PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic "Wired Magazine" on the Future of Copying

Link to Readers Replies to the author...

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/04/digital-music-is-like-a-mortgage/

Some reader replys to this "Wired Article"
888888888888888888888888888888888888888


What about every other profession that is "real-time"? Why is it that every musician should have a buffer, but no salesperson and no engineer?

Unless you start your own business, when you can't perform in those roles you lose your income as well. By entering the sphere of entrepreneurship you are fundamentally changing your occupation in the two examples that I have specified, whereas for a musician it's not.

Agree with previous comment: article is deeply flawed in logic.
96 △
1 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Kir Birger • 11 days ago


I agree. A hundred years ago, any performer could only get paid by performing. There was no such thing as a recording of a performance. Technology has brought that full circle. Now performers only get paid for their performances. (And tee shirts.) In the old days, minstrels often ended their show by selling medicinal tonic and other wares. (Then got promptly run out of town.)
26 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


lammot > Michael Lashinsky • 10 days ago


But in the older days you couldn't also record music, and enjoy it without the presence of the musician. now the outreach of music is so much more since it can be recorded in a meaningful way and spread its reach irrespective of live performances.
We need to value the money going into recording, for which we should remunerate the musicians and the parties involved. the fact that we don't has led to a surge in concert prices and bands spending time on ancillaries such as merch, that time in which they could've made more music.
9 △
1 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Álex Montoya > lammot • 8 days ago


What about films?
1 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Álex Montoya • 5 days ago


Many would argue that the film industry profiteers in various ways, eg the zone system of DVD's (a DVD for Africa won't play in the US, etc). And if I download a compressed lo rez movie, chances are if I really like it I'll go to netflix or even purchase a DVD. But if I download a so-so movie, watch it once & either never watch it again or throw it out, who cares?

Now if you live in Asia or Africa it's another matter - every street corner includes vendors of pirated DVDs.....but considering the income of many of the buyers there, perhaps it's fair....what do you think?
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


lammot > Álex Montoya • 6 days ago


what about them? they do get pirated, which is a problem.
compare it to theatre, which doesn't (afaik) face piracy issues.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


southernBolt > Michael Lashinsky • 11 days ago


sounds like a rave
4 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Kyle Won > Michael Lashinsky • 10 days ago


We also used to have slavery. Women and black people couldn't vote. I can't wait till technology comes back full circle on those things, too.
6 △
2 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Jim Britt > Kyle Won • 10 days ago


Singers shouldn't make more to sing a song than a soldier, firefighter, or cop makes saving lives!
12 △
2 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Kyle Won > Jim Britt • 10 days ago


Most probably don't, when you average them all out. Some lose money between paying for rehearsal spaces, equipment, and hiring back-up musicians. It's not cheap or easy.

Also, if a performer can sell out a stadium or Madison Square Garden, who are you to decide how much they make? If someone can get tens of thousands of people to pay to come see them perform every year, they deserve to make however much they make. Nothing you say is going to change that.
12 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Kyle Won • 5 days ago


Yes, but they shouldn't expect people to pay the same for digital reproductions either - let people put their money towards artists who are lower on the food chain maybe. Uh oh, I hear the mob screaming "Socialism!" ;*p
1 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Kyle Won > bitrat • 4 days ago


Oh, I agree. CD's would have a ridiculous mark-up, sometimes. The lack of a physical product or the need to have a physical store and physical distribution network should bring a discount.

However, one could argue that there's added value in the fact that a service like iTunes will allow you to re-download a song/album if you lost it (i think), so you essentially are guaranteed a copy, even in the event of hard drive failure. They could also offer cloud-style services to your personal library (if they don't already).
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Kyle Won • 20 hours ago


I don't think anyone is really saying that. If they can fill a stadium, more power to them! But performers shouldn't expect to record a song and live fat off of royalties for the rest of their lives. It isn't realistic.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Nick Hoffman > Jim Britt • 9 days ago


The market determines the value. While I certainly honor the work of the soldier, the firefighter and cop, as well as teachers, many artists create works that generate large amounts of revenue of which they are entitled to a large portion, are they not? By your rationale, everyone should earn the same amount, regardless of value generation.
3 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Aaron Wolf > Nick Hoffman • 7 days ago


What you mean is "market determines the price" which is also false. Value is not price, but price also does not actually work the way market ideology presumes. It's complex. People charge more and then buyers think the product is better, people charge less because they are humble, etc. Market does not actually determine price although it has strong influence. Market certainly does not determine value.

Either way, Lanier is making up nonsense here.
2 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Nick Hoffman > Aaron Wolf • 6 days ago


No, what I meant was, 1 million people will purchase an album or show up at a movie based in large part to the artist that is singing or the actor that is headlining the film... the same cannot be said for the traffic cop making stops or the fireman that is working that night. While I believe that the work of emergency personnel and teachers, etc, is undervalued and they are underpaid, I believe that check that is written to the artist that drives the type of sales or box office that I'm talking about is based on a fraction of what their participation brought to the project.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Nick Hoffman • 20 hours ago


"...they are entitled to a large portion..." but they don't get it. The record labels get the large portion and the performers get peanuts. The labels are exploiting the artists that create the works. (And why any consumer is willing to pay the ridiculous retail price is beyond me...)

Now we can hear and copy anything we want off of the internet, and the record labels are crying about it. Boo-Hoo! Artists can still perform to get paid, and the recording industry can fold and die for all I care.

Artists that can sell enough tickets to fill a concert hall or stadium will make a living. The person playing third Viola in a 100 piece orchestra is probably going to need to keep a day job. (So is the lone performer at the indie coffee shop.) They aren't necessarily less talented, but that is how it is. Sorry about that.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Brendan Kaplan > Nick Hoffman • 6 days ago


also, if there were 1.5 million (size of active duty army) Jay-Z's/Madonna's/commercial superstars out there, they would probably make a lot less than current superstars.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Jim Britt • 20 hours ago


Exactly! Neither should athletes.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Kyle Won • 20 hours ago


I get the point you are trying to make, but technology had nothing to do with ending slavery or civil rights.

100 Years ago, there were no recordings at all. the tech didn't exist. Then Edison came along and we had a foil roll, then a Victrola, then record players, cassettes, 8-tracks, CD,. etc... A few big companies made a fortune off the backs of the performers, who got paid diddly squat! (Ever hear the song, "Do the Locomotion"? It was top of the charts in its day, but Little Eva got paid $20 if I remember correctly. Billy Joel is another one that got royally screwed.) A few popular and astute musicians negotiated better deals, but most musicians get paid for the performance, and that is all.

Now, technology is at a point where it is incredibly easy to copy and share a recording, so the recording labels no longer have a lock on the recorded sound. It isn't locked onto the platter it is recorded on. The record label was a product of the technology of the 20th century, and they had a great run, but now 21st century technology has made their little kingdom fall apart. It was an artificial bubble, and it collapsed. Boo-fraking-who!

And just like all of time before, performers get paid for performing live again. Back to normal.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Entitled > Kir Birger • 11 days ago


Indeed.

We might say that musicians are "harmed" by piracy, in the sense that by letting it happen they would lose certain financial benefits that they have now, but these benefits are just rare priviledges, not fundamental rights that all workers in the word deserve.

In the words of Jonathan Coulton:

"It so happens that technological and societal blahbity bloos have conspired to create a situation where selling songs about monkeys and robots is a viable business, but for most of human history people have NOT paid for art."

Sure, Coulton has interest in keeping up his own priviledge right now, but wanting it to go away and be replaced with more equality, is not a bad thing either. The problem with copyright, is that it's excessive:
It rewards the workers of one particular field,with monopolistic control over data, with the right to tell what am I allowed to use my home computer for, what files am I allowed to put where, with the right to tell other artists coming after them exactly what new works are they not allowed to create and distribute, and so on.
26 △
1 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Kir Birger > Entitled • 11 days ago


This article is also written under the misconception that poor, now-impoverished musicians think of record sales as their life-blood. Musicians that don't own their own album make a mere pittance off record sales.

Homework: See where a musician's income comes from.
31 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Gary McDermott > Kir Birger • 11 days ago


Most musicians make their money off of touring rather than album sales.

Tthis is because the record labels have evolved the pinching of pennies and raping of talent to such a degree that there is no money left to trickle down to the artist.

You can look at the avaricious way that the record industry took down MP3.com. MP3.com had a business model that allowed artists to sell directly to their audience. They had a rating system that pushed 'liked' music into the public consciousness and probably put bands into the public awareness that never would have seen the light of day in a world dominated by record labels.

Unfortunately, they also had an online storage facility that allowed a person to store music that they owned to play remotely, and that resulted in UMG vs MP3.com. Ultimately MP3 just became an outlet for Vivendi, and the record labels re-established their dominance.

Oh, yeah, out-right piracy (as opposed to a free-er business model) has now taken over and will (eventually) see the death of the record labels. This could have been a much better scenario, but IMO, the record labels forced the issue and deserve what they are getting
36 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


MightyMolecule > Gary McDermott • 11 days ago


alas, the mpaa is proving much more imaginative at maintaining their status quo....
4 △
1 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Jenny M. Raulston > Gary McDermott • 11 days ago


uptil I lℴℴkėd at the rėcėipt 4 $9302, I didńt bėliėve that ṁŷ brℴthers friėńd cℴuld rėalŷ takińg hℴmė ṁℴńėŷ iń thėir sparė timė ℴn thėrė cℴmputar.. thėrė auńts nėighbℴur haz dℴńė this fℴr ℴńlŷ tŵėńtŷ tŵℴ ṁℴńths ańd bŷ ńℴw rėpaid thė lℴańs ℴn thėir ṁińi ṁańsiℴn ańd gℴt a tℴp ℴf thė rańgė Jaguar E-tŷpė. I ŵėńt hėrė, Lux14.com
1 △
12 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


TypicalWiredReader > Jenny M. Raulston • 10 days ago


I'LL GIVE YOU FIVE BUCKS FOR A HANDJOB
7 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > TypicalWiredReader • 5 days ago


Ha ha ha ha!
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Jenny M. Raulston • 5 days ago


Up until I looked at the picture, I couldn't believe this spam was written by a human being and not some kiddie-script bot in Romania :*p
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Gary McDermott • 5 days ago


Yes.......many artists have decried the "record label system" for decades - just look at the history of out and out theft of music from black artists from the very beginning of the industry. Things are changing - I believe there will be a place for major labels, but they'll have to be much more responsive to digital distribution. But in the long run, diversification will (hopefully) lead us out of the current pop star cloning machine with it's "loudness wars" and absurd lack of musicianship.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


MightyMolecule > Entitled • 11 days ago


"...The problem with copyright, is that it's excessive:..."

exactly.

for the last decade or so we have unequivocally witnessed the fundamental change of anonymity, neutrality, and privacy of the internet (globally) for the sake of protecting licensed wares. of course this goes without saying the better off consumers are to identity theft and cyber hacking, but those instances existed long, long, long before the riaa/mpaa demonstrated their influence at both the legislative and judicial levels, and those circumstances have been efficiently addressed for other national reasons. never was copyright meant to be that effective to subjugate the mere act of sharing into a definition war of the term with that of stealing.

in 1998 you came to the internet as a venue to sell your product. in 2013 you come to the internet to buy products.

take a minute to reflect on those last two sentences.
12 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Gary McDermott > MightyMolecule • 11 days ago


In 1990 I came to the internet to find interesting information and argue with people, in 2013 I come to the internet to find interesting information and argue with people

The fact that 'other' people are doing different things in the same space matters as much to me as whether 'other' people at the park are spanging or shopping
3 △
1 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


MightyMolecule > Gary McDermott • 11 days ago


fair enough.

but if metrics are being used then whether you were arguing over a seinfeld episode on an aol site that took 15 mins to load back in '93 or pranking baud strikes with a hayes in '83 like myself, it is undenible that the internet is not the same in terms of either of the three things mentioned.

the point is, commerce has changed the medium. this is unequivocal.

whereas your analogy is right on, while it doesn't matter to you (or even per se), those actions of 'others' affects you nonetheless. and that effectivity is only increasing. which leads to the second point i only alluded to with my earlier post: the medium has changed to reflect real life because of commerce....
2 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Gary McDermott > MightyMolecule • 11 days ago


Seinfeld... funny

To be honest back in the 80's I was 'talking' to eliza or guessing passwords on bbs's. And the 'internet' that I encountered in '90 was more telnet, usenet and gopher than anything we see today...

We can certainly thank the billions of dollars that commerce (mostly [*****], but some other fields are catching up) has induced companies to invest in infrastructure that can deliver up to 150MBs to my home.

I am getting ready to dump all of my pricey cable toys for a fat pipe and hulu/netflicks, which should deliver all the media my kids demand at a significant cost savings.

While I appreciate what improvement commerce brings (like paved highways in the west), I do not appreciate the speed traps and taxation districts that such 'advancement' bring with it
4 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Gary McDermott • 5 days ago


...and for some of us in overpriced rural areas, believe me, online shopping is a blessing. A mixed one, it's true - but like Gary above, I mostly access scientific information online and like the silly Mastercard ads....the value of that is "priceless"
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Jim Britt > MightyMolecule • 10 days ago


How about the "artists" get REAL JOBS!
2 △
2 ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Álex Montoya > Jim Britt • 8 days ago


What's a real job? Is serving tables a real job? What happens when musicians, filmmakers, designers, writers, managers, agents, producers don't have money to go to restaurants? In a globalized world there are no 'real jobs'. Everything is interdependent and hurting a sector, hurts the whole economy.
2 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Cody Benowitz > Jim Britt • 8 days ago


You would be surprised how many of us "artist" work multiple part time jobs just to pay rent, that doesn't include new gear.
2 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


bitrat > Cody Benowitz • 5 days ago


Yes....half the work force in San Francisco is aspiring musicians/dancers/artists, etc ;*p
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Jim Britt • 19 hours ago


And athletes! Millions of $$$ to throw a ball through a hoop? To hit a ball with a stick and run around a square?

People need entertainment. I get it. But it is way over priced and over rewarded.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Clark Battle > Gary McDermott • 10 days ago


No. You are wrong. ;^)
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Nick Hoffman > MightyMolecule • 9 days ago


If in 1998 you came to the internet as a venue to sell your product, doesn't that mean in turn that someone was also coming to BUY your products?
1 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Michael Lashinsky > Nick Hoffman • 19 hours ago


Now, Nick, don't confuse the issue with common sense!
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


MightyMolecule > Nick Hoffman • 8 days ago


indeed, but what is your point though?
in two sentences I eloquently dissected the entire funneling process of capitalistic consumerism that has been shaping the internet, it's principles, and it's protocols for the last decade plus.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Nick Hoffman > MightyMolecule • 6 days ago


Well, no you didn't. I was pointing out that your statement, "at one point it was a place you could go to sell, now it's a place to buy" doesn't make as much sense as you think. If at one point it was a place to sell automatically suggests that at the same time someone was showing up to buy and visa versa. Perhaps you meant something different.
1 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


MightyMolecule > Nick Hoffman • 3 days ago


sure, it requires some inference, perhaps eloquent wasn't the best word to use there.

it's a simplified statement (poetic license if you will - in all honesty I didn't anticipate those statements being taken as a literal empiric) that summates the processes and variables listed above with regards to the internet, but retains consideration for the initial implementation of the such and how they've changed in lieu of commerce. the fact that someone was purchasing in the past is benign. the point is that same person could have shared a purchase with less invasion, evasion, and terminology obfuscation. we've come a long way from "don't copy that floppy" and much to the benefit as well as detriment to the medium.
△
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Kris Norvet > Entitled • 11 days ago


For most of human history people didn't pay for food, either. Such a silly response.

If you're referencing more modern history, you're still wrong. The Patronage system funded most art until the mid-late 1700s.

Our copyright system most certainly needs a dramatic overhaul - I agree that it's excessive and anti-innovation as it stands - but to suggest that a living wage is somehow a privilege to creators makes you sound like the entitled one.
6 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Jim Britt > Kris Norvet • 10 days ago


A "living wage" is $100,000 a year; not $10 MILLION!
6 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


zaxtervid > Jim Britt • 10 days ago


Only a tiny handful of musicians make that kind of money. Check the article.
3 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Taylor Hawkins > zaxtervid • 10 days ago


It's not unreasonable for two people to get by on $20,000 a year without welfare. It forces responsibility and lifestyle changes, but it is very doable. The problem would appear to be that many people who live off of $20,000 a year have a lifestyle of someone who makes closer to $100,000 a year.
3 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›


Albert Vargas > Taylor Hawkins • 10 days ago


what an ignorant elitist statement. No one that I know of - EVER that makes or made 20k per year has come even close to living like they make 100k. This is the kind of ignorance that creeps into every discussion that even remotely deals with inequality. It has to stop if we ever expect to changing things
5 △
▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›