If SoftDrugs would be legal, the prisons in the US would be half empty... Talking about ridiculous... And again it's the same big brother knows better than you what to do attitude...

What do you do for a living, beyondipod?

My point exactly. Like you, my taste in music are not often aired on radio either. My catalogue of discs (vinyl and CDs) swell to many times the cost of my audio hardware. My hardware have evolved through time but my investment in music far exceeds the total amount of money spent so far on hardware (do I get a thanks from RIAA? Nah!). Before I joined the file sharing community, I had slowed down my purchase. I thought I had pretty much bought whatever that was worth buying. Going all the way back to Judy Garland and Ella Fitzgerald. Before that, I was purchasing discs at a rate of two albums per month. Then there was a period when I didn't buy any titles for about half a year until I discovered file sharing. I started buying again. Most it were material that did not impress me on first listen. Also, the lossy version didn't do justice to my system. I was even unsatisfied with the lossless ones because something was missing. I wanted to know the details. Where was it recorded, who recorded it, who played what on which track, who wrote the songs and lyrics and so on. It is all part of the recorded music experience. And you don't always get that from file sharing. And more importantly, I thought some works deserve to earn my money if I am deriving some satisfaction from it. Of course, if the act is in town, I would go and see it. That would be one activity you can't download anywhere. Out of RIAA jurisdiction anyway.



Your point being?

Very well said .

I thought his point was obvious.

You made some naive, idealistic comments that "real artistes" didn't need money beyond what it takes to avoid starvation.

So I agree with the other poster that it's worthwhile to ask where you get such ideas from, or more to the point, have you ever tried to make a living as an artist (of any description)? Do you know any full-time artists, especially ones who are adults trying to do adult things like raise a family, pay a mortgage or send kids to college? I know a few so I think your comments are poorly-informed.

Would you say the same thing about "real" software engineers or surgeons or accountants or pharmacists or car mechanics?

Now, that would be a fair OP.

Yes, I did get a sniff of that. I just wanted to be sure so I can respond accordingly.



No, I didn't say that. You did. What I said is, monetary reward is secondary. An artistes work is for arts sake. That must be first and foremost for a true artiste. I only used the word "starving" figuratively. That should have been obvious to you.



Oh, really? If you do know a few struggling artistes, what don't you help them out by paying them direct rather than to some cold corporations leeching from them? To be realistic, if it is so difficult to get by being artistic, don't you think it is rather difficult to send kids to college let alone raise a family? What I am trying to say is, you are making this up. Logic will tell you that if it comes to raising a family and the artistic life is not paying off, don't you think these would-be artistes would have abandoned their ambition for the time being in favour of better paying jobs or other enterprise? They may pursue their artistic dreams in an amateur fashion or even nurture their children so that their offspring may succeed where they failed.

No, I don't have to try to make a living as an artiste to know their situation. I have known some. Some of them were good friends. Most of them tell me the same thing. Don't be an artiste. Artistes lead very miserable lives. They should know, they live it and I can see that sometime they don't eat. I try to support them as much as I could. They're not musicians so I buy their drawings. How long they can endure depends on their will power and sometimes, luck. But what keeps them going? Is it for the money? Surely, there are easier ways of earning a living. Ask Van Gogh if you could. He even cut his ear to make a point. Did he paint to live a comfortable life and raise a big family? If he could have known that his work would continue to be so highly regarded, by the masses long after his passing, he would not only rest in peace but happily so.



No, for obvious reasons that they are not artistes and their work is not art. Besides, they are well paid enough.

...also (this being said many times), it is the struggling artists that WANT to spread their music for free to get recognition. It is usually the most successful artist protesting the most, since they don't need to get their music out for free and turn gray with fear of their hypothetical monetary loss. (e.g. Lars Scroogich) That, also, being said dozens of times.

Dear minister,

Stealing from GOD?? Now, that is a new one. First, you must establish that the copyrighted work you did is for the faith or not? If it is, then should it be considered gospel? How can the word of God or any work dedicated to God be copyrighted in the first place?? What does "stolen Christian music" even means? You are not making any sense. The last time I was in church, that was so long ago, the band played God's music. But they never copyrighted their act. Yet, we still give what was within our means when the "bag" was passed around. I think you are handling your Christian music wrong.

This is quite true. The RIAA is copying music for us and charging an exorbitant fee for it.

Speaking as a software engineer AND an artist (writer, photographer, painter) I think that distiction is completely baseless. I don't know where you come up with it. (and why do you insist on spelling "artist" "artiste"?) An artist is a working person, and they have as much right to be paid for their work as an engineer, a doctor or a plumber. Creating art CAN be spiritually and emotionally satisfying, but so can engineering. And they can also both be a daily grind. Please get some life and hands-on experience before you go spouting off on things you obviously know nothing about.

Creative skill - whether it's software engineering or art - is the same thing. To make a good engineering design you need inspiration and creative insight, you need the ability to conceive of something, and you need technical skill and experience to bring it to life. All the successful artists I know in music, writing, and the visual arts - achieve their success in EXACTLY the same way as software engineers - hard work and relentlessly developing their skills.

Contrary to your uninformed belief, artists do not live in some ethereal world of pure aesthetic contemplation, happy to accept an occasional crust of bread for the privelege of dancing with their spiritual muse, and never did.

Van Gogh was a wacko and I'VE sold more of my paintings than Van Gogh ever did (contrary to popular belief, he did sell some paintings, but not many), so why even bring him up? Picasso, Rembrandt, Dali, etc, would be more realistic examples.

Thank you, plnelson, that was my point exactly. I have a day job but I am also a working musician. Music provides me with a significant portion of my income, and I work day in and day out with musicians who work hard to feed their families and make a living for themselves.

beyondipod, you have no right to tell us how to earn our living.

Promote creation of art.

The art is worth $1 million. A buyer can buy it for $1 million. If copies are produced, all the copies should have no royalties because the artist has been compensated for the creation of the art. Nobody buys the art because they are waiting for the first buyer who pays the $1 million.

Copyright is a way of controlling the distribution of copies so that the cost is spread over many people, so that people can afford it.

If the copyright expires, everyone after that point will be "freeloaders", however that is okay because the artist has already recouped the value of their art. It is like the example above where one person pays $1 million, except now the price is low enough so that the difference between the freeloader and the non-freeloader is only $1.

Also, getting $1 million immediately is better than getting $1 million over 50 years, even if inflation is taken into account. The balance is getting $1 million in as little time as possible, while still being almost fair to the people who pay compared to the freeloader.

The advantage of technology:

1 million people will buy it for $20, each including $1 royalties (CDs).
or
1.5 million people will buy it for $10, each including $0.67 royalties (Internet).

- More people will buy it if it is cheaper.

Scenario 2:
In 2 years, 1 million people will buy it for $20, each including $1 royalties (CDs).
or
In 1 year, 1 million people will buy it for $10, each including $1 royalties (Internet).

- The artist is compensated in less time.

Scenario 3: Assume people will pay $3 more for physical packaging.
In 2 years, 1 million people will buy it for $20, each including $1 royalties (CDs).
or
In 3 months, 125,000 people will buy it for $17, each including $8 royalties (Internet).

- The artist is compensated in 3 months!

Reality: Assume 75% of people are pirates.
In 8 years, 1 million people will buy it for $20, each including $1 royalties (CDs).
or
In 2.5 years, 500,000 people will buy it for $11, each including $2 royalties (Internet).

- The advantage of the Internet is that if people are already willing to pay $20 for a CD even with piracy around, then the royalties on Internet music can be doubled or even more, to provide a viable compensation model.

Advertising

Advertising is the worst thing in the world (exaggeration).
At the moment, there is no cutoff value for when royalties are stopped.
Advertising generates more sales, which means the artist is getting more than their art is worth. Getting either more or less than the art is worth will decrease creativity.
In an ideal world, instead of advertising, there would be a rating system so that the best music can be searched for, instead of relying on advertising which takes advantage of imperfect distribution of information. This relies on user reviews. What about non-popular music? There will be separate categories. You get the most popular of the genre of music that you like. Or you could always search for the worst music??? Well it's a lot more flexible since the music is rated instead of only knowing about who has the most advertising money.

I seem to have struck the wrong chord with some members here. I had been aloof, and had taken for granted that I was in the company of like minded people. HA exposure is international in nature and with 40,000 members, there is bound to be a diverse mix of views despite their common interest in audio technology. So, I should have been more sensitive to other opinions that may be different from mine. For this shortcoming I apologies. However, allow me to make clear my position on this issue so that no further misunderstanding may occur. I do not dictate that everyone should conform to my views. I only express my opinions and of course anyone who consume my views may either agree with me or reject it outright. I will respect your right regardless how you hold my opinions. I was asked a question and I responded out of obligation. It would appear that the tone of this discussion have turned into one that is best straightened out back channel but I can't do a one on one when there is more than one respondent and possibly more to come. So, here is a blanket apology if you will accept it. If not, I'll respect that too.

PS. The word "artist" comes from old French "artiste" that in turn comes from Medieval Latin "artista". I believe the form "artistes" is still used in the Queen's English, though I am not entirely sure as I am no expert of the English Language. Speaking of which, my perception of artistes or artists is this. Picasso, Rembrandt, Dali or even Da Vinci for that matter would not proclaim themselves as artists. They would rather describe themselves as painters, draughtsmen, composers, musicians and so on. The title artist as opposed to the literal meaning of the descriptive word is what the patrons of their arts call them. This is what I meant by "true artists", as in, "Senor Picasso, you are a true artist". Van Gogh didn't produce many works but neither did Rembrandt. Whatever their output, they embody the ideal of true artists. They do this trade out of pride because very few could achieve their level of artistry. They may do it for the fame but certainly not for the wealth. Wealth have a tendency to corrupt artistry. Even if wealth results, it is just an added bonus. Their dedication to their art is what sets them apart from mere self-proclaimed artists who do mediocre work primarily for monetary gains. This is why Rembrandt never rushed to finish his work even though pressured by debt. You don't rush art for money sake. I remember a letter published in an issue of National Geographic where a reader ticked off the writer of an article for comparing Kenny G with Miles Davis. The reader, obviously a fan of Davis was flabbergasted that such a comparison was made. He wrote, "How could you compare between the two? Miles Davis was an iconic artist who changed the direction of Jazz more than once. Kenny G on the other hand is just a saxophonist who played elevator music for profits" (or something to that effect). The term "elevator music" seem to drive the point home. The fact that the letter was published implied that the editors of the magazine saw some merit in the argument. I tend to agree too. Of course, you are free to disagree. I have no problem with that either.

It seems that you're making a distinction between artists you like (Picasso, Miles Davis, whatever) and ones you don't (Kenny G, whatever) in that the former are true artists who would be doing their craft without regard to money just because they loved it, and the latter group are phonies who only do it because they want to make money.

I think it's unwise to presume what someone's intentions are because odds are good that you're wrong. Maybe Kenny G or the latest pop fad band really is passionate about what they do and they work hard at it. What's more, maybe people like what they produce. What if a critically acclaimed and universally respected artist is really motivated by money? There have been none? The point is, these things are totally beyond our judgment and ultimately not worthy of speculation, let alone using as a basis for a new model of music economy.

For lack of a better phrasing, the "market" should decide what an artist is worth. But while I do think that the current RIAA system is lame, I don't think the solution is to get unlimited download "previews" and then paypal the artist what we feel they are "worth". In what other industry does that happen? None. Plnelson is right in that artists should be considered as any other professional. Good ones should make good money (though I think the superstar money should be eliminated entirely - nobody's that good) and bad ones should probably break even as long as they are working hard.

A slight but relevent aside:

I used to work at a recruitment agency. We would bring in <x> amount of workers for a factory or wherever, and charge them out at £15-£16UKP. Sometimes we couldn't get enough, so we went and subcontracted to other agencies for their temporary workers. Sometimes this level of indirection was 3 levels deep.

Regardless, the poor guys who actually went out and got the job got the minimum wage allowable by law, which at the time was £3.01, not a penny more.

Nowadays I see cleaning jobs advertised for minimum wage, which is about £5.61 I think. I asked around for my girlfriends mother to get a private gig doing this, and wasn't surprised to find the direct rates are about 5 times this.

When will you artists/artistes get it through your skulls that the level of indirection involved in the music industry means you will never ever earn a decent wage from it, unless you do it yourself. As previously stated, the only service the labels provide is essentially marketing. If you can't make money off it, then it's not a problem with the market or the customers - it's a problem with your business sense. You're no more artists than I am in my current gig as a Linux developer/sys admin. I won't make money from what I did today in 5 months time, never mind lifetime+70 years. While there is so much art in the world you are essentially a work for hire, not an artist. I hate the distinction and don't see much need for it these days, unless someone has good reasons for it that I haven't seen.

Again, I would pay an artist directly about £4 for the average downloaded album. Even more for a good one, like i did with the Radiohead release. Buying one from a store, or one of the current crappy online services isn't good enough, even if copying it does offend Jesus or make Him cry.

Dear singaiya,

I agree with you that odds are that one could be wrong when making such presumptions. However, I think it would be more the exception than the norm. It isn't hard to see what the artists intentions are. The quality of their work, how they perform live (do they lip sync?), their actions and words. I tend to view true artists as humble people who do not draw attention to themselves, only through their art. Though there are colourful artists like Elton John and Freddy Mercury but even their outlook is part of that artistic expression. Actually, I have no issues with Kenny G. I was only bringing to light what others think of the likes of Kenny G as opposed to the likes of Miles Davis. An opinion I happen to agree with. But what I do have issue is artists who gang up with RIAA and come out openly against file sharing. Their action is a clear indication of their intentions. They may be very good at what they do and have a huge fan base. But why the emphasis on money when they are already highly successful. So they can have a bigger private jet or castle? To me, these artists do not hold the ideals of true artists. Don't get me wrong. I am not implying that artists should lead a miserable life like Van Gogh. I believe that wealth would naturally follow the work of the artists if their work is appreciated in their lifetime. As you say, the market would determine the worth of their work. It is clear they need not aggressively seek it. To do so only corrupt their artistic direction.

On another note, I think you are confused about that kind of professionals some respondents here are referring to. To me, they are entertainers not necessarily artists though some of them may pass off as one. They are merely filling a market need for amusement. There is a distinction between the two. On one hand, the entertainer performs for profit. On the other, the artist produce a work regardless of whether the market will buy it or not. Jeff Buckley produced only one record before his untimely death at 30. He never found fame nor wealth during his lifetime. After his death, his sole record became multi-platinum. His rendition of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah made it into the Rolling Stones list of all time greatest song performance. But not all artists are so luckless like Van Gogh or Jeff Buckley. Good examples are Niccolo Paganini and Caruso, they found unprecedented fame and fortune during their lifetime. I don't agree that bad art could break even. I can't see anyone wanting to buy bad art. If they have no talent, they should quit and be a patron of the arts just like the rest of us. And contrary to your view of pay the artist what you think their work is worth, it has already happen. Radiohead's latest album, In Rainbow, at the moment is the highest profile for such a model. Even Paul McCartney has decided to quit EMI and think Radiohead's example is the way to go. Here is another example for a relatively unknown but you get the idea, Alun Parry Band.

seanyseansean, your views are interesting. I suppose for those reasons, there will always be a demand for agents or managers. Most artists just have no good business sense . Yes, doing it yourself is the better way to go. Here is what one technology buff at telegraph.co.uk says about the Radiohead model, "Can this work for smaller bands? Absolutely. Giving the music away drives demand for live shows, merchandise and subsequent releases. Fans will want to pay you something (and it may well be more than the meagre royalty a label would pay) and freeloaders may become fans later." He goes on to say, "Record labels survived for years on the value they added to the process. They made it possible for bands to make records and get them into the stores and then used their marketing weight to get those records played on the radio and featured in magazines. In the process they made enormous profits by overcharging fans and underpaying artists. They no longer add any value to the process. In fact, they act as a barrier between fans and musicians. It's time to move them out of the way and Radiohead have just showed us how."

And here is another interesting development, Trent Reznor said this on nin.com, "Hello everyone. I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate." He even argued that high pricing by the music industry made piracy justifiable.

"Steal it!" - Trent Reznor is honest and logical.

NIN sydney 16/9 trent's 'steal music' speech (from another angle)

Trent Reznor: No wonder people steal music

PS. Will RIAA sue this artist?

A Plea from Alun Parry.

Help Defend Jammie.

It is unfolding before RIAA. By the time they realize the full impact of it, it will be a torrent!

Saul Williams

IMO it would be better if an artist would provide some very low bitrate for prelistening (32kbps HEv2 AAC for example). Then artist can also decide how much his work is worth and give users opportunity to chose format after paying the amount.

From the link:



You can download it for free and then pay for a nicer encode if you like it. That'd be my way of doing it.

People don't really have the right to make a living from something they enjoy... Theres lots of people out there with dead end jobs... If an artist cant make a living by being an artist, then join the majority of society and do what it takes to get bread on the table.

Heck, I would really love to make a living from carving patterns in pencils full time. But since people don't want to buy my pencils I have to work at a greasy fast food joint... I still carve my pencils for enjoyment and I give them away to make people happy...

This post goes out to all those people who are full time artists and are complaining about how hard it is to get bread. If your not making enough money being a self employed artist... work for someone else for a while.

Wow, your first sentence is rather pessimistic, eh?

To play the devil's advocate somewhat....
Imagine that you COULD make a living selling your pencils because people really love them and want them and would absolutely pay good money for them thereby making you a rich person but they don't pay a thing because someone is making copies of your pencils and giving them away for free so there you are stuck flipping burgers.
How would you feel then?

That would go against the spirit of buskernomics. I would have liked Reznor to let the public decide. I am sure fans of Saul Williams and who are familiar with his work would have paid more in support of his work. And those who do not may just donate $5 or even $2 just to support the idea. It is interesting that they set the price at $5. I am sure Reznor never got as much as $5 from every NIN album sold. Anyway, the free version is at 192kbps, a higher bit rate than Radiohead's In Rainbow.

I think what vader897 meant to really say is that artists should not expect guaranteed wealth for their creation. And if they can't even make a living out of it, get a paying job which shouldn't be too difficult. Frankly, I wouldn't be too concern about anyone stupid enough to spend money making knockoffs and giving it away free. I would thank that idiot for making me more famous .

Indeed it is pessimistic... but its pretty close to realistic I think.

About your scenario, it has happened... read here http://amasci.com/maglev/lev/expose1.html a story about the injustice of the levitron patent, one of my fave toys as a kid.

Theres a difference between making a copy and saying its yours, and just making a copy... If someone were to copy my carved pencils and fob them off as their own then I would feel ripped off and cheated. However if they were to copy them, with my name left carved in, then I would think... free publicity.

Sharing music is like the later... the people who share music don't strip the mp3 tags and put there own name there.. Of course there are some mistakes in tags but overall the mp3s floating around on the net are pretty well labeled.



indeed thats what I meant. ta

There has been to date one empirical long term study of the effect of downloading on sales done by Profs of Economics with no dog in the fight. It was done for pure research purposes & the data subjected to a year or so of peer review before being published. It runs about 50 pages of mostly methodology and formulas that make my eyeballs cross, I've got a copy here somewhere.

Bottom line figure was approx 5,000 downloads = 1 lost sale. Assumption of sale is one of many major problems with industry figures - X amount of downloads = X amount of sales lost, which in reality simply doesn't hold up.

As far as smaller independent bands/labels go due to lack of backing/advertising/regional only/etc the hit they take is minute. The percentage of people who download an unknown to them artist to check it out simply because it happens to be listed on a torrent site is large and introduces them potentially to a new source of [music]. It is almost guaranteed that these individuals would never have heard this product in their lifetime if not for this action. Whether the choose to pay for further material from [artist] is then up to them.

The ability to peruse and sample titles from other regions/countries/etc is something that cannot reasonably be done in any other fashion, also. As is the downloading of out-of-print yet still copyrighted material.

Morally/ethically/legality are different animals entirely. If what you are doing is illegal in your area then you are breaking the law whether you agree with it or not. Like speeding on a freeway -- you take your chances. The industry will be going through some major changes in the next few years, methinks. I remember the same yelling and screaming from both sides with reel-to-reel, 8-tracks, cassettes, cds, right on down the line.

And yes, I'm a musician as was my late wife. We earned our money for many years through music, recording, etc.

Lot more points were made but that's some major ones.

Stumbled on this thread looking for something else (which Google said was here but I couldn't find, lol). If anyone is interested in the name(s)/etc of the professors who ran the study let me know here and I'll try to dig it up for you. I'll try to check back to see assuming I remember.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.



Take care,
zuper

Very interesting. Is this result including the number of "earned sales" as a result of downloading (people who buy albums they otherwise would've never heard of, like me?). In other words, is this the nett result?