Speaker: ACTA: Don't sell us down the river
526 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
The simple fact of the matter is that she is entitled to her royalties, which she is denied by people stealing her music.
Sure, or whichever multinational she's actually earning money for..in her case EMI. It's her choice to buy into whatever system she wishes to. But I was merely pointing out that there was a transparent sheen of hypocrisy in her writings. She also is very much a part of the system which, thankfully, the digital world (including the P2P networks whose impact is, despite the rants of RIAA and IFPI, at times very artist-positive) has allowed the artists to increasingly bypass. She's a part of a world that is disappearing, and disappearing to the benefit of recording artists and songwriters.
Reading through her blog post at the time, I felt more sorry for her than anything. She seems to be trapped into an old fashioned contractual structure that many of her contemporaries have managed to sidestep, as the power fulcrum in the recording industry has shifted. There seems some bitterness in that and she's lashed out rather wildly as this becomes increasingly obvious. Piracy seems to be an easy target when the cheques are not as large as you want them, or need them to be.
-
Simon, I am not asking for any pass; I merely observed that much of the criticism of Allen had sexist overtones. The simple fact of the matter is that she is entitled to her royalties, which she is denied by people stealing her music.
I bought her albums -- It's Not Me, It's You is one of my favourite albums of the year -- and I also downloaded half a dozen remixes via Hype Machine, which I don't think I could have otherwise obtained. I'm looking forward to seeing her play the BDO again.
It would be surprising if there wasn't some sexist stupidity in the chorus of responses to her public statements -- sadly, women in public life get that -- but I don't think is characterised the response.
And as Simon notes, she did turn out to be a raging hypocrite. To make impassioned public statements about stealing from artists when you're still hosting on your official website your own "mixtapes" of illicitly copied work by other artists, you're really taking the piss, innit?
But people often don't tend to think of what they do as theft.
-
But people often don't tend to think of what they do as theft.
last year a musician told me that he was approached in the street and given $10 by someone who said he'd downloaded an album and loved it. That truly touched me.
-
Which recording artists and songwriters are benefiting? This question is not rhetorical; I ask it in all innocence. I know that Radiohead's pay-what-you-want offer did them a lot of good, but the band was already established, by the old system. Has anyone become successful without the help of a label and largely through a web presence?
-
Has anyone become successful without the help of a label and largely through a web presence?
Well, yes. I'm too lazy to find the link but go to Pitchfork and look through their best albums of the 2000s list and large numbers are label free. In NZ, few local acts are signed to majors these days. Some use them for physical distribution but many do not. Many are signed to essentially themselves or their managers' labels and handle digital via a friendly aggregator such as DRMNZ.
Fat Freddies are label free, and established an international presence through a combination of live and digital media.
There are a multitude of very powerful web sites that have the power to break acts..Pitchfork is one, Fact Magazine in the UK is another. Pitchfork, for better or worse, have huge power that exists outside the label system (although they have one foot in each camp). The electronic music industry largely exists outside the confines of the label system and does so with influential internet networks.
And many acts play the blogs and P2p networks rather deftly to build up their artistic currency. As Russell said, Ms. Allen's mixes are found on grey sites and much downloaded, all of which add to the brand that is Lilly Allen.
-
I actually think that having a price on music is a good thing.
Am I the only one to read that sentence and think that the meaning is that the only way to pay for music is thru buying CDs?
I hate to spell it out... but there's lots of ways to pay for music. The traditional way (& by traditional I mean for hundreds of years) was paying to see live performances.
I keep being amazed at how people equate "piracy" as stealing from the artist. Downloading a song does take from the artist, but only a very small amount. Something like 50c/CD. Which would be what? About 8 or 9c a track? The ones losing out are the recording company, and the other middlemen.
Even via iTunes the artist gets bugger all per track, and there's practically no cost to transfer a song to the customer.
I'm not saying that recording companies aren't needed. They are, to some extent. But, on the other hand, they cherrypick an artist, invest millions into them, charge the artist for the privilege, then shove it down the consumers throat. The number of "hit artists" is a small fraction of the number of artists who sign up.
I think the biggest thieves are the recording companies, not the people downloading. They need to start paying their artists what they're worth, not what they can get away with paying while making millions off them.
-
If somebody downloads - say- a short story of mine- I get PRECISELY NOTHING.
I have no idea what any publisher gets (and yes, I have many publishers) but I personally get nothing.
Because its out there. On the net. Copied by denizens on sites like like Scribd.
So - I hate what is going on. Because my only income is from my writing and if my writing is being ripped off (as it is) and I am getting nothing, what incentive do i have to continue writing?None. Nada. Nothin' at all.
So, why continue writing?
I cant think of a good reason actually. -
None of Simon's examples convinces me of the virtues of downloading. Independent labels, label-free artists, review sites all use Internet, but they are very different from unauthorised downloads. They either allow the artists to market themselves or provide marketing. Unauthorised download facilities provide nothing to the artist directly, and the indirect benefits are disputable.
-
Because my only income is from my writing and if my writing is being ripped off (as it is) and I am getting nothing, what incentive do i have to continue writing?
Exposure? Popularity? Future sales either directly or indirectly? And to use an example that is often used in regards to piracy... if the person couldn't download it for free, would they download/buy it at all? If the answer is no, then downloading for free is actually better than no download, if you see my point.
Unauthorised download facilities provide nothing to the artist directly, and the indirect benefits are disputable.
The $10 example above indicates that there are some instances where it is directly beneficial. But I admit that the example would be rare. But, that's also the wonder of the internet. The cost of exposure now is vastly less than it used to be, and the benefits are a lot more direct.
I would guess that many artists would be happy to sell a bunch of CDs for $10 each if their profit is in the order of a $1 or 2 per unit. In addition to being a lot cheaper than mainstream CDs, they get more direct benefits.
Hell, from what I've read, many artists would possibly be happy to take the risk of spending some time on the net to raise awareness of their music without having to sign their lives away to a recording company.
-
last year a musician told me that he was approached in the street and given $10 by someone who said he'd downloaded an album and loved it. That truly touched me.
I've done the same. I ripped a CD and gave $20 to a band member after I found out that he was being royally screwed over in royalties by other band members. I'm not defending current structures, they need to change.
I really am convinced however that a large number of people think that the value of any piece of intellectual property is $0 or near $0. And that their devaluing of intellectual property is taking revenue away from those creative industries. Once you're used to getting things for free it becomes much harder to pay for things.
Yes, the music aficionados tend to download more, and buy more. But the person who bought ten albums a year is the person I'm more interested in.
Track downloads may sell more in time, but if they do it will be because the value of recorded music is still regarded by the population as significantly more than zero.
I have seen graphs showing a significant decline in sales revenues (both physical and online) since 2000. No doubt they are produced by the industry (who else could make them?), and are skewed for their purposes, but in the absence of other evidence I can't conclude otherwise.
Live music revenues are up, but anecdotally these accrue largely to major acts. For the rest things are no better or no worse than they have ever been, or so I've been led to believe by such artists.
-
Cameron Junge:
"Exposure? Popularity? Future sales..." etc.Yeah. Right.
Short stories et al are not like music. There is a limited market and it is *actually lessened by internet ripoffs.* The people who do this are almost always students working towards exam material. They do not care about content or literary value -they care about getting their answers right. They have never - in my experience - come back and read other ANZ short stories(which means a lot of other ANZ short stories lose out too.) And all this means is - ANZ publishers of short stories have jusr about quit the genre.
Which is sad.
It's one that ANZ writers happen to be good at - and quite a lot of ANZ readers happen to like reading. Only, not quite enough-
-
I have seen graphs showing a significant decline in sales revenues (both physical and online) since 2000.
Yes, so have I but these are determined mostly by the change in buying habits (multiple links to support this in the dreaded copyright thread..I ain't going there to drag them out). If somebody in the past spent $20 to buy an album but now spends $3 to buy two tracks by the same artist, which is more and more the case, then that is going to show the decline you mention. It really shows little more no matter how it's spun.
None of Simon's examples convinces me of the virtues of downloading.
Okay, try Arcade Fire...fuelled by the net and the P2p networks and now huge.
-
Many are signed to essentially themselves or their managers' labels and handle digital via a friendly aggregator such as DRMNZ.
Shapeshifter: #1 album in the country this week, off three days' sales.
The operate their own label and have in the past used a mash-up of Amplifier and MySpace to (very successfully) sell tour tickets. They recorded the album themselves and eventually had it mastered by Evan Short, one half of Conchord Dawn -- it sounds great.
They've toured Europe four times and last time sold out dates in Paris, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Scotland and England. They've produced shows incorporating real orchestras. They've headlined the Boiler Room at the Big Day Out.
And this summer, they will sell a lot of recorded music, even thought their audience is in the download demographic.
As Simon says, there are many other stories. The acts that got wealthy in the traditional system were a tiny minority. Perhaps acts like Shapeshifter aren't going to get really wealthy -- why should "really wealthy" be a measure anyway? -- but what they do looks creatively and financially sound. And, I think, better than the way it used to be done.
If you talk to the people at Amplfier, they'll tell you that things are moving. They have acts who are starting to make proper money from digital sales.
-
I think in many ways this benefits New Zealand bands - how many NZ bands have every gotten into that 'really wealthy' category? on the other hand if the total music $$ are being spread around a bit more evenly many more of them will come our way
-
Okay, I realise it's poor form to pop in such a lengthy post, but I'm on a different time zone, so I can't, unfortunately be more conversational. But anyway...
Matthew,
Moral rights cannot be assigned, so this is something of a non-point. They vest in the creator, end of story.
Yes but - as you ought to know - they can be contractually waved.
But perhaps I'm being nitpicky so to get back on the point:
I honestly do not believe that there is any way to limit non-paying consumption of digital materials without unduly impinging on the use of the internet by the general public. I say this as someone who has very strong feelings about civil liberties, and also has over a decade of experience doing various things with IP-based networks that provide content to and connections for the internet.
I understand your concern. But you must also realise that there ought to be some kind of balance between limiting illegal internet downloading of IP material and harm to the general public. You say that film will be fine because music is doing fine, I list a lot of reasons and examples why it may well not be, and why it is different from music, and then get a reply back which essentially just lists a bunch of reasons music is doing just fine, and why can't film just do that? Okay, you say you're not comparing music and film:
Peter, once again, I don't know what to do about movies. How many times must I repeat the same message before it gets through to you? I have said that I know the costs of production are vastly different to music. You haven't made a single point that I have not accepted as fact when it comes to music not being equivalent to movies. Not one.
and yet you then do, constantly:
Musicians are starting to return to live performing as the way they make money, with CDs as a side issue. Why can the movie industry not do the same thing?
What has worked for the music industry in trying to reverse the tide of downloading has been the rise of services that are convenient, offer value-for-money, and have a good selection. Why can this not work for the movie industry?
I've already explained why at least 3 times now, (receiving the most patronizing replies), and then find the exact same comparisons happening again. Frustrating for me, no? Islander seems to be having the exact same issues regarding literature, and I can imagine s/he must be feeling the same way.
If you want a list of all the reasons why film (and books) have very different realities different in terms production/distribution/consumption, then go back to page 6 and have a look.
I've also painstakingly pointed out multiple specific real world examples of why independents are having terrible trouble getting a foothold distributing their own material on the internet, and yet somehow it doesn't register, and we're back to the same old tired comparisons regarding music again and again.
Yes, the film industry could have better internet distribution, and that's changing, but the fact of the matter is that there are good reasons why it can be suggested that illegal downloading is going to do more damage to the film industry than the music industry. It is also clear evidence that independent filmmakers are having their attempts to distrubute their work are having the efforts shut down by piracy. There's no way to prove it undoubtably because we don't have a second earth, without piracy, that we can use as a control, but like with global warming I don't need undoubtable proof to be worried about a potential problem and expect some moves to be made to correct it before a lot of good artists may well get screwed over and their livelihoods ruined, and some wonderful artworks not ever being made.
So for f**ks sake let's get out of this childish meme that this is about:
"opening it up right from the top to expose far more artists to the opportunity to make reasonable incomes from their work. This will, however, come at the expense of those who currently live lifestyles based around snorting cocaine from the armrests of the seats in their private jets."It's pathetic. Artists are getting screwed and will continue to get screwed.
Look, if you want to take a stance of 'well, stuff the film industry, their survival is not important as the absolute freedom of the internet' then that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but don't go giving us all this patronising crap that if how we could only turn the situation to our advantage if we did what the music industry is doing, and that somehow not limiting pirates is actually helping poor artists who are somehow 'stuck in the system', in the 'serfdom' of copyright. That's just patronising bollocks. We are quite capable of understanding our own system, making our own arguments, and lobbying our own points, thank you very much.
Or as George Darroch put it earlier:
I wish people would stop treating pro-copyright/anti-filestealing advocates as idiots. We understand your arguments, we just don't agree with them.
To end on a relatively concillatory note though: I think you hit the nail on the head with our diverging views, in that I believe limiting piracy is worthwhile avoid the film industry getting into serious trouble, whereas you do not. It's just that I find all your justifications of why 'pirating to be not so bad for the film industry, and really it's the film industry's own fault for not distributing online faster' at best misinformed and at worst disingenuous.
-
I'm amused by Cory's Pirate Finder General (well I'm amused by the term not the actual proposal which seems to me to be a logical extension of ACTA)
-
@Paul:
I am reading the Norton Critical Edition of Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier. It comes in paperback, with the text, illustrations of the locations in the novel, contemporary reviews and critical essays. I am also using a Project Gutenberg transcription to search for key words, for my academic work. The book is much superior to the electronic text, but the electronic text is much easier to use for searching. So I search online and read at leisure.
Count yourself lucky you live here, and not in the US, then. Gutenberg digitised Ford's 1915 book in 2001 -- from then until June this year it was a breach of copyright to read that entry (ie: copy it to your computer) in the United States of America. (The copyright notice has yet to be updated on the Gutenberg site.)
That's thanks to the Sono Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of copyright to the author's life plus 70 years. There are people who would like to see that further extended.
People have been raining blows on Matthew, but it might be useful to pause and consider that the copyright lobby has frequently advanced positions that are hostile to the public interest.
In its submission on the Copyright Amendment Act, RIANZ called for libraries and archives to be prevented from digitising works for archiving purposes. Another bid would have shut off the ability of students and researchers to view copyrighted works on-site at such places at as the Film Archive.
Ultimately, such actions would certainly have strengthened the hand of copyright owners (and perhaps even creators) but they would equally certainly have harmed the public good. And public good is at the core of what copyright is.
-
... I believe limiting piracy is worthwhile avoid the film industry getting into serious trouble...
I think the non-hardcore "pirates" would take what the MPAA, RIAA, IPA & BSA say more seriously if the numbers weren't so obviously skewed.
By that I mean that the numbers spouted out by those organisations are so obviously high, with some airy-fairy methodology that they refuse to reveal, that it makes it hard to believe them.
A couple of examples:
* The BSA often spout on about how high piracy is, based on some theory that every computer sold has an "average" amount of software on it, and if sales don't match that number then it's piracy! But, with the rise of Linux and free software, this is no longer accurate (OOo anyone?). Also, if I download Photoshop it doesn't mean that I'd actually buy it if I couldn't download it (I wouldn't, it's vastly overpriced!).
* A few years ago the MPAA decried the death of movies after a particularly bad year. Piracy was destroying their industry, rah, rah, rah. Then it was pointed out that consumers didn't like the majority of the movies released that year. Much easier to blame piracy rather than crap movies.
* According to the RIAA, every song in a person's shared folder on Kazaa, etc has been downloaded 1000s of times! Yeah right! They can't even sue the right people! -
"Exposure? Popularity? Future sales..." etc.Yeah. Right.
That's just because you refuse to do the live performances - that's where the money is. Your fault really.
-
That's just because you refuse to do the live performances - that's where the money is. Your fault really.
Gio, can we dispense with this sort of arch commentary? I think Matthew and others are trying to argue in good faith. Simon Grigg in particular knows what he's talking about -- he writes recording contracts and manages digital music catalogues. It would be good if someone who disagrees with him could actually discuss the real-world observations he's been making.
Paul Litterick, you asked for examples of musical artists who have prospered in the modern world, without the assistance of major labels, we gave some examples. What do you make of those examples?
Simon and I have also both made the point that, with respect to music, focusing a copyright discussion on retail sales is really missing the point. APRA had its best year ever last year, topping even the year before that. Independent artists like SJD have access to very substantial income from licensing and synchronisation.
With books? I've looked at the statistics and while they vary pretty widely, at worst you can't say so far that the internet has hurt new book sales -- which is remarkable given that it has fostered a new boom in used book sales. And it's very hard to make the case that internet piracy has had a significant impact on sales.
As digital book formats proliferate, it's inevitable that there will be more illicit copies. But there will also be new opportunities -- including the opportunity to sell the same titles all over again to readers who want a print and a digital version.
But will books ever be pirated like this week's MP3? I tend to doubt it. They're different goods, used differently and with a differently value to the consumer.
And I'm not sure why it should be assumed that the current structure of the publishing industry is beyond improvement. I'm in awe of what David Haywood has done with Public Address Books. When you compare David Graham or Emma's return per sale to what an author gets in a traditional publishing deal, there is no comparison. We need to stop being snobby about vanity presses. It's just someone taking more control of their own work.
So anyway, yeah: enough with the moral thunderbolts. Let's talk about how things might actually work.
-
Gio, can we dispense with this sort of arch commentary?
Actually, and respectfully, no. Because we always end up in exactly the same place, and it's bloody frustrating. "Things are going so bad for musicians", hence the same will apply to other media, hence in fact if anything we should limit copyright terms. I fully understand the frustration of both Islander and Peter Cox. And by the way
But will books ever be pirated like this week's MP3? I tend to doubt it. They're different goods, used differently and with a differently value to the consumer.
Doubt as much as you want, but Scribd is already here. Both Peter and Keri have brought examples of things that are actually happening.
-
...anyone can make and record music in their garage these days - they don't need a recording studio, pressing plants, warehouses, trucks, or stores any more.
[snip]
... real movies genuinely cost millions of dollars to make and for that reason they need to be able to make that money back or we just wont have any movies.I think you're getting mixed up with how things were, or are, versus how things are or could be!
Music used to cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions to make a hit album/artist. Now it can be done with a Mac, Garageband and an internet connection.
Movies do cost millions to make. But do they have to?
Recently a mainstream movie called Gabriel was released. Cost: $150,000. Even taking in to account the deferred payments, the total probably was less than one mainstream actor's salary.
Also closer to home is Peter Jackson's first few movies. Bad Taste: $25,000
The costs don't have to be that high, and with improvements in digital recording more "home movies" may start being released. With free software like Massive and relatively cheap stuff like Maya even semi-decent special effects can be done at home.
-
One point to note about movies is that segments of the movie industry seem to be actively working to increase the appeal of "live" performances - that is, actually going to see the movie in the theatre. Particularly, the sudden increase in the number of 3D movies, which provide an experience that you can't get at home (at this point in time). Whether or not you think that 3D is a gimmick, the fact that the industry is moving towards it (particularly for the blockbusters that are most likely to be pirated) is an indication that some movers & shakers in the movie industry are tacitly accepting that improving the "live" experience is a good way to make money.
-
Whether or not you think that 3D is a gimmick, the fact that the industry is moving towards it (particularly for the blockbusters that are most likely to be pirated) is an indication that some people in the industry are trying to make money by improving the "live" performance for consumers.
Same thing happened with when that other great (quasi-)piracy device burst onto the scene: television. That's when cinema started going widescreen and hypercoloured.
-
I've already explained why at least 3 times now, (receiving the most patronizing replies), and then find the exact same comparisons happening again. Frustrating for me, no? Islander seems to be having the exact same issues regarding literature, and I can imagine s/he must be feeling the same way.
Peter, you keep on saying the same thing back: "Higher costs of production". That is the only reason I can see you having advanced for why movies cannot be treated the same way as music, and I happen to think that it's a crap reason. I'm not expecting movies to be sold for a buck on ITMS, which I have to concede would be a very reasonable objection on your part if I were suggesting it.
You talk of indies trying to release their product online, and failing "because of piracy". I see one example, and as trite as it sounds a single data point is not a trend. You even shot yourself in the foot by pointing to two others that had worked out, which gives a 1/3 "failure" rate. Shall we just agree that maybe there's really not enough data to conclude anything concrete?
And I'll apologise for having missed that post. Just went back and re-read all your contributions, and found the one where you mentioned Pathe (not a name with which I'm familiar). They blame "pirates", yes, but so do RIAA and the MPAA and I don't consider either of the latter two to be in the least bit credible. Why should I consider it to be any more credible just because it's coming from an indie rather than a major?Looking at your example of Tormented, it may be that the lack of a proper marketplace didn't help. That is, a site that's got lots of movies for purchase. That was one of the things that helped iTunes take off, the presence of a significant catalogue. People are used to torrenting movies, for the better or the worse, and changing that situation won't happen overnight. To supplant the likes of TPB, it needs to be more convenient to buy the "real" product than to go to a torrent tracker. That's what it took with music, for the paid services to be more convenient than the illicit ones. That has happened, and appears to be being sustained, as Simon has said. Collaboration, rather than competition, in setting up a central marketplace could be what is required. People just want it to be easy, and no disrespect to Slingshot but it's a bloody nuisance to have to hunt through multiple sites to find the movie you want. Trackers make it easy.
Maybe the movie industry needs to, as has been suggested already, go back to treating the box office as the holy grail. No matter how good and big TVs get, only a small number of very rich people can afford to get close to the cinema experience. Even the availability of projectors hasn't done much to decrease theatre consumption of movies. Treat online distribution as jam, not as bread. I know this is a ridiculous idea, but it's the best I've got.
I'll also point out that, in any other industry, if you released a product that garnered hundreds-of-millions of dollars in revenue but didn't make a net profit you would be looking for a new job. In another industry.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.