Richard Stallman on piracy, DRM, music, and sharing...

[aysiu]

Came across this letter to The Boston Globe today (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/03/13/let_free_music_files_ring/):
Let free music files ring

March 13, 2007

THE RECORD companies, seeking to bully people who share music, have demanded that colleges identify students who share ("Record firms crack down on campuses," Business, March 8). They use smear terms such as "piracy" and "theft" that imply sharing is wrong. Don't believe it. Sharing is friendship; to attack sharing is to attack the basis of society.

Today's legal music downloads are not an acceptable option, since they carry Digital Restrictions Management (called Digital Rights Management by its proponents) to restrict what people do with the files they have "bought." Therefore, as founder of the free software movement, I support the boycott of these products.

The real solution is to legalize sharing. This won't affect the record companies much, but if they did go out of business, we could rejoice that they can no longer threaten anyone.

They pay zero cents of your CD purchase price to musicians (except for superstars), so the absence of these companies would be no loss to society.

For the short term, colleges should make sure they do not collect information that could be used to identify students who share.

RICHARD STALLMAN
Cambridge Thought some of you music sharers out there might appreciate some affirmation from the Free software spokesperson. I'm assuming that Richard Stallman is the Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman) and not some other Richard Stallman who happens to just live in Cambridge.

He sounds like a lot of people on these here forums...

Let the floodgates of "It's piracy" and "No, it's not" be opened.

Of course, if it gets ugly, I'll move this thread to the Backyard or close it. Just interesting to see a heavyweight weigh in on the issue in a public forum. Not that I really thought Stallman would call any kind of file sharing piracy...

[Praxicoide]

Well, the letter seemed a bit rushed, but I agree with what he says. Sharing restrictions are not defendible on any deep analysis, beyond an abstract, liberal viewpoint.

[aysiu]

Sharing restrictions are not defendible on any deep analysis, beyond an abstract, liberal viewpoint. Defending DRM is now considered liberal?

[Polygon]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...

[Praxicoide]

Defending DRM is now considered liberal?

Ha, ha! I know what you mean. I wasn't referring in to individuals and political inclination, but to the liberal/neoliberal project of free enterprise, philosophically based on viewing people as isolated monads with cause/effect actions.

Usually when iberals, individuals now, act in favour of social actions, they do so not following the liberal doctrine, where alll that is solid melts into ai, but to different ethical or less abstract considerations.

Anyways, forgive the confusion.

[Praxicoide]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

Well, that's why I said it was rushed. It's not as clear-cut, but usually, companies LEND money to the artists so they can record. They then have to repay the money from THEIR insignificant end of the record sales. Therefore, most usually never make any serious money from CD sales, except for Superstars.


if so... how the heck to the artists make money?


The way most popular artists have done for quite a long time: performing. Most bands meet their ends by going on tours and such. More and more nowadays are making some extra money too by selling merch or special vynils, thanks in large part to the internet. They might sell some CDs on the road and get money, the same way a retailer would by selling a product.

I would argue that performing is the only way they should get paid. That's the creative act. The rest is an unfair seizing of our collective knowledge.


but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...

If you see this situation as ideal, then it gives you more motivation to making it happen.

[aysiu]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...
Stallman's exaggerating a little bit.

The artists usually get some royalties (depends on the contract's terms, of course), but generally very little.

I believe they get a lot of their money from touring.

In the past, record companies were needed to publicize bands and give artists the ability to make quality recordings and wide distribution of albums. These days, with the advent of the internet and broadband connections, any artist can be distributed and publicized without "the machine." Having money for ads does give you a bit of an edge on the publicity front, though, and some does the ability to push singles on radio stations' playlists...

[fuscia]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

mosts artists are given a contract to make a cd in which they get payed a fixed sum to produce that cd. once it is produced, it becomes the property of the the distributor who then makes whatever profits that cd generates. in the case of established stars, they will often negotiate for a percentage of the net, or even the gross. that's my understanding of it, at least (could be way off).

[Polygon]

i was going to say... no money for selling cds? what kind of band would sign that contract =P

but sadly , the cd is still one of the only "truly DRM free" method of getting music... unless that cd has a sony rootkit in it... lol But anyway, with so many filing sharing sites and programs like bittorent only getting more and more popular every day, i have a feeling that some day the way many things are shared like music, movies and other things will change eventually. DRM will lose in the long run... i mean take blue ray and hd-dvd for example.. these two things were designed with drm in mind and they have already been cracked.

[kevinlyfellow]

The music industry could do a lot to reduce illegal music downloads without lawsuits or hurting anyone. For instance, they could provide a site where you can listen to different artists without buying the cd (like magnatune.com which provides potential customers with a way to listen to all of the music). Or, they could start promoting internet radio instead of hindering it (http://www.save-internet-radio.com/). I don't listen to the radio these days for a few reasons: excessive advertising, lack of variety, and the fact that only popular music is played. So if internet radio dies, I'm not allowed to listen to downloaded music, and I don't like listening to the radio, how do I find music??? Best option is to illegally download it, and buy from artists you like.

The music industry is a tool for artists to promote their music at the largest scale, and they are failing at it! They don't need to legalize free music downloading, but they do need to open up more avenues for listeners to discover music. Yes, illegal downloading will occur, but there is nothing to stop it. Furthermore, people who do prefer to download instead of buying a cd should still have a legal, non-drm way of doing so. There is no way to stop people from copying music if there is an audio output and an audio input in a computer. Once it has been copied, it can be reproduced fast, so it does not matter if a million people can easily copy a song and put it on a p2p site or if 100 people can.

Thats my rant...

[Spr0k3t]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

Recording companies will give no monetary amount to any artists under the gold or platinum levels. Gold levels is a single album sold 100,000 times. Platinum is a single album sold over 1MIL times. These levels are considered bonus levels similar to commissions. Now, part of the contracts most artists sign is the relinquishing of rights to all songs produced and distributed by the recording company. Yes, you read that correctly, the music industry owns the rights to the songs created these days, not the artists who composed or wrote the music. Also in with most contracts is the requirement to be on the road doing tours to promote merchandise and music to the masses of the fanbase. Pay attention to this part... this is where most artists earn their money. The majority of the ticket profits go to the ticket distributing company such as TicketMaster, the remaining is divided among the recording industry and about 2% goes to all the artists who performed. Managers of the groups (puppets really), can set up merchandising with third parties for profits, but the managers generally take a rip of the cap dishing only a handful back to the artists.

Some of the artists I know in the field who do make staggering profits through their music achieve the bounties thanks to the invention of the internet. Granted they do about three fulltime jobs with managing, producing, performing, and part time jobs on the side... but the ones who refused the hand of the man with the fat cigar have made their living producing their own. It hasn't been until recently artists have started catching on to why Sid never signed those papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Vicious (thanks for showing us the truth Sid)

[cowlip]

and some does the ability to push singles on radio stations' playlists...

oh, so THAT'S why the RIAA wants to kill internet radio (http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKN1225136320070312)?

RMS's stance on this isn't a surprise to me though, I can't say whether I agree or disagree. Thanks for posting this aysiu

[jclmusic]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...

i am studying this at uni at the moment lol :)
the average artist recieves about 12% of the royalties from cd sales. then a further 10% is taken off that for packaging costs.

[slayerboy]

I used to be big on buying CD's...at one time I had 500+. I listened to maybe 10 - 25 all the time, the rest was just collection. Long story short, I got scammed by an ebay consignment shop and got $200 out of them for the CD's, even though the average price for the 400 or so that I sold was closer to $5-10 a piece winning bid.

I gave up buying cd's unless I really like the WHOLE CD and I know the artist will continually produce results. Motorhead, Lamb of God, Slayer, Black Label Society, Ozzy, etc. I don't buy cd's to support the artist. I buy their merchandise and go to their concerts when they come to town to support them. Everyone says I'm stuck in the 80's cuz about all I own are band t-shirts, but you know what, I support them. The $18-25 I pay for a T-shirt isn't that much different from the price I pay for a cd and the band gets more out of it.

The whole issue is so big now because nobody tours anymore. So the little they make from CD sales impacts them. Bands like Metallica, Motorhead, Slayer, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Willie Nelson, and BB King tour their arses off, or they used to anyways. Motorhead still puts out CD's, and each one is pretty darn good compared to a lot of the crap that's out there today.

I think we're getting to a point where bands go back to touring and sell their MP3's on their website instead of in the store. No record deals, no forced contracts or CD's. To tour constantly and make it big, you have to be good. Some bands sound better live than recorded and vice versa, but you're going to see more tours IMHO.

[nocturn]

Defending DRM is now considered liberal?

It depends on your country. The Flemish Liberal party is something more like the republicans in the US or the tories in the UK.

DRM is a liberal viewpoint in my political landscape.

[nocturn]

Stallman's exaggerating a little bit.

The artists usually get some royalties (depends on the contract's terms, of course), but generally very little.

I believe they get a lot of their money from touring.


I don't think so. As far as I understand and at least the artists in my country get no benefits from CD sales except for the publicity.
They do earn good money from public appearances and shows, but not from CD's.

[BuffaloX]

i was going to say... no money for selling cds? what kind of band would sign that contract =P


Bands that are unknown, and hope to "make it".

Most contracts doesn't give anything, unless a target sale is reached.
The record companies cover their costs first, then they need a nice profit.
And ONLY then can the artist get about 5% of the rest.
You have to sell a LOT of CDs to actually get anything at all.

[beefcurry]

sharing is caring, geez, hasnt your mother ever taught you guys anything?

[Tomosaur]

Artists get very, very little from record sales. I think the current average is 2% of the sale goes to the artists. You have to be ridiculously huge to make the millions you see big names throwing around.

Artists get much more money from live performances. The label will pay for the equipment and other things for the performance and recording of music, but the artists have to pay it back (with interest, probably). You should all read Steve Albinis article on this:
Clicky (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html). For those not aware of who Albini is - he's a very, very successful and popular producer of alternative bands. He worked with a lot of the 90s alternative bands, and is very well known. He produced Nirvana's In Utero, in fact. He knows his stuff, that article explains the economic viability of being a musician (it's not very high, by the way. Chances are, you'll be in very heavy debt, very quickly).

[3rdalbum]

i was going to say... no money for selling cds? what kind of band would sign that contract =P

Lots have! Many pop acts earlier this century have made casual mention of "Nobody gets paid for their first CD, the record company merely breaks even" and "Singles don't make any money".

They get paid for their time, and that's it. Of course, many of those acts never actually made a second album - the record company doesn't want them to, as then they have to get paid royalties.

Even a lot of established bands with 5 albums under their belts don't really make much on royalties.

[forrestcupp]

To look at it from the record label's point of view, when they sign an artist, they are gambling. They invest a lot of money into getting an artist started because they believe that artist will make it (and they will make a lot of money). But sometimes they lose, and the artist doesn't go anywhere. For someone to think the artist shouldn't have to pay back the original investment is like you thinking you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage payment. But if an artist doesn't go anywhere, it is the record label that is out the cash.

What Mr. Stallman needs to remember is that it's just like the software realm. Software is only "Free" if the creator/distributor makes it free. It's not the end-user's right to decide that something should be "free" when that wasn't the intention of the creator. Maybe everything should be free, and we can go back to a bartering system, but that's just not how it is right now.

[tigerpants]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...

Most don't. Beyonce makes her money from guest appearances, private functions, promotions, not from record sales. Same for most of these stars. Record companies are nothing more than extortionists, and DRM is a way to protect their racket.

Last year I spent £1,000 on music, mainly vinyl. I did the maths the other day - £890 worth of the music I bought last year came about as a result of filesharing.

So if I didn't fileshare, then I'd have spent £110 on music as opposed to £1,000. Yeah, filesharing is killing music.

Message to record companies: WAKE UP.

[qamelian]

I would argue that performing is the only way they should get paid. That's the creative act. The rest is an unfair seizing of our collective knowledge.


I don't think I can agree with this. The composition of the music is the creative act, not the performance of it. By your logic, the author of a book should only be paid for reading the book, not for its sales.

[RudolfMDLT]

To look at it from the record label's point of view, when they sign an artist, they are gambling. They invest a lot of money into getting an artist started because they believe that artist will make it (and they will make a lot of money). But sometimes they lose, and the artist doesn't go anywhere. For someone to think the artist shouldn't have to pay back the original investment is like you thinking you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage payment. But if an artist doesn't go anywhere, it is the record label that is out the cash.


I think they used to gamble - today they've got whats popular down to a fine statistic on whats hot and whats not.

With shows like Idols(America's one should be starting some time now), you generate Massive publicity for the winner and the winner "wins" a recording contract.

The real winner is the Label that the guy/girl signs with because the Recording Label now has an artist chosen by thousands of people. The label wins double: This is due to the fact that commercials during the show pays for the publicity and that there is a guaranteed fan base for the artist.

So sure - the record label takes some risk, but they still are stinkingly rich.

[pirothezero]

I have thought about this numerous times before and I have come to the conclusion that what needs to happen is that an entity that is completely honest about sharing for a price be made that has the resources to also produce all musicians. The artists would produce their music in whatever way they want, and some lender thats in the business of lending to only musicians would come in and help musicians do so. They would have 100% freedom as to how it would happen and then they hand the music over to this entity who distributes it for a price following the itunes model, and then pays off whatever they lent to produce it. After passing that point all money goes to the artist. This site also uses advertising within it's software by pushing artists/new artists on communities of each genre as well as easy to listen to samples and other small tactics that would make getting an artist out there easy. People would then pay the itunes like price for each song they would like. And that money goes straight to the artist, then they also perform and tour if they chose too. Get the music labels out of the way completely and let them find something else to do to try and get fat and rich. This way there'd be competition for apple and they wouldn't be the only people trying to be the king of pop culture.

I have wondered people like Dr Dre and puffy daddy who make their own labels do they report or answer to anyone above them? In other words are they the same as Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records, Warner Bros. anyone else thats big that i am missing or are they independent makers who have nothing to do with them.

[aysiu]

That entity is probably Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/) right now. Unfortunately for pop-junkies like me, Magnatune currently favors mood music and electronica.

But I really like their business model.

[noenter1]

Piracy- The unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc

A very lose definition, could even go so far as to say listening to music with other people is piracy if you dont all buy it.

My definition of piracy: The unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc, to make profitable gains.

[raublekick]

An interesting read regarding how money flows in the record industry, written by producer Steve Albini (he produced all of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Steve_Albini%27s_recording_projects)).

http://negativland.com/albini.html

[Oki]

Richard Stallman explains DRM(video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p9IU4zp7mU

[Praxicoide]

I don't think I can agree with this. The composition of the music is the creative act, not the performance of it. By your logic, the author of a book should only be paid for reading the book, not for its sales.

Like Mark Twain?

I do consider composing creative, of course. But I think that profits from this should be limited.
Performing is always creative, its art brought into existence.

[aysiu]

The composer and performer are not always the same person.

For example, Frank Sinatra is known for popularizing the song "My Way," but that song was written by Paul Anka. "Nothing Compares 2 U" is best known as a Sinead O'Connor song, but it was written by Prince. "Red, Red Wine" made the charts as a UB40 song, but it was penned by Neil Diamond.

Performances are sometimes the only thing you have as an artist. Once performances can be captured and then easily replicated numerous times at the click of a button, the market economy on the recording gets... complicated, to say the least.

[userundefine]

This is an ineffective letter. I largely agree with Stallman and find that he is always logical an intelligent, but he assumes too much in this letter for it to be well-written.


THE RECORD companies, seeking to bully people who share music, have demanded that colleges identify students who share ("Record firms crack down on campuses," Business, March . They use smear terms such as "piracy" and "theft" that imply sharing is wrong. Don't believe it. Sharing is friendship; to attack sharing is to attack the basis of society.

This part is good.

Today's legal music downloads are not an acceptable option, since they carry Digital Restrictions Management (called Digital Rights Management by its proponents) to restrict what people do with the files they have "bought." Therefore, as founder of the free software movement, I support the boycott of these products.

Here's where he makes his mistake. How does iTunes and company restrict what people do? Why does he put "bought" in quotation marks? The average person reading this letter in the Boston Globe does not know why. This is where he loses his audience. A letter of this calibre must explain these things that people on a Linux forum understand implicitly, such as how they restrict them (like the 5 burns with iTunes), and by "bought" he really means that consumers no longer own the content they purchase as they think they do, they simply license it. People on slashdot and such understand what's behind his letter, but the non-techies do not.

The real solution is to legalize sharing. This won't affect the record companies much, but if they did go out of business, we could rejoice that they can no longer threaten anyone.

They pay zero cents of your CD purchase price to musicians (except for superstars), so the absence of these companies would be no loss to society.

For the short term, colleges should make sure they do not collect information that could be used to identify students who share.

Since he lost them in the previous paragraph, to the business-minded this is just a sophomoric attack on businesses. And, since this argument is rounded off with the recent talk of colleges giving up students, people who do not know Stallman will just assume he's a freeloading student.


This letter was too terse and lacked any thought in its composition, which in general I find unusual for Stallman. But I nevertheless still agree with its premise.

[the_darkside_986]

To look at it from the record label's point of view, when they sign an artist, they are gambling. They invest a lot of money into getting an artist started because they believe that artist will make it (and they will make a lot of money). But sometimes they lose, and the artist doesn't go anywhere. For someone to think the artist shouldn't have to pay back the original investment is like you thinking you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage payment. But if an artist doesn't go anywhere, it is the record label that is out the cash.

What Mr. Stallman needs to remember is that it's just like the software realm. Software is only "Free" if the creator/distributor makes it free. It's not the end-user's right to decide that something should be "free" when that wasn't the intention of the creator. Maybe everything should be free, and we can go back to a bartering system, but that's just not how it is right now.

I'd rather not try to look at it from their point of view. I cannot imagine how deranged and eaten up by greed one must be when they wish to sue elementary school children and the elderly.

It is now the age of the internet, and there is no longer a need for the filthy hands of a corporation tainting the art form of music.

When the corporation starts to attack its consumers and customers, it is time for the customer to open up a can... and PWN them all. (I'm sure everyone who has engaged in "piracy" has owned at least one CD from an RIAA associated label, thus making them a "customer.")

Remember: March is the (un)official boycott-the-RIAA month. I have purposely avoided buying CD's even though I've been in lots of stores that sell them this month.

[qamelian]

Like Mark Twain?

I do consider composing creative, of course. But I think that profits from this should be limited.
Performing is always creative, its art brought into existence.

I agree that profits should be limited, but what bothers me is how long creative works are protected after the creator's death. The terms are way too long.

As far as performing always being creative: not by a long shot. For some artists like David Bowie, Peter Gabriel, and Pet Shop Boys, yeah, massive creativity in there performances. Very few popular artists do anything really creative during their live performances any more. There are exceptions, but from what I've seen they're few and far between.

[jclmusic]

I have wondered people like Dr Dre and puffy daddy who make their own labels do they report or answer to anyone above them? In other words are they the same as Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records, Warner Bros. anyone else thats big that i am missing or are they independent makers who have nothing to do with them.

dr. dre's aftermath label is part of interscope, which is part of universal. i forget what label puff daddy is part of, but it's the same situation. they just use these names to make it look as if they own their own label. they don't.

[cowlip]

I agree that profits should be limited, but what bothers me is how long creative works are protected after the creator's death. The terms are way too long.

As far as performing always being creative: not by a long shot. For some artists like David Bowie, Peter Gabriel, and Pet Shop Boys, yeah, massive creativity in there performances. Very few popular artists do anything really creative during their live performances any more. There are exceptions, but from what I've seen they're few and far between.

I think copyrights for recordings are generally assigned to the record company so of course they want the copyright term as long as possible, since it's unlikely that the RIAA will die anytime soon. Sucks for the rest of us.

[macogw]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...
They make money by selling tshirts and buttons and concert tickets and getting sponsors. Bands that don't use record labels make money from cds. Unsigned bands get a few bucks from them though because whatever the store didn't take out, they get. Reel Big Fish was dropped by Jive last year because they weren't making the label any money (it's not like the label was promoting them or anything, just taking the money from the cd sales and giving nothing to the band), so they made a cd on their own and promoted it themselves and went on tour themselves and promoted that themselves, and well, this is the first time I've ever seen a Reel Big Fish ad in a magazine. I suppose back in 1997 they had them, but there's been no promoting for them til they went solo. Now they get 100% of the money from everything they sell.

[macogw]

To look at it from the record label's point of view, when they sign an artist, they are gambling. They invest a lot of money into getting an artist started because they believe that artist will make it (and they will make a lot of money). But sometimes they lose, and the artist doesn't go anywhere. For someone to think the artist shouldn't have to pay back the original investment is like you thinking you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage payment. But if an artist doesn't go anywhere, it is the record label that is out the cash.

What Mr. Stallman needs to remember is that it's just like the software realm. Software is only "Free" if the creator/distributor makes it free. It's not the end-user's right to decide that something should be "free" when that wasn't the intention of the creator. Maybe everything should be free, and we can go back to a bartering system, but that's just not how it is right now.
No, the labels sign like 5 artists, push 1 artist so they "make it big" then use the other 4 as money vacuums. The artists don't get a lot of merch or tours so they get no money and become "one hit wonders" while the label gets all their cd money. That money is then used to fund the one band that they pre-determined would be the one that they make "make it big."

[macogw]

Now, part of the contracts most artists sign is the relinquishing of rights to all songs produced and distributed by the recording company. Yes, you read that correctly, the music industry owns the rights to the songs created these days, not the artists who composed or wrote the music.
Ever heard of The RISC Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_RISC_Group)?

[Ireclan]

(You just watch. This post will be totally ignored for restating what's already been said. Never the less, I felt the need to ring in with my opinions.)


I believe in having to pay for the songs you listen to. I do not believe that one should be sharing music with people who haven't paid for the right to listen to it (I myself, however, am guilty of listening to music tracks I haven't paid for. I acknowledge my actions as illegal, but still do not condone them). What I do NOT believe in is DRMing a song and then trying to sell it at the same price or higher than non-DRMed tracks. It is my opinion that if you're going to DRM your songs, you'd best be reducing the price you charge for them as compared with regular songs. This is due to the fact you are now placing restrictions on how your listeners may use the content, thus "licensing" the content instead of allowing listeners to buy it outright.

In short, if you license, reduce the price. It's only fair.

One more thing: I am curious what the business relationship is between the record companies and the artists they represent. Could someone fill me in on that?

[macogw]

(You just watch. This post will be totally ignored for restating what's already been said. Never the less, I felt the need to ring in with my opinions.)


I believe in having to pay for the songs you listen to. I do not believe that one should be sharing music with people who haven't paid for the right to listen to it (I myself, however, am guilty of listening to music tracks I haven't paid for. I acknowledge my actions as illegal, but still do not condone them). What I do NOT believe in is DRMing a song and then trying to sell it at the same price or higher than non-DRMed tracks. It is my opinion that if you're going to DRM your songs, you'd best be reducing the price you charge for them as compared with regular songs. This is due to the fact you are now placing restrictions on how your listeners may use the content, thus "licensing" the content instead of allowing listeners to buy it outright.

In short, if you license, reduce the price. It's only fair.

One more thing: I am curious what the business relationship is between the record companies and the artists they represent. Could someone fill me in on that?

Do you ever borrow books from the library or lend a magazine to a friend? How is that any different from lending a friend a cd?

[Ireclan]

Do you ever borrow books from the library or lend a magazine to a friend? How is that any different from lending a friend a cd?

In an ideal capitalist world, neither happens (I'm not saying that's good). The standpoint I'm coming from is an ideal capitalist world.

[darkhatter]

Do you ever borrow books from the library or lend a magazine to a friend? How is that any different from lending a friend a cd?

some one posted this on digg, and I think it applies here:

"what is the insentive to produce material then? if everything is free where is your cash flow?"

library's or you for that matter do not have a right to lend out cd's or movies. it isn't fair but thats just how it is. when you buy a cd you are not buying the song, you are buying the right to listen to the song.

[halfvolle melk]

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

[MetalMusicAddict]

Buy CDs. Period. This is also coming from a "US" POV.

Alot of the big-box (Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart or Target) stores sell CDs cheap to get you in the store to buy other things.

My personal choice is indie stores.

In the states you can always find a descent price ($15 and lower) on CDs and move them to whatever format you want. Buying lossy music even if DRM free and vorbis is crazy.

[aysiu]

The only letter The Boston Globe published in response to Richard Stallman's letter from last week is this one (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/03/18/friends_dont_let_friends_download/):
Friends don't let friends download
March 18, 2007

ALLOW ME to nominate Richard Stallman for the Peter Berdovsky/Sean Stevens award for public mockery of a serious subject. Stallman gets the nod for his March 13th letter in defense of illegal music downloads. In addition to his anarchistic view that the demise of record companies would be no loss to society, he steps out of the illegal downloader's shadows to frame the act with the positive spin of "sharing is friendship; to attack sharing is to attack the basis of society."

What nonsense. When others record songs and arrange to sell them, you have no moral authority to deprive them or their record companies of a buck just because you have a button that says "download now." This is not friendship; friendship calls for a personal connection more than the anonymous and indirect contact between Internet servers. Sharing suggests that the giver forgoes something -- in this case all he's done is hit the "copy" command.

MARC WARNER
Northampton

[WalmartSniperLX]

can anyone confirm that its true that record companies give no money whatsoever to the artist when you buy a cd?

if so... how the heck to the artists make money?

but yeah, in a perfect world we wont have to buy music, we can download what we want to listen to and share it with other people with no threat of being arrested or doing something "illegal"...

Most of the income for artists happen with live performances :P :guitar: And usually if an artist wishes to make profit off a label they must sell a certain number of records to maintain the label... which they get no profit from :P I have experience

[cowlip]

"what is the insentive to produce material then? if everything is free where is your cash flow?"


Oh come on now....we're on a Linux forum and we're asking this? ;)
I don't know what the future of the recording industry is but it just may not involve the record companies. Who knows..

[aysiu]

I'm the hoping the future is something like Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/) but not just limited to genres Magnatune currently favors.

From their business model page (http://magnatune.com/info/model):
The Business Model: how we (and our artists) pay the rent.
What we provide for free:

* Radio stations of our very high-quality artists, tailored to each listener's specific tastes.
* We make it easy to listen to our music, and what we play is on-genre and extremely high quality.
* A simple interface to save your favorite artists and songs; come back to them, build a collection.
* A wide variety of music that can be freely previewed and put on a 'temp track" on a work-in-progress. If the music is then proven to work for your use, you can then pay to license it for advertising, films, business, etc.

What we sell:

* Downloadable albums at a low price: $5 to $18: buyer determines the exact price.
* Sub-licensed music for commercial purposes (i.e.: trade shows, advertising and web sites), priced from $150 to $5000, depending on length and type of use. This is our fastest-growing and most profitable business area.
* Merchandise: posters, clothing, mugs with artist's likeness. We're not currently offering this, but we may in the future.

How the artist makes money:

* 50% of the sale price of each album goes directly to the artist.
* 50% of any commercial sub-licensing (ads, web sites, trade shows, films, etc) goes directly to the artist.
* 50% of merchandise profits goes directly to the artist.
* Wider distribution of the artist's music means more gigs and more fans.

[darkhatter]

Oh come on now....we're on a Linux forum and we're asking this? ;)
I don't know what the future of the recording industry is but it just may not involve the record companies. Who knows..

sorry I'm not trying to sound money hungry

When we buy cds don't we agree to whatever terms they set for us, I don't want to sound like jerk but we're the one's digging our own graves. The only way to fix to this problem is to stop buying music. If you aren't ready to do that just bend over and take whatever they give us cause where digging our own graves using their shoves

[23meg]

When we buy cds don't we agree to whatever terms they set for us, I don't want to sound like jerk but we're the one's digging our own graves. The only way to fix to this problem is to stop buying music. If you aren't ready to do that just bend over and take whatever they give us cause where digging our own graves using their shoves

You don't sound like a jerk at all; it's called voting with your wallet, and it's very common practice. Your number one action should be to stop buying major label music if you don't endorse the current state of the music industry, and what it has to offer.

[userundefine]

The only letter The Boston Globe published in response to Richard Stallman's letter from last week is this one (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/03/18/friends_dont_let_friends_download/):

Friends don't let friends download
March 18, 2007

ALLOW ME to nominate Richard Stallman for the Peter Berdovsky/Sean Stevens award for public mockery of a serious subject. Stallman gets the nod for his March 13th letter in defense of illegal music downloads. In addition to his anarchistic view that the demise of record companies would be no loss to society, he steps out of the illegal downloader's shadows to frame the act with the positive spin of "sharing is friendship; to attack sharing is to attack the basis of society."

What nonsense. When others record songs and arrange to sell them, you have no moral authority to deprive them or their record companies of a buck just because you have a button that says "download now." This is not friendship; friendship calls for a personal connection more than the anonymous and indirect contact between Internet servers. Sharing suggests that the giver forgoes something -- in this case all he's done is hit the "copy" command.

MARC WARNER
Northampton
Heh, exactly as I predicted, Stallman's letter would be taken as an anti-business rant. He should never have submitted something so poorly written.