File sharing illegal - SC rules unanimously

[RuntheDamnBall]

The recording acts get screwed by the labels?  How?  Because in signing the record deal, the label gets to have copyright over that group's creations during the contract's term?  Welcome to the business world.  There's absolutely nothing that prevents the band from not signing the deal and making a go of it on their own.

372729[/snapback]

Let me rephrase. The music industry without question takes advantage of young people with talent with promises of a lot of money and a lot of support. This does not make these musicians smart, good businesspeople, and it certainly doesn't make them people who see the longview or good students of music business history.

 

What the majors provide is a vast, expensive network of resources, but they don't nurture acts like they used to. Hence the oft-quoted idea that you would not see an artist who builds a long, steady career like all the 70s Asylum artists and Neil Young, et. al. There wasn't pressure to sell two million (which for some artists is STILL a failure these days) but there was profit, because nobody was blowing their load. Now everything is SO image-based and profit-driven, I argue, that the majors don't know what to do because they've replaced all the music business people with business people. These assclowns are running around on expense accounts paid for by the musicians, ultimately, talking about a lot of things they don't know anything about. Major label A&R these days is a complete joke.

 

I'm glad that you brought up the Wilco example.  Note that people didn't necessarily use P2P to discover Wilco.  They used P2P because the band didn't get the attention from the label it thought it deserved.  Because Wilco already had a well established audience, releasing an album on P2P was a smart move.  Same thing when Prince released Musicology only on his tour. 

372729[/snapback]

They had an audience of probably around 100,000-200,000, and probably quadrupled it with Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. That's pretty major. It is a unique situation, I'll grant you, but now they can play 5,000 seat places instead of 1-2,000. That is a huge change.

Well, how is P2P hurting young bands you ask?  By taking away the easy money the labels make off the big fish.  The trickle down effect works.  I'll agree that the labels got stupid, and their business model got out of whack.  They had too many artists on their rosters and paid stupid avdances.  P2P forced them to fix the business, and smaller bands have to go back to the club circuit to build an audience.

372729[/snapback]

That's probably how it should be.  How many bands have you seen or heard that are all studio wonder, but can't play live for sh--?  I think it's a pretty important thing happening to music.  There will always be pop spectacle, and it's become its own theatre beyond music.  But I think the re-focus on live performance can be good for everyone.  Though touring can be pretty harsh on an artist.

The major mistake that the music industry did, was delay the introduction of a legit digital distribution service.   But if you ever worked in a large organization, you know that when faced with a potential threat to your business model, your primary move is a defensive one.

 

The industry is catching up fast.  I get a kick out of the complaints that Yahoo's unlimited music service is too expensive at $60/year, when I was paying $8/album in 1977.  Compare a $0.80/song download to a $1 per 45rpm single in the '70s.

372729[/snapback]

You're probably right on this one.

As to your point that we acquiesce to the government's directive of how we're consuming music, please do well to read the actual court case.  The cases revolve around people designing systems aimed at circumventing existing copyright laws.  Please note that SCOTUS went to great lengths to ensure that the fair use provisions that were central in the Betamax case were strongly confirmed.

372729[/snapback]

I plan to. I do think the copyright laws need some revision, but that's another discussion.

To Coli's suggestion that podcasting is the great new thing, you're missing the obvious analogy.  What's the real difference between music pushed at you by an A&R toady at Warner Music, or the guy behind the scenes at BMI and the bohemian podcaster who's sitting by his microphone after his real job every night?    If you tell me it's passion, I'm calling bulls!t.

372729[/snapback]

You can turn either one of them off. But I think more podcasters mean more choices. And are the podcasters getting paid off like radio stations? I imagine some are, but at this point I would say it is more like the infant stages of localized radio used to be, without depending on geographical and governmental limitations. Creative and passionate people getting a chance to send their views to the world. Sound idealistic? Sure. I know it's just a matter of time before the FCC mommies and corporate daddies get involved. But right now it's a rift, and I think a pleasant one.

[finknottle]

 

As to your point that we acquiesce to the government's directive of how we're consuming music, please do well to read the actual court case.  The cases revolve around people designing systems aimed at circumventing existing copyright laws.  Please note that SCOTUS went to great lengths to ensure that the fair use provisions that were central in the Betamax case were strongly confirmed.

 

372729[/snapback]

 

This is the key point that consistently gets under-reported.

 

On a side note - and I admit I have not read the ruling - I would be surprised if a clear interpertation of fair use was strongly confirmed. It too is a key issue in the debate that gets consistently misrepresented. It's a phrase that has never been adequately defined, and IMO intentionally so, so that it can serve like a sword of Damocles. We say we can photocopy chunks of books for our own use under the fair use exemption, but the courts have been carefull not to lock in interpetations of what exactly constitutes fair use. This ambiguity has the cautionary effect of preventing people from working the letter of the law (v the intent), since in the absence of a clear definition they can never be entirely sure how the courts might rule if they push the boundary. IMO this is also a good thing precisely because technology and applications change over time and the ambiguity forces the courts to periodically revisit copyright law in the new contexts.