which music we love, so is it such a strange concept that we will continue to purchase the goods if the "law enforcement" bit is removed.

This exactly proves my point. and as I said I am ordering that £ 40 radiohead box, as I want it, so I want more than just the music they will produce (thier "main" product which they are giving me for free), and I have the means to afford it, no law enforcement necessary

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
but did I say "prohibit album sales"?

All those sales came on top of free music distributed via the net. Does this require law enforcement?

If you're going to protect the right for artists to produce and sell their music, you have to protect that right.

An artist can choose to give away their stuff for free, it even might work out for some of them financially, but it doesn't mean everyone should have to.

It's also worth noting that the music they distributed freely was demo stuff.

We "music fans" like to own stuff made by the people which music we love, so is it such a strange concept that we will continue to purchase the goods if the "law enforcement" bit is removed.

The only difference between what you are expousing here, and what we currently have, is that you think the people who will not pay for their music should also have it.

If you are buying the product legally, why do you worry about law enforcement? Your position makes no sense.

and as I said I am ordering that £ 40 radiohead box, as I want it, so I want more than just the music they will produce (thier main product which they are giving me for free), and I have the means to afford it, no law enforcement necessary

Why should an artist be required to manufacture physical items for you to buy before seeing a return on their efforts? Certainly they can choose to do so, but no one should be forced into it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

it is the other way around - first I am not worried about myself, and all of what I like I have, but I have listened to quite a few things that I did not buy afterwards (because I could, and not like before bought albums that were rarely ever listened to again)...

but more importantly second: People who will not pay for their music should have it, and musicians should make their money off people who will pay for music, merchandise, concert tickets etc... plus the people who do not to pay to "listen" should do so whenever they want as they wish, as there is no production cost associated for that to the artist or anyone else but the listener, artists loses nothing (apart from his imaginary right), just gains "airtime" which will ultimately be converted to money just via other mean, or even conventional ones.

Furthermore, the artist is not required to manufacture anything, he can if he wishes to, and can hope people will like it like he did before. It is not a producers "right" to forbid listening to what they produced. First there is no inherent (moral if you want, and read earlier Aggies post for that argument) right to it, and neither that should be their focus, they should focus to sell to the people who will pay, and on what they can charge.

It is nothing more than a focus shift, where the artist only gains, the only real loser is the middleman between the artist and the fanbase.

But I guess I rehearsed various sides of this argument a few times in this thread already.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

for the end tonight (as I still have work to do )

a bit from Wiki about Artic Monkeys and "the industry"

The band resisted signing to a record label, refusing to change their songs to suit the industry — "Before the hysteria started, the labels would say, 'I like you, but I'm not sure about this bit, and that song could do with this changing...' We never listened."[18] Their cynicism with the industry was such that record company scouts were refused guaranteed guest list entry for their gigs, a move described by MTV Australia as "We've got this far without them — why should we let them in?".[21] The success of the strategy was illustrated with a series of sell-out gigs across the UK. October 2005 saw them sell out the historic London Astoria, and Turner saw this as proof that they were justified to ignore the record companies, saying "Once it all kicked off, we didn't care anymore. In London, the kids were watching the band, and the record company were at the back watching the kids watching the band."[18]

they are just the first ones that became so big via new means of distribution (and they themselves had no clue about it, fans all did it themselves to them for FREE!!! ) if this is not the way forward I do not know what is ... good music wants to be heard and money for sure will be made.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Furthermore, the artist is not required to manufacture anything, he can if he wishes to, and can hope people will like it like he did before.

Increased barriers to entry.

It is not a producers "right" to forbid listening to what they produced.

Legal rights are based on laws. Saying there are no rights is patently false.

First there is no inherent (moral if you want, and read earlier Aggies post for that argument) right to it, and neither that should be their focus, they should focus to sell to the people who will pay, and on what they can charge.

There is no inherent right to anything other than "might makes right". That doesn't mean we should strip away all legally constructed rights and simply allow people to do whatever they can.

It is nothing more than a focus shift, where the artist only gains, the only real loser is the middleman between the artist and the fanbase.

The middlemen are still making a killing in today's market. The ones harmed by piracy are law abiding consumers and content creators who are forced to find alternate avenues of income.

[Cort Haus]

OneFootInTheGrave, what happened with the Arctic Monkeys is a one-off. It is probably more of a fluke than a trend.