The great music copyright debate.

[whyterabbyt]

munchkin quoth And another thing...

I don't see all the independents going out of business because people are copying the music of the bands they have on their rosta.

Can you comment on their balance books, and exactly how much their revenues have changed then? For any examples at all?

Are you claiming that small labels and ditributors dontgo out of business at all? Or that you just have some insight into the causes behind those who have disappeared? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what was the cause of World Serpent folding, for example.

If anything there are far more indie's than 20 years ago. One of the reasons for this is the internet and the ability to share and distribute new music by new musicians.

Can we see statitsics for this please?

In fact, we have a number of musicians at KVR selling their music quite successfully.

Define successfully, compared to, say, an independent label of 20 years ago.

Maybe they're not about to give up the day job but this would've never been possible even 10 years ago. So to say that downloading is affecting musicians detrimentally is nonsense. It's opened up huge opportunities that didn't exist before.

Now that's a fudge of logic and you know it. Just because more people can get (relatively) small amounts of notice within their peer group does not mean that artists are not being affected detrimentally.

Let's have less of this hand wringing about copying music and more criticism of something we can actually campaign about - unfair recording contracts.

In other words 'we dont have an issue here, because I say we dont, so lets ignore it completely in favour of a completely different one'.

Come on, Munchkin...

[diverdee]

Dunno where I stand on this whole issue - i'm probably ignorant on the compexities & statistics of it all - but here's my 2-penneth. Having been signed twice in the past I have been royally but-f**ked twice in the past, so I do not have a great deal of respect for some labels at least. on downloading mp3's - i've downloaded shit-loads, and it was the only way for me to get hold of and hear some underground hip-hop artists, if not for the mp3's I still wouldn't have heard of some of them - & i now own some very nice cd's - many of which I had to order on import from specialist shops (on a side note the cd's are way too expensive - whoever made the suggestion of getting hold of high quality mp3's, burning them & then sending money directly to the artist - I would truly consider doing that in the future - but then again I like my shiny new cd's - even though I just rip em 2 play in my mp3 player mostly .....hmmmmmm.
I've also downloaded shit loads of free creative commons stuff - and some of it is real fine - thinnerism, heavy industries, subsource etc.

[munchkin]

munchkin quoth
I agree! It get's so tiresome being scolded by people who believe the fantasy that copying music affects the profits of the musician. This is pure fantasy and has never been proven statistically. It's just moralising based on a false premise.

Conversely:
I disagree. It gets so tiresome being scolded by people who believe the fantasy that copying music doesnt affects the profits of the musician. This is pure fantasy, and has never been proven statistically. It's just justification based on a false premise.

See, the problem is that you say its a false premise because it hasnt been proven. No, its not a false premise, its an unproven premise, and there's a difference between those two things. The converse premise is also an unproven one, btw, so its just as much of a 'fantasy'.
The problem is that I dont see anyone giving any explanation of how someone is supposed to support themselves if they can't sell music. You talk about Prince and whatever, but what about small acts who never got the chance to make their name globally before 'rebelling against the man'? Yeah, the major labels run an unfair system, but how on earth does that become a justification for wholesale avoidance of paying your favourite artists? Conflating these two issues does precisely nothing to help the artist.

It becomes a false premise when it's being touted as 'the truth' even though it remains unproven. This is what I object to.

How can we make a judgement about whether musicians are being affected detrimentally until this is proven? It might be the case that music downloading is actually helping sales. But the RIAA will not promote a balanced assessment of this issue. If the RIAA are making this premise then it's up to them to back it up with facts. Otherwise it remains a fantasy dreamt up by their lawyers.

The problem as I see it, is that we are told that copying is bad for business but multi-national record companies continue raking in the profits. Indie record labels still exist and many are thriving. Perhaps the bitter pill to swallow for indie musicians is that any commercial chance they may have is dictated by access to the music buying public. And probably 99% of the traditional distribution routes are controlled by the multi-nationals who do not make it easy for indie musicians. And that's putting it mildly.

That's why I think the issue of downloading is at best a red-herring and at worst untrue. The record labels engage in unfair and unscupulous working practices with musicians (this includes certain indie labels). Why then should anyone believe what they say about so-called 'piracy' affecting record sales without proof?

I'm hearing music from all over the world because the internet is facillitating this. I'm buying this music because it's being shared over the internet. Bedroom musicians who would've stood no chance of distributing their music can now do so through the internet. I believe the RIAA would like to control distribution of music and the big multinationals would like to control who gets to present their music to the public. Just like they have done traditionally. That's how they make their profits.

I think that controlling distribution is the real agenda behind the RIAA's campaign and I want to stop them expanding the cartels owned by the big multinationals. Challenging the RIAA's premise is one of the ways to do this and pointing out the dishonest practices of the record labels should create doubt in anyones mind about the veracity of the RIAA's statements.

The RIAA are not interested in the welfare of musicians - they are interested in the profits of the multi-nationals. I think that's dishonest and detrimental to musicians.

[kritikon]

It's also social acceptable behaviour to believe RIAA propaganda and moralise on behalf of these bastards but we can rise above this by exposing these bastards for the hypocritical crooks that they are

I'm by no means saying that everything is peachy within the music business, but why is it that it's only music that's OK to steal? Because you don't like the setup, it's ok for their material to be stolen.

This doesn't apply to material goods. Many manufacturers of clothing use 3rd world sweat-shops and that is difficult to justify - but when somebody nicks your Nike trainers because they were made using the very same sweatshops...you don't mind? Those manufacturers are bastards, so their product is fair game? And if we all get our clothes free and stolen, that'll do the sweatshop workers even more good?
When an inventor takes out a patent on some new gizmo, we don't assume it's OK to thieve that idea from them.
The big bad government puts evil taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, but we don't feel it's justified to burgle off-licenses and pus - it's not unreasonable to actually pay the barman for your drink


I could go on and on...why should music be exempted from your daily morals? i just don't get it. Because you like it, it's OK to steal it - that's no basis for any civilised society.

[munchkin]

munchkin quoth And another thing...

I don't see all the independents going out of business because people are copying the music of the bands they have on their rosta.

Can you comment on their balance books, and exactly how much their revenues have changed then? For any examples at all?

Are you claiming that small labels and ditributors dontgo out of business at all? Or that you just have some insight into the causes behind those who have disappeared? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what was the cause of World Serpent folding, for example.

If anything there are far more indie's than 20 years ago. One of the reasons for this is the internet and the ability to share and distribute new music by new musicians.

Can we see statitsics for this please?

In fact, we have a number of musicians at KVR selling their music quite successfully.

Define successfully, compared to, say, an independent label of 20 years ago.

Maybe they're not about to give up the day job but this would've never been possible even 10 years ago. So to say that downloading is affecting musicians detrimentally is nonsense. It's opened up huge opportunities that didn't exist before.

Now that's a fudge of logic and you know it. Just because more people can get (relatively) small amounts of notice within their peer group does not mean that artists are not being affected detrimentally.

Let's have less of this hand wringing about copying music and more criticism of something we can actually campaign about - unfair recording contracts.

In other words 'we dont have an issue here, because I say we dont, so lets ignore it completely in favour of a completely different one'.

Come on, Munchkin...

How can I give exact figures when, as you rightly point out, they're not made available? This is the point I'm making. The RIAA are not promoting facts.

It would be very interesting to see some facts in this debate. Like the facts presented by Steve Albini who works in the industry.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

As for ignoring the issue of downloading and it's effects on musicians - I don't think my overlong and numerous posts about it constitutes this. What they do show is that I think the RIAA is dishonest about the effects of downloading on commercial music. And that the RIAA's main agenda is to enable the multinationals record labels to control the distribution of music on the internet for financial gain.

[whyterabbyt]

munchkin quoth

It becomes a false premise when it's being touted as 'the truth' even though it remains unproven. This is what I object to.

But the position that downloading sales doesnt affect the artists is also touted as 'the truth'. And is similarly unproven. Why dont you object to that?

How can we make a judgement about whether musicians are being affected detrimentally until this is proven? It might be the case that music downloading is actually helping sales.

It might be. But just the same as small developers right here at KVR tell you that piracy hits their sales, Ive seen small labels (eg the label the Venetian Snares are on) say that piracy has hit their sales. Now I can understand why the big labels would be lying, but why would these people be?

Now, even if you discard everything the RIAA and the majors say on principle (and I pretty much do) why would you immediately assume that everyone else who says 'it hits our sales' is lying?

But the RIAA will not promote a balanced assessment of this issue. If the RIAA are making this premise then it's up to them to back it up with facts. Otherwise it remains a fantasy dreamt up by their lawyers.

But this isnt just about the RIAA. The RIAA is the red herring, because small labels are claiming exactly the same thing. It cant be peer pressure, so what the hell is it? A conspiracy?

The problem as I see it, is that we are told that copying is bad for business but multi-national record companies continue raking in the profits.

Thats still a different problem.

Indie record labels still exist and many are thriving.

And some are not.

Perhaps the bitter pill to swallow for indie musicians is that any commercial chance they may have is dictated by access to the music buying public. And probably 99% of the traditional distribution routes are controlled by the multi-nationals who do not make it easy for indie musicians. And that's putting it mildly.

Perhaps, but its nothing to do with the issue of copying.

That's why I think the issue of downloading is at best a red-herring and at worst untrue.

Well, thats why I think the issue of the RIAA is the red herring...

The record labels engage in unfair and unscupulous working practices with musicians (this includes certain indie labels).

True.

Why then should anyone believe what they say about so-called 'piracy' affecting record sales without proof?

Because its not just them that are saying it?

I'm hearing music from all over the world because the internet is facillitating this. I'm buying this music because it's being shared over the internet. Bedroom musicians who would've stood no chance of distributing their music can now do so through the internet.

And some people do indeed do that. Meanwhile many others (many more others, going by observation) take what they can get, and keep on taking.

I believe the RIAA would like to control distribution of music and the big multinationals would like to control who gets to present their music to the public. Just like they have done traditionally. That's how they make their profits.

All true. And yet most of the people people I know who download music from the net left right and centre dont actually go out and buy anything any more.

I think that controlling distribution is the real agenda behind the RIAA's campaign and I want to stop them expanding the cartels owned by the big multinationals. Challenging the RIAA's premise is one of the ways to do this and pointing out the dishonest practices of the record labels should create doubt in anyones mind about the veracity of the RIAA's statements.

Unfortunately, even a liar can be telling the truth.

But please, if there's anyone here who know any musician making a decent living wage solely as a result of their music being downloaded on the internet, and the secondary revenue they generate that's directly caused by that, can they please chime in.

At the end of the day, any musician who actually wants to can give permission for their albums to be downloaded for free. Why do you think your opposition to the practices of the RIAA etc should mean that those who dont subscribe to the concept of releasing it themsleves should lose their right to have some say in the redistribution of their creation?

The RIAA are not interested in the welfare of musicians - they are interested in the profits of the multi-nationals. I think that's dishonest and detrimental to musicians.

It is. But that doesnt in any way imply that downloading music somehow aids those same musicians.

[munchkin]

It's also social acceptable behaviour to believe RIAA propaganda and moralise on behalf of these bastards but we can rise above this by exposing these bastards for the hypocritical crooks that they are

I'm by no means saying that everything is peachy within the music business, but why is it that it's only music that's OK to steal? Because you don't like the setup, it's ok for their material to be stolen.

This doesn't apply to material goods. Many manufacturers of clothing use 3rd world sweat-shops and that is difficult to justify - but when somebody nicks your Nike trainers because they were made using the very same sweatshops...you don't mind? Those manufacturers are bastards, so their product is fair game? And if we all get our clothes free and stolen, that'll do the sweatshop workers even more good?
When an inventor takes out a patent on some new gizmo, we don't assume it's OK to thieve that idea from them.
The big bad government puts evil taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, but we don't feel it's justified to burgle off-licenses and pus - it's not unreasonable to actually pay the barman for your drink


I could go on and on...why should music be exempted from your daily morals? i just don't get it. Because you like it, it's OK to steal it - that's no basis for any civilised society.

Does sharing music prevent music sales or does it promote them?

Marketing departments the world over give out promotional material. Viral marketing is used extensively on the internet by companies to promote their products. There are sites dedicated to it. This is copyright material being shared over the internet. In many cases the people sharing this material have not got permision to distribute it from the company that owns the copyright.

So there are different schools of thinking in marketing concerning the sharing of copyright material. One of these theories is that it destroys the market. Another is that it helps the market expand. Until we have facts to demonstrate the RIAA's case one way or another the jury is out.

You can't place old testament morality on modern marketing. IMO we have to develop an understanding of whether sharing music is either beneficial or detrimental to musicians before making a judgement. The RIAA is definitely not engaging in this debate.

My criticism of the RIAA as I've said before is that their agenda is to help multinational music companies gain control of the distribution of music on the internet. And become the portal for virtually all commercial music - just like they've done traditionally.

[kritikon]

The RIAA are not interested in the welfare of musicians - they are interested in the profits of the multi-nationals. I think that's dishonest and detrimental to musicians.

But nobody in their right mind ever thought the RIAA was there to protect musicians - of course any argument they put out is to protect business...we all know that...there is no conspiracy.


But there are choices. You don't have to object to business practices by indulging in criminal behaviour. As you say...there is sharing by musicians over the internet, there is direct sales over the internet - but piracy is still rife...there would appear to be far more people that prefer to simply use pirate versions than pay even a reduced internet price....they just don't want to pay is more the point.



And apropos of an earlier point...I wish I could find an old contract I had from years ago to actually quote it. It was with a very small starting-out label that were probably on the benign end of the scale - lots of good intentions and contact with and discussion with their artists....not a large amount of money involved by a long shot (and the important note here is that none of the money was mine...I wasn't risking a penny...whereas the label had begged or borrowed the money from somewhere...someone WAS risking their own money - not often something too many musicians do!).

Anyway....from what I remember of it, the royalties were either 1/8 or 1/12 of the profit from each unit (can't remember exactly which)...the profits meant AFTER the costs of printing, advertising, marketing etc etc were already taken out. There were shitloads of clauses in there about recouping losses and rights of copyright being handed over....in fact the label were pretty good, never got done by them at all, but nevertheless there was very little in the way of rights left to us if the label had decided to get shitty. If they made losses, they could legally have demanded any advances back from us, they could have recouped the cost of studio time from us if we had used it. We had the contract checked by a music lawyer, and the answer was basically...it's standard, don't worry, most of those clauses won't be invoked. And I'm not stupid either...I read the whole contract back to front several times - the sum total of those clauses was horrifying if they made use of them. To get a 3-single contract there was an "option" for a 3 LP deal...which IF the label decided to go for all 3 singles and any LPs would have tied us to them tightly.

That, by the way, was a "good guy" small label...not one of those nasty evil major labels. The general concensus from various sources was we had a good deal with a good label. Turned out they were OK, but we still could have been shafted if they wanted to shaft us.


So why the distinction between major and indie labels - the ONLY difference is the actual amount of money involved.

[munchkin]

It might be. But just the same as small developers right here at KVR tell you that piracy hits their sales, Ive seen small labels (eg the label the Venetian Snares are on) say that piracy has hit their sales. Now I can understand why the big labels would be lying, but why would these people be?

Now, even if you discard everything the RIAA and the majors say on principle (and I pretty much do) why would you immediately assume that everyone else who says 'it hits our sales' is lying?

Again, it comes down to factual information. They believe this to be true but is it true? Perhaps no-one wanted to buy their music. Perhaps no-one downloaded it either. Perhaps their business model wasn't well thought out. I don't have access to this information. There is no research demonstrating what these people claim. Indie labels/musicians were going bust long before the internet came along for numerous reasons. Software companies went bust long before the internet became popular and easily accessable.

The RIAA are the major player promoting this issue so I don't think they are a red herring. If anything, their propaganda feeds into the unproven notion that sharing music leads to bankruptcy for indie labels.

I also know people who d/l music and don't buy it but I know people who do d/l and also buy it, including myself. But how does that prove that musicians are losing out? Stopping people downloading music may not make them buy it. On the other hand, it may stop more people becoming aware of a musician and buying their music.

This debate is arbitary because there is no definitive proof either way. If I was shown reliable evidence proving that musicians lose out to downloads then I would reconsider. But would those who are against d/l music change their minds? I wonder because the, 'stealing is wrong' arguement is a moral one and leaves little room for adaption to new forms of marketing.

[herodotus]

I must say, this argument is every bit as intriguing as I knew it would be. And the past few pages at least have kept the level of discourse above the usual 'slagging off' that is the norm on other boards.

Page 6 anyone?

[munchkin]

The RIAA are not interested in the welfare of musicians - they are interested in the profits of the multi-nationals. I think that's dishonest and detrimental to musicians.

But nobody in their right mind ever thought the RIAA was there to protect musicians - of course any argument they put out is to protect business...we all know that...there is no conspiracy.


But there are choices. You don't have to object to business practices by indulging in criminal behaviour. As you say...there is sharing by musicians over the internet, there is direct sales over the internet - but piracy is still rife...there would appear to be far more people that prefer to simply use pirate versions than pay even a reduced internet price....they just don't want to pay is more the point.



And apropos of an earlier point...I wish I could find an old contract I had from years ago to actually quote it. It was with a very small starting-out label that were probably on the benign end of the scale - lots of good intentions and contact with and discussion with their artists....not a large amount of money involved by a long shot (and the important note here is that none of the money was mine...I wasn't risking a penny...whereas the label had begged or borrowed the money from somewhere...someone WAS risking their own money - not often something too many musicians do!).

Anyway....from what I remember of it, the royalties were either 1/8 or 1/12 of the profit from each unit (can't remember exactly which)...the profits meant AFTER the costs of printing, advertising, marketing etc etc were already taken out. There were shitloads of clauses in there about recouping losses and rights of copyright being handed over....in fact the label were pretty good, never got done by them at all, but nevertheless there was very little in the way of rights left to us if the label had decided to get shitty. If they made losses, they could legally have demanded any advances back from us, they could have recouped the cost of studio time from us if we had used it. We had the contract checked by a music lawyer, and the answer was basically...it's standard, don't worry, most of those clauses won't be invoked. And I'm not stupid either...I read the whole contract back to front several times - the sum total of those clauses was horrifying if they made use of them. To get a 3-single contract there was an "option" for a 3 LP deal...which IF the label decided to go for all 3 singles and any LPs would have tied us to them tightly.

That, by the way, was a "good guy" small label...not one of those nasty evil major labels. The general concensus from various sources was we had a good deal with a good label. Turned out they were OK, but we still could have been shafted if they wanted to shaft us.


So why the distinction between major and indie labels - the ONLY difference is the actual amount of money involved.

I think the arrangements made between indie labels and musicians varies from label to label. Some are out to rip the musician off, others take a more co-operative line. Perhaps with some labels there is the chance to get a better deal but I think the real benefit of indies is that many of them champion musicians who would otherwise never get a record deal with the majors and would never be heard otherwise.

I have always been interested in musicians who have been rejected by the mainstream. Indie labels still exist and some are growing. So I question whether sharing is detrimental to indie labels and musicians or whether it contributes to raising the profile of the indie musician.

[herodotus]

I could go on and on...why should music be exempted from your daily morals? i just don't get it. Because you like it, it's OK to steal it - that's no basis for any civilised society.

You know,there is an implication here that the only people who don't toe the "Stealing is just wrong, period" line must be unscrupulous people who just want to steal.

This is rather insulting as it was I who started this thread and I have never downloaded an mp3 in my life (aside from legal samples put out by the artists themselves and music cafe stuff).

It is my belief that we are at a crossroads in the history of the music business. I think that perhaps our traditional ways of thinking about these issues are becoming outmoded, as are, perhaps, the business models based on them. Debates like this are absolutely necessary. And keeping allegations of base motives out of the debate will help keep it above the level of a shouting match.

Thank you.

[munchkin]

I remember watching a TV programme about New Order where they revealed that the packaging for one of their singles cost more than the profit that Factory made on each sale. Factory were actually losing money for each 12" sold!

So I question the business acumen of some Indie labels. Lovely ideas but not very profitable. Just one of the many reasons why some of them go bust.

The majors aren't immune to poor business practices either. They fund tours that send musicians into huge debt. Spend a fortune promoting albums that bite the dust. All this debt is placed firmly on the shoulders of the musician not the record label.

This has been going on long before the internet came along. But we're encouraged to believe that sharing is what's killing music and hurting musicians.

Anyway, I've said my bit and tried to defend my opinion. I'm just banging on about it now (or perhaps 10 posts ago... )

[kritikon]

I must say, this argument is every bit as intriguing as I knew it would be. And the past few pages at least have kept the level of discourse above the usual 'slagging off' that is the norm on other boards.

Hehehe...it won't be too long though


OK...here's another viewpoint. We pretty well all agree the RIAA and anything to do with major labels is about making money, OK? (Personally I throw in small indie labels in the pot too...they also want to make money).

So any argument they make about piracy is to either increase profits, or to stem losses or a mixture of both. That's almost a given fact I think.

Now...all record labels can recoup advances if losses are made, or those advances are included in the overall payout to the musician - i.e. the advance is subtracted from royalty payments - I know this from factual experience, never mind other verification from all kinds of media. Studio time etc is included as an advance. So apart from external income such as live gigging, a band's income is directly related to how much sales the record label makes. All the add-on sales costs also are included, and royalties paid - teeshirts, posters, underpants with the bands faces on them...that sort of thing

There is no way around the fact that a bands income is directly proportional to the amount of sales and profit the label makes, whether they be major or indie. Agreed?

So although any label's motive is for their own profit, that profit also benefits the bands. It's directly proportional. If a label's sales are reduced, then so is the royalty check for the musicians. I can't then see why we're separating the musicians from the labels - if the label feels they are losing money then the musicians also are at risk of losing money - the two are tied together.

Now - there may be little direct evidence of labels losing money through piracy, but I'm afraid I would rather trust a businessman with his own money than a musician with a musician's money. Business people are far more likely to be able to make it grow and know how to stop it bleeding through his fingers than most artists. And labels have been incredibly successful businesses - we all agree that they make big piles of money? Are they not more likely to recognise loss in profit than some muso with his head in a cloud or up a bong-pipe? And if that label feels they are losing money and they are right - then so is the musician, no matter what contract he has.

In fact he is more at risk if he is with a small label - they have less resources to cope with loss, smaller distributions, less influence on the buying public, access to airtime - a whole heap of things. His contract is more likely to be a crap one, becuase he's starting out and had to either do it all on his own or sign what was offered - a name band has more clout with a big label - the label can see that a successful band makes them money and is more likely to give on some issues if they can make the dough from that band's sales. It's business reality. And most major labels only sign bands with a proven track record - small labels have greater risk because they have more unknown bands.

If a multinational says a war in a certain part of the world, or a market fluctuation has affected profits - there's probably something to it. Likewise if a big label says it's losing money, then there's likely something to it - that is all the label is concerned about - making money. It makes no logic to say the musician gains when the label loses. And if the labels are wrong and piracy is not losing them money, then the musicians signed to that label will only benefit - not the other way around. But if piracy does lose them sales, then if you are signed to a label, you personally are also losing money. Conspiracies just don't come into it. Any conspiracy labels may get involved in is to gain profits - and if they do that, musicians also gain from it.

Do we actually want labels to fold? Do you want to have to release music only through your own effort and expenditure - because if the internet is going to be the only way to sell music, then you have to sell it yourself when there are no labels to front up the money for you. And if that same internet means piracy is rife...how do you sell anything. Does anyone here actually make a living from selling music via the net? There are lots of musicians who do make a living from selling their music via labels though.

[kaden]

I think what's important to remember here is that some folks feel that maintaining a highly visible pro intellectual property rights stance is important at KVR in order to appear developer friendly. I'm not trolling here, nor am I tarring all with the same brush, but there's been some frankly ridiculous 'high moral ground' positions taken here that fly in the face of copyright law, fair use, and general common sense.

It's a damned good thing none of this codswallop was an issue back in the days when the travelling minstral was a news reporter, historian, and political commentator, and people were *expected* to pass songs along from town to town, and generation to generation.

K