Pajiba

I support my local music scene by going to gigs but I always get guest listed because I'M SO FAMOUS.

God knows I hate buzzwords but the new "paradigm" is as simple as this: Bands are going to release, promote and sell their music via the internet.
The days of the record industry/corporate radio monolith declaring what is popular are over.
Smart, talented bands have taken to the internet, making tracks from their latest releases available to countless music blogs where they are available for free and most of us, if we like what we hear, seek out websites for said bands and purchase their music through iTunes or other online music sellers.
George is correct in saying that the media monoliths need to be dissolved but the fact of the matter is that the really interesting, exciting music being made these days is being made by bands that record labels/corporate radio
are never interested in because none of them sound like Nickelback/Miley/Taylor or any other band/artist tailoring their music to fit within the format parameters of today's radio.
My point is that while Kot's book in interesting from a historical premise - in a "how we got here" kind of way - the truth is that the whole (here's that word again) paradigm has already gone through another seismic shift. As fewer people listen to radio and seek out new venues in which to discover artists and as record companies continue to fail because they refuse to accept that their business model is completely obsolete, the more power artists will have to control their own destinies by harnessing the marketing power of the internet.
A very thorough and thoughtful review, Genny. Well done.

George, there's actually a whole section that talks about radio and the kind of massive conglomerates that control most of it now, in addition to interviewing some of the few surviving independent radio operators. I kind of skimmed over it because it's not really my area of expertise, but it was interesting and eye opening.

saartjie, there are some calls from within the industry to drop the price of downloads significantly, or move to a small monthly fee tacked onto your ISP which would allow you literally unlimited access to all music. Kind of like Netflix, you pay your $10 a month and you get to listen to as much music as you like.

ARGH! for halloween this year i want to be a downloading pirate! and spender can be my sidekick, "lil bootleg".

Aye, Capn' GP! We'll sail the ethernet in search of booty... arrr....

I completely agree with everything you just said Rusty, the shoe analogy was particularly apt

however, free illegal music is just so accessible now a days, and I am on the low income side...

I do tend to buy most of my music through iTunes, but occasionally I do succumb to the darkside of torrent sites

I am not sure if that makes me a hypocrite, or just proves that I have loose morals...

Kind of like Netflix, you pay your $10 a month and you get to listen to as much music as you like.

Genny, I believe Napster does this. It seems like a good deal on the surface, except that all the tracks are DRM-coded, meaning you can't copy them, and if you cancel your subscription, you lose ALL of the music. And if Napster goes under? You're screwed. It's an idiotic system, and yet another example of poor business modeling. I understand copy-protecting the tracks, but why force people into maintaining their subscription? All it really does is drive people like me away from ever using the service.

That said, given the sheer number of albums and bands there are out there, charging 15 bucks for a CD is fucking insane.

Bands these days don't go on tour to support a record. They release a record to support the tour. The money is in touring.

I'm a person who buys CDs and never downloads. I like owning my records. Downloading has made music cheap and disposable. I like saving money and choosing what to buy carefully. There's a certain romance to going to the store, going through the racks, being amazed by certain artwork, getting excited with lavish box-sets and beautifully presented records, going home and opening your record excitedly, listening while going through liner notes, etc. Another reason why a physical product is more desirable is the new Beatles box-sets would look good under the Christmas tree this December but a couple of files sent to your email address would be rather lame wouldn't they? I like displaying my record collection on my shelf in the same way I like having great books on my shelf. Even Vinyl has somewhat made a comeback among music aficionados. Physical releases also convince bands to release good records rather than just a hit single and an album full of crap. Through bands like Porcupine Tree and Opeth the concept of an album is coming back and the hit single is dying. Listening to one track on its own is like tearing out a couple of pages from a book and reading those only. Good albums are to be consumed as a whole to be really appreciated. Promoting singles so much in the past decades has been a big mistake by labels because many people stopped caring about albums.

I don't agree that record labels are irrelevant. When's the last time you saw a Myspace only band headlining a stadium? Record labels go through the maze of bands and choose the wheat from the chaff (trust me there's much more chaff than wheat), they fund their recordings and tours, support them, distribute their material and what bands often say is label interference is nothing more than someone stopping a band from going up their own ass (not that bad decisions were not made by record labels) etc. If you think you can be so good through internet only then you're dreaming. Please stop quoting NIN and Radiohead for the pay-as-much-as-you-like thing. Record labels made these bands big in the first place. Whenever I read interviews with young bands they always hope and dream that a label would support them.

The problem with record labels is their business model. In the 90s CDs were ridiculously overpriced and when the internet emerged they were not on top of it finding innovative ways to use it. They ripped off enough bands and fans for people to alienate and some terrible decisions were made. The large labels need to downsize and work more closely with the artists and fans to produce material people want to buy and cherish in the same way that smaller labels like Roadrunner (which have an excellent roster of bands) are doing.

What do I think about downloading? It can't be stopped. One way to defend it is instead of comparing it to stealing you can compare it to lending. Let's go back to the shoes you mentioned. If you bought them is it anyone's business if you lent them or gave them away to your friends? Is it anyone's business if you gave or lent a CD to someone? With downloading you are giving the music you bought and keeping it for yourself at the same time. Downloading is so unique it cannot be compared to shoplifting from a store. The ease of it being done also has to be taken into consideration. A question which I like to ask is "do you think people who download illegally and never pay for it would actually buy the record if downloading wasn't available?" Some would but many won't. The real fans still pay for it. Many fans download first to try before they buy. Another issue to consider is that many bands would rather get their music out there in any way than having people never heard of their music. Even if only downloaded illegally, that download might eventually convince someone to attend a gig which is more profitable for bands anyway. Volume is also an issue. How many records do you think a 13 year old kid can afford. Downloading opens a music world beyond what one can ever imagine or afford (and that statement is coming from me who doesn't like downloading). Comparing it to stealing a pair of shoes is naive. If you could just print a pair of shoes because your printer reads the designs on a computer and prints shoes out according to the design it would be a totally different scenario to stealing shoes from a shop (3D printers which print ready made objects do exist by the way but are still a long way from reaching your desk).

As one can see there are many issues to this delicate argument. There are pros and cons to illegally downloading as there are to buying. Mistakes have been made. Solutions can be found. Many things have changed but more has stayed the same than some people realize. At the end of the day it comes down to the producers and consumers of the music. How far are people willing to go? What are people willing to pay for and what do they expect for free? It's a tight-rope and finding a balance can be hard. I think the music industry is far from dead though. T.V didn't kill cinema. Computers didn't kill books. The internet won't kill the music industry.

Aaaaannnnnnd...Skewicide Blonde just nailed what's wrong with Napster and the other suscription services: The Dreaded DRM.
There's a way around that, kids.
If you're paying Napster for music and you want to keep it, use digital recording software such as SawPlus 32 or Adobe Audition and record them as .wav files. After that, convert them back to mp3 format and they are yours to do with as you please.

People are still putting out good music, though you're less likely to hear it on the radio.
Posted by: pissant at September 29, 2009 10:31 AM

You're setting up a strawman for the sake of insulting someone's taste in music. I stopped buying cd's because the mainstream music formats stopped promoting good music and started promoting one-hit wonders. Yes, people are still putting out good music but you won't find it in most music stores or big-box retailers. You'll find it online... which was my point all along.

One more thing: In the days before the internet, most artists were being screwed, blued and tattooed by the music industry. Sure, they received royalties from album sales but not more than a mere fraction of what the companies were raking in. Bands supported themselves by touring which is still the case today. The fact that I can see the band, buy their music online and buy the cd at their shows means that the money I spend goes directly to them... and if I don't like the cd, so what? At least I'm not putting money in the pockets of some corporate shit who'll just use it to buy hookers and cocaine.

Here's the thing with Napster and other services of its ilk. You aren't purchasing the music, you're renting it. You pay something on the order of $15 a month for all the music you can eat. If you download an album/track that you want to then own, you can purchase it. Once you've paid for it, you can copy it as many times as you want (insofar as I am aware). Ergo, the DRM is only applicable if you want to go through the subscription download service. If you're aware of a service that will allow me to download and own as many songs as I want for $15-$20 a month, point me in that direction with a quickness.

People are still putting out good music, though you're less likely to hear it on the radio.
Posted by: pissant at September 29, 2009 10:31 AM

Man, you are preaching to the choir. I live in a city of 210,000 people and the only radio is dominated by Katie Whatshername, Britney, Lady Ga Ga and fucking Pitbull. But that's a symptom of the larger issue which, for me, is access (as Spender has mentioned). I had to wait for six weeks after it's release date to get a copy of Mos Def's The Ecstatic I've been to four different music stores and two box stores trying to find some Parliament or Funkadelic (thanks Spender). Every store I go to it's fucking Miley or or some shit at number one and a wall full of failure. Don't even get me started on the lack of independant retailers. They don't exist here. So we're right back to square one: the corperate machine mass producing crap and everybody following suit. I just can't fathom how they don't understand that they are the architects of their own failure and helped to cause illegal downloading.

I'll concede your point, pissant and say that, yes, you can find decent music in the big music stores and various music departments such as you'll find in Walmart but without the resources provided by the internet and the multitude of music blogs who bring the music to you, buying a cd from an unknown artist these days is a genuine crapshoot and 20 bucks is more than I'm willing to bet. Odds are good these days that if you buy music from a large retail outlet you're going to find mainstream product from mainstream labels and all of it geared for mass market consumption. I don't know what others consider "good" - as you said, it's subjective - but I'm not gonna find Thee Exciters, Great Lake Swimmers, Callupsie or Admiral Twin (all bands that I love) in any Target or Walmart bins.
MY point is that, regardless of the band, I can go online, listen to and/or download a track or two, buy the releases online and put money directly into the artist's pockets thereby avoiding the risk of paying some record company 20 bucks for something I'll never listen to again.
The three or four songs I buy from that artist on iTunes represents more money than he/she would ever see from a record label.

Another excellent point, admin.
Try finding classic lp's in any big-box store!
Great artists like Parliament (shamelessly sampled by 90% of today's rap artists) are either not part of Walmart's inventory or (much worse) completely out of print and not available ANYWHERE except in the world of file-sharing, where people have lovingly preserved their vinyl as wave files and made those lost classics available to a wide audience once more. Granted, there is some loss of quality but I would rather have an mp3 copy of Funkadelic's "Get Off Your Ass and Jam" than to never have heard the song again. (And, yes, I did own the LP which, along with over 200 others were burgled while I was out one evening. Now THAT'S piracy.)

What really chafes my ass is that the industrial cartels - MPAA and RIAA and BSA - all equate unpaid-for copying as theft or piracy. NO. Grab a fucking dictionary and quit oversimplifying with sexy concepts and hyperbolic rhetoric. Theft is the physical deprivation of an item, wherein the owner is both unable to possess and sell the object in question. Piracy is the high seas takeover by force of an oceangoing vessel and/or the redirection of the ship and/or merchandise to someone other than the registered owner/purchaser.

Copyright infringement is more complicated and less sexy, but is the only applicable term for "illegal downloading." Putting aside the new economic paradigm of lower distribution costs and free advertising (and the elimination of the cartel middlemen), at worst the unauthorised copying deprives the rightsholder of a sale. They still have the original item in their possession - this is not how theft works. The new paradigm of potentially infinite copies being made without diminishing the quality of the original is one that the music industry has near-fatally bungled. The cartels act as if they are entitled to a perpetual revenue stream, and give the artists a mere pittance. Loathe as much of the public is to deprive an artist of income, the idea of screwing over a faceless cartel with a horrendous track record of customer interaction and technological innovation is powerful. With these factors combined, plus the heated industry rhetoric and its powerful lobby, the public and artist's interest is being sold out and unauthorised downloading is the inevitable, and persistent, outcome. Until the cartels change their business model and customer relation tactics, copyright infringement will be here to stay. I refuse to honour any premise equating infringement with theft, and am appalled at the free ride such exploitative industries get at public expense in the legislative forum.

The role of the corporate cartels needs to be greatly diminished. It is much easier to balance public interests and those of the artists when the equation only includes those parties. Even a cooperative group of artists would be workable. But an exploitative cartel answerable to shareholders and screwing both the public and the artists is a systemic parasite, and its present behaviour is so damaging the host as to render its health in growing jeopardy. Like it or not, unauthorised downloading is the great equaliser in a system so heavily skewed to one side. A viable political solution is unlikely since the cartel lobby has so many politicians in its pocket. Sadly, public pressure through authorised and unauthorised music-downloading outlets is going to be the most effective method of forcing a workable solution out of the cartels. In the meantime, as always, the artists are suffering in the middle while the cartels posture and defendants are bankrupted.

buying a cd from an unknown artist these days is a genuine crapshoot and 20 bucks is more than I'm willing to bet.

Oh, I'll definitely concede that point.

MY point is that, regardless of the band, I can go online, listen to and/or download a track or two, buy the releases online and put money directly into the artist's pockets thereby avoiding the risk of paying some record company 20 bucks for something I'll never listen to again.

I would imagine that most record contracts these days cover digital distribution as well. I'm not certain buying tracks a la carte(or even the whole album) online is putting anymore money into the band's pocket. Getting your band on iTunes by yourself is analogous to getting your CD in a big box store by yourself. It's nearly impossible. I have a friend who got his band's album on iTunes, but he went through a company that has a relationship with Apple. I would imagine(and ALL of this is speculation) that the record companies have the same relationship and their bands must go through them. And how do the bands get hold of those CDs they sell at shows? Do they buy them from the record companies?

I've always felt that the only way to get money directly to a band is through buying tickets to shows and buying merchandise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzm50HEmNeM

There will always be artists putting out music, because it's what they like to do, not because they can cash in.

Fishboya, you've managed to hit upon one of my least favorite arguments of all time. As a musician I deeply resent the implications of that statement. I can't argue with the fact that I'll keep making music whether I'm getting paid for it or not (full disclosure: I am not). But for you to atempt to use that fact to justify stealing music is bullshit. I'm making music to be enjoyed, and, if at all possible, make a living doing something I love. When you steal music from any band, you're hurting their ability to keep making music. So if you enjoy it, don't justify stealing it, justify buying it.

Well, man, excuse me for having classes on Tuesdays.

Here's my counter argument to the argument that illegally downloading doesn't deprive a record store of a physical copy; Yes, I can borrow my friend's shoes. But while I have the shoes, my friend can't use them. When she has the shoes, I can't use them. "Lending" a digital copy doesn't work because you have that copy forever, and you're in possession of a copy of music that the artist (and all other associated with the production of that piece of music) has not been reimbursed for. And yes, it is tricky as digital downloads don't exist as physical entities, but just as how we have to adjust our expectations of what we're paying for when we buy a digital download of a song (i.e, that there will be no physical copy in your hands at the end of the transaction) we need to understand that such things can be stolen.

I'm not arguing that the industry is perfect, and it's going to take some trial and error to find the solution that works best for everyone involved. I do think that illegal downloading doesn't help anyone, including the consumer, because it allows record companies to argue that we need to keep legal downloads at high prices to offset the losses from illegal downloading, and discourages research into new methods of distribution that may cut into already slim profits. There's a lot of factors to consider, and I appreciate all the different viewpoints being expressed here.

you're in possession of a copy of music that the artist (and all other associated with the production of that piece of music) has not been reimbursed for.

That can't be applied to digital distribution. That's where the whole "you wouldn't steal a handbag, would you?" argument breaks down. If you create 1000 shoes and then sell them, you have to pay an nearly equal amount of money(minus initial design costs) to produce 1000 more. When you steal shoes, you are stealing something that has a concrete value. If you create a song and sell 1000 copies of it, it costs you virtually nothing to create another 1000 copies(just server costs). The value of digital media is not concrete. Steal a pair of shoes, decide you don't like them, and throw them away. The seller of the shoes has lost money. Download a file, decide you don't like, never listen to it again. No one has lost anything(assuming the file was hosted on a separate server).

Granted, people download lots of music and keep it forever. They are hurting people(record labels, artists, themselves if they like the music but the artist doesn't get support because of low sales). But, please, stop comparing "stealing" music to stealing physical items. It's oversimplified and is a weak analogy and it just undermines your arguments.

I have friends that would never steal something from a store but who barely think twice about downloading music. You know why? People just know that there is a fundamental difference between the two. It's inherent. If the music business doesn't soberly assesses the situation and their position in it, they're fucked.

TheMaskedEmu,
I'm not really for or against "stealing" music. No one steals music anyway, it's copyright infringement. I just don't like it when people on either side simplify the argument. I generally tend to dislike the record industry side more though because they employ trickier tactics. Going all the way back to when the laws were put on the books, a copyright is not a right at all. It's a government granted monopoly. It's been called a copyright so long now, and they've been extended to such ridiculous lengths, people now think that they and only they(or the people who hold their copyrights) have some natural right to copy and distribute their works, which they don't(government granted). Then RIAA/MPAA/whoever come along with these ridiculous "you wouldn't steal a handbag, would you?" campaigns that equate copyright infringement with stealing, which it isn't. I just want a fucking honest discussion about this.

People just know that there is a fundamental difference between the two. It's inherent.

People know there is an inherent difference between copyright infringement and stealing. I didn't say that makes copyright infringement OK. I'm just saying don't equate it to stealing.

I'm totally with Pissant on this. The cartels do everyone a disservice by putting forward a false comparison. Taking an unpaid copy of a digital file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Get that straight. Sure, it's an uncompensated transaction but that's where the similarities end - there is no deprivation of ownership of a physical item. Industry bullshit and trickery is just that - bullshit. Overhyped rhetoric dumbed down for politicians and lobbyists to obscure the fact that copyright legislation, and more importantly the business model of distribution and the role of the middlemen, need to change.

There needs to be an honest discussion. Absolutely. All sides need to strip down to the facts and remove inflammatory rhetoric. People are downloading music without paying - strictly speaking, it's only the providers that are violating copyright (at least under Canadian copyright law) - the downloaders are providing the demand and taking advantage of the infringement of copyright. The cartels are trying to preserve a broken business model and blaming losses of revenue on an unsatisfied market demand - easily accessible and affordable music. The market tends to be the winner in such conflicts - either the businesses adapt, or they die. Throw in the fact that it's easier than ever for new artists to record professionally at home and handle their own online distribution really should be a wake-up call to the industry and get them to get with the times. They are decreasingly necessary, and the more obstructionist they are in meeting market demands, the more likely it is the market will evolve to exclude them. Fixing their business model will go a long way to de-incentivise "illegal downloading" and thus reduce their lost sales. They can change from "selling" music to "licensing" copies - that could go a long, long way to righting the ship. There's currently no license implications when a CD is bought - it's a sale of a physical item, with which a person can do anything they like that doesn't infringe copyright - they can burn it, play frisbee with it, listen to it ad nauseum, and even re-sell it, all within the law. That might not be fair to the artist - in which case semantics definitely matter and the correct terms should be applied, and the proper changes made.

But for obfuscatory and misleading terminology to dominate an otherwise worthwhile discussion, no matter how "colloquially accurate," ultimately misdirects both the discussion and the end result of policy change. Get it right, or at least shut up until you do. If the issue is inadequate artist compensation, say so. If it's cartel insecurity, say so. If it's the need to move from a sale structure to one of licensed copies, then say so. It's only possible to take the right action when the right words are used to describe the key concepts. Persistent use of misleading language is disingenuous and inhibits meaningful, constructive, and trustworthy dialogue.

But hey, at least it's catchy for simplistic one-liner slogans!

I just wanted to pop in and say that this is one of the most impressive displays of intellectual dialogue I've ever had the pleasure of reading during my time here. Seriously, this has been an outstanding thread - informative, interesting, and perhaps most importantly... civil.

That may have come out condescending, and if it did, it was certainly not my intent. I'm just really happy that the conversation is taking place.

That is all. Please, by all means, continue.

" I also don't support prosecuting individual downloaders for stealing,"

That should say "downloading". I've been editing and re-editing my comments to try and get across what I'm trying to say in something that looks well thought out and reasoned and apparently I've gotten to the point where I'm missing things.

you are literally taking money from an artist's pockets

Literally? No, you aren't. To do that literally, you'd have to find the artist, reach into his/her pocket, and remove money. There is a difference between taking money from someone's pocket and not putting money into someone's pocket. Like I said earlier, and lordhelmet said better, people need to choose their words carefully and accurately or there can't be a discussion that moves this forward.

Looks like lordhelmet summed it up best... dunno about the rest of you but I am in full agreement with him.
This has been one of the most interesting, enlightening and engaging comment threads in a long time and I'm really quite pleased and proud of all the Pajibans who stepped up today and just knocked it outta the park.
Thanks, everyone and many thanks to Rusty whose review and thoughts on the subject really kick-started the whole thing.
Great fun, everyone!

The hardest part is managing songs, as larger collections can quickly run into the thousands of songs and gig after gig of music. Playlists are the answer, as they allow you to create subgroups of songs, picking your favourite songs for driving in a car, or your favourite songs to listen to while reading a book. This is a very useful function if you sit down to listen to music and spend more time skipping songs than enjoying them, so use it whenever you can.