> I've been in enough conversations with folks > who have the opposite point of view from me to know that neither of > us will change each other's minds. Feel free to change my mind! > In your binary number example above, if the license between the > artist and the label/CD manufacturer says that the numbers can only > be delivered to an end customer on a CD, then the end customer buys > the CD I think the problem for the general public here is one of perception and reality. They perceive that they own the music they have bought, rather than merely licence it. I guess the music business, along with book publishing, could have been the model for proprietary software licencing. > The problem with this whole mp3/kazaa thing is that it enable > playing multiple copies at the same time by different people in > multiple locations all for the price of one CD. This could be a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. The really big selling records - the only ones that the labels make decent money on - need to achieve a critical mass among listeners, either by radio or TV, or some other means. My theory is that the RIAA et al can see the value of p2p - it solves the problem of paying for large amounts of bandwidth inherent in the client/server model - but they want to preserve their 'right' to choose what people listen to. They've got the radio/TV thing pretty sewn up, then all of a sudden along comes this p2p thing and people want to buy - for example - Janis Ian CDs. That's not what the labels were pushing this year - and all the money they spent on hyping Maddona isn't going to be recouped in sales. The pattern for the major labels over the last few years has been - established artist/mega money multiple-album deal/sales OK but not brilliant/label panic. Look what happened to Mariah Carey, and could still happen to Robbie Williams. Some artists you just can't drop, because your label would collapse. I think this is the only reason Michael Jackson and Madonna - cash cows in the past - still have record deals. It sure as hell isn't on the merit of their recent work. I think this is a consequence of the fact that global media is an expensive game to be in, and depending on an artist to deliver the goods at the right time is always going to be a gamble. Past earnings are no guarantee of future performance, as the small print on stock market deals says. > I'm sure you can see that at the cost of building a > studio, recording the band, manufacturing the CD, getting radio > play, etc., there are a lot of people in the process and a lot of > hardware dollars that get used up. I run my own studio, albeit a small one, and it's a capital intensive business - for sure. > Taking the Kazaa thing to the > extreme, there will be exactly one CD sold, and then copies will be > given to everyone in the world for free to use whatever way they > want, but none of the dollars that were used to make the CD or the > studio or to pay the band are ever recovered and as a business it > all just fails. Unfortunately this is true even without Kazaa. That's why they have those big baskets of cheap CDs nobody wants in every record store. The fact is that in the old business model, you still had to give away a lot of free stuff to get your music heard. The difference is that now you don't have to make loss-leading singles, radio promos, etc etc. There are people with full time jobs at major record labels just giving away free stuff - called 'pluggers'. The cost of the old system is unfordable for a lot of musicians - godspeed you black emperor! pointed out that if each distributor in 20 countries demands 500 free CDs for plugging, then the band pays for 10,000 CDs out of its own pocket before they make a penny. Within the industry, there's a culture of 'free beer' where people expect to get CDs, overseas trips, VIP tickets and so on before they'll even listen to the music. I think the way forward is for labels to radically cut their expenses by ending the free beer culture, cutting out all the middlemen and being honest with musicians about the money. I think the major labels can see this, but it's a road they don't want to go down. > In my mind, using something I didn't pay for, or didn't pay the > money to the real owner, just isn't right. That seems only fair, on the surface. However, this begs several questions. Can you own a collection of compressed air, or a binary number? Who is the real owner of your culture? I'd probably side with the record industry on the question of payment, given the money it takes to record and distribute - rather than make - great music. However, the industry has an appalling record on both these points; making sure musicians get paid properly, and recognising their debt to the originators. In particular, I have a problem on this latter point with the UK's rock aristocracy, who made most of their money from ripping off black American music and selling it to white Americans in a more acceptable format. So for Mick Jagger or Eric Clapton to say I owe *them* money because they own 'their' music, I find particularly distasteful. > Theft is one word for > this if you actively seek out this property. Accepting stolen goods > might be another term if someone just gives it to me. Again, you're using phrases that originally related to things made of atoms. We wouldn't have had a musical tradition at all if music had always been treated as property. Don't forget that copyright was originally a bargain for short term exclusive distribution, not a permanent enclosure of human culture into a pay-per-listen 'experience'. > In any case, > I chose to take responsibility for my actions. I hope others will > to. Absolutely. My favoured business model - as a music lover - involves me asking to buy a CD direct from the artist. They'll keep about 9 pounds on a ten pound CD, which even after recording and mastering is paid for, is a sufficient profit margin to make a living out of. If they don't want to deal with CD distribution, and concentrate on their music, I'd respect that - but so far no-one's turned me down... If the band or artist becomes too famous to handle the volume of requests for CDs (which is only going to happen in a minority of cases), they'll have no trouble getting a distribution deal. The control of the career remains with the artist though. > If you want your code to be > licensed a certain way, that's you're right. If they want their > code to be licensed a different way, that's their right. Hopefully > the courts will protect the both of you. The problem is that the old model requires artists to surrender their copyright to the label in order to (have the chance to) make a living. So it's not what the artist wants, it's how the label wants to licence 'their' property. > Hopefully it will > prosecute those who harm the both of you. I'd rather the courts were used for real crimes, instead of defending an obsolete and unfair business model. Seeing as I don't claim exclusive ownership of my own culture, I'm not sure how I could justify sending someone to prison for 'stealing' it. > I think we could offer a perspective that says GPL code should only > be protected if it's delivered on paper? If it's delivered over the > internet, and then used in any way the person who has it wants it, > then that's fair, right? ;-) It's not about formats - it's about fundamental principles. > The radio station pays a royalty to the label for the right to play > the music. Sure - but did the labels get together with Napster and work out a royalties model for copyrighted material on p2p? First Napster was sued, then it was bought out. So better p2p systems came along... The labels have had 15 years to figure out the internet, and ten years to figure out the web. Frank Zappa even laid out the business model for music downloads (in his autobiography) even before the technology was available. That we've now reached the point where students are getting sued for their life savings - and in Australia, facing five years in prison - proves the industry just didn't want to change. Cheers Daniel
