19 Comments

1. Haven’t this lot got enough money already? Greedy c**ts.

2. Old farts whining again…

3. Jahn and Alain: WRONG! This is not just about them! It is about all musicians. Most of whom are not famous. Most of whom live at the poverty level. And thats mostly thanks to ignorance of people like you.
   These musicians have no voice in any of this. They are not famous, so no one will listen to them. So the famous have to speak not just for themselves but for all hard working musicians (and creators).
   Remember: It’s their work and not yours. And this applies to the famous and infamous alike.
   You know who’s greedy? All the tech industries who are making money off of the creations of other without fair compensation. I don’t see you criticizing for all the advertising money they are making off allowing illegal downloads of other peoples work. That’s why they are so adamant at “keeping the internet free”. so they can keep up their expensive lifestyles gained from the work of others! I don’t see you calling them (to quote Jahn) “Greedy c**t”.
   David Lowery was right: YOU ARE THE FIRST GENERATION TO “UNSTICK IT TO THE MAN”
   I Hope your proud of yourselves.
   http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

4. Also, The Jahn’s position ‘haven’t they gotten enough money’… is a little bit like saying that for any business: “Hasn’t Target gotten enough money? They should be giving away everything free by now”. If that was the way things went, would we have any more Target? (or substitute ‘Target’ with ANY business name or person who makes a living doing anything).

5. Alain,
   You’re kidding yourself if you think Simon Cowell and co are doing this for the little man.
   It is really tough for up and coming bands now, but none of this stuff really affects them. Just look at the list of names (and titles) on this list and think again.

6. Sorry Alain, I meant TJR

7. I doesn’t matter if Simon Cowell is doing this for “The little man” or not. Because all musicians will benefit from it. The rich ones the poor ones. The famous and the not famous. The have and have nots.
   If the little guy writes the British Government (or any Government) no one will listen. So irregardless of their motives, the rest of us need them to stand up do this.
   Yes, it really is tough for up and coming bands and middle class musicians everyone. We are the bulk of the music community (the 99 percent so to speak). And it’s being made even worse by the ignorance of “Free Culture” that people like you and Alain are spreading. Weather you realize it or not, you are the shill for the mega rich tech corporations. You are lining their pockets. They have duped you. You are unsticking it to the man at the expense of the 99 percent of all musicians out there.
   You can’t say this doesn’t affect them. IT DOES.
   I have to give you credit though: with comments like “greedy c***ts” I didn’t think you’d be man enough to actually respond back, but you did. So I give you credit. It’s the Tech corporations like the ISPs, the Kimdotcoms, and the Pirate Bay that you should be calling that people like you and Alain should be calling the “Greedy Bastards”, and not the 99 percent of struggling musicians.
   BTW: How do you know that musicians like Elton John and Brian May aren’t thinking of the little guy too? Do you know these people personally?
   I don’t know Elton John, but I have read countless time where he has gone out of his way to help talented musicians who haven’t been as fortunate in life and in business as him.

8. Perhaps its time to start thinking outside the box. A good read –
   http://mimo.recordingconnection.com/music-piracy-emily-white-and-the-ethical-debate-over-music-ownership-part-1/961079/

9. TJR…I see you’ve bought into the starving artists story hook, line and sinker. The problem 99% of artists face isn’t piracy though, it’s exposure. The only thing these anti-copying laws do is help the 1% retain their power.
   What we’re really talking about here is artificial scarcity. We have imposed artificial scarcity on music (and all other forms of ideas) in an attempt to encourage innovation, yet material progress is made precisely because ideas are not scarce. They can be infinitely multiplied, learned, taught, and built on. The more ideas that are known, the greater the wealth multiplier as individuals engage in ever more efficient and productive actions. It is good that ideas are infinitely reproducible. There is no need to try to impose artificial scarcity on ideas to make them more like physical resources, which — unfortunately — are scarce. You can imagine the day comes when someone invents a matter-copying machine – will we impose legislation to punish people who make a copy of someone’s food, clothing, or medicine?
   Anti copying laws are becoming more and more outdated and unenforceable. It will never become more difficult to copy something than it is now. Computers will continue to be able to store more data and share it with other computers at ever increasing speeds. Reformation is necessary and it is inevitable. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can realize the benefits of an open and free internet, and the free exchange of ideas.

10. The only material progress, innovation, and infinitely reproducible ideas that TJR, the signatories of the UK letter, and their sympathizers are interested in are those which immediately and directly enrich their bank accounts, preferably with as little ongoing creative effort as possible.
    You’re a fool if you believe these people can be persuaded by arguments based on the contrivance of artificial scarcity or the greater public good. They don’t care. They just want their f’ing money until 70 years after they’re dead. Their m.o., to this end, is erecting barriers to the natural exchange of musical ideas they’ve released into the world, and attacking, shaming, and extorting from music consumers who aren’t opening their wallets to the degree demanded. Simple as that.

11. @ TheEducator:
    This exposure argument is WEAK.
    Musicians can ALREADY GET ALL THE EXPOSURE THEY CHOOSE through the internet. AND IF THEY WANT TO GIVE AWAY SONGS FOR FREE THEY CAN!
    They can upload their songs to Bandcamp
    They can upload to Soundcloud
    They can post their songs to Youtube
    The list goes on and on, but is their,……I REPEAT, THEIR CHOICE!
    IT ISN’T YOURS
    IT ISN’T THE PIRATE BAYS
    IT ISN’T TECH INDUSTRIES
    It has, and it always should be the content owners choice
    NOT YOU
    Keeping the right to decide how and when your creations are distributed is not going to stop the flow of ideas, It is not going to stifle creativity, it will not make the internet any less open or free.
    It will make the internet more ethical
    PS And “IF” we ever do create a “Star Trek” style matter replicator that can replicate anything, and “IF” they are made available to all people to use as they need without cost, (These are some pretty big “ifs”) then I am sure that all content creators, film makers, musicians, artists, craftspeople, etc will not care if you make all creative works available for free on the internet because we will no longer need them for things like food, shelter, clothing, materials, etc.
    BUT UNTILL then we need to make a living like everyone else on this plant.
    PPS You are either the dupe of the wealthy tech industries or you are their plant
    PPPS Or you are just one of the thousands out their who justifies taking what wasn’t offered for free in the first place (we call it stealing) with the rhetoric of the tech industries.

12. @ JAHN: I have already read this. This article is so weak and full of ethical holes it’s not funny.
    I think Emily means well, but she has just listened to so much Tech industry Kool aide she’s forgotten basic ethics.
    Read this rebuttal to Emily’s letter (I posted it, and quoted it in my initial post)
    http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
    PS: We are already moving towards what she is suggesting at the end of the article.

13. At Omillias: It’s really hard to respond to such a poorly made argument.
    Let’s try quoting you:
    “The only material progress, innovation, and infinitely reproducible ideas that TJR, the signatories of the UK letter, and their sympathizers are interested in are those which immediately and directly enrich their bank accounts, preferably with as little ongoing creative effort as possible”.
    ….And you know this because?
    And when did it become wrong to want the money that is owed to you for the work you have done?
    Let’s quote you again….
    “You’re a fool if you believe these people can be persuaded by arguments based on the contrivance of artificial scarcity or the greater public good. They don’t care. They just want their f’ing money until 70 years after they’re dead. Their m.o., to this end, is erecting barriers to the natural exchange of musical ideas they’ve released into the world, and attacking, shaming, and extorting from music consumers who aren’t opening their wallets to the degree demanded. Simple as that”.
    No one forces you to buy anything. No music company has ever put a gun to your head and extorted you to buy anything. If you don’t want it, don’t pay for it.
    If you feel that a record label is forcing you to buy their artists entire CD by not making their single you want available separately, then live without out it.
    But it should be content owners right (and no one else’s) to decide how their content should be distributed.
    You wouldn’t want me going to your Facebook profile and taking YOUR personal pictures that YOU have posted (in other words, “your content”)
    and use it for my own personal commercial gain, now would you?
    Or even worse, use it to promote a political, or religious philosophy that you disagree with?
    Of course you wouldn’t.
    You wouldn’t want me to do that to the content you have created (IE: Your photos that you posted on Facebook) any more than musicians want you to do it to theirs.
    PS Read your tech dirt profile. Interesting insight into how you think.
    “It is a well-kept secret that most artists have sources of income aside from the royalties they receive based on consumers purchasing new copies of their work”.
    What kind of nonsense is this? THIS IS NO SECRET. Any good business person creates multiple sources of income. That’s why most middle class working musicians teach, play cover gigs, license our original songs for film and TV. (There is little money to be made touring anymore unless you are famous), but just because we have other sources of income doesn’t mean our content should be shared (IE Given away) in ways that we did not authorize.
    “Shaming consumers for their spending choices is attacking them, and is a business strategy best left to televangelists and other con artists. Even if you are on the moral high ground, you undermine your cause when you resort to such tactics”.
    No one in music is trying to shame you or force you to buy anything (But you might be subconsciously shaming yourself).

14. If artist’s want to keep the copyright’s of the song’s they have written – they should be allowed to, with a reduced advance of course.Artist’s who were / are signed to EMI who will probably be Universal artist’s should have the right to buy back their copyright or allowed to walk away from any contract committment’s they had with EMI & having a controlling interest over the coyright they initially signed over to EMI (not saying Universal shouldn’t get part of any copyright earnings).Until we get to a stage like that I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT.
    Copyright was designed to protect artist’s earning’s / give artist’s security to keep creating.Copyright often work’s the opposite way when the Record label’s have the controlling interest.Record releases are held back for years or never released sometimes against artist wishes – how is that helping creativity when the artist isn’t allowed to earn a living from his own work.Advances don’t last for ever.Some artist’s are forced into lengthy hiatus against their own will at times as well.Major record label’s are just quasi-bank’s trying to maximise their profits nothing else.

15. The dinosaurs called, they want their mascots back.

16. So you’re digging through my TechDirt profile in order to tack on some ad hominem, as if the points you cherrypicked to rail against are in any way relevant to the argument I made? Have fun with that.
    Let’s get back on topic. I stated that this particular class of musicians (and other content creators) generally don’t care about or find particularly persuasive any arguments based on artificial scarcity, human nature, and manifestations of the greater public good, be it through limitations on copyright, file sharing, or whatever. Their personal, financial interest in the here-and-now trumps all of those other concerns; they see those issues as lofty, philosophical concerns that only matter to pirates, even though another class of artists, myself included, consider it pragmatic to treat them as very real issues which temper—but don’t necessarily eliminate—our expectations of the public.
    This isn’t a particularly contentious observation that needs sources cited. Some creators are evidently in it for the money, or at least get understandably quite resentful when their ability to potentially profit from their work is undermined in any way, to any degree, by the public. This is more important to them than, say, acknowledging and working around public resistance to artificial scarcity, and that’s their prerogative.
    Since you completely sidestepped this, and instead yammered on about the moral rectitude of the artist’s apparently unlimited entitlement to payment, you utterly proved my point. Thank you!
    Since I’m feeling plucky, I’ll go ahead and respond to one of your completely off-topic reactions to my TechDirt profile. “just because we have other sources of income doesn’t mean our content should be shared” — Had I actually said such a thing, you’d be justified in ridiculing it. However, as I think is pretty clear from the parts you didn’t quote, I merely consider it disingenuous when, in an attempt to shame and guilt-trip consumers who aren’t paying enough, it is claimed that copying or listening to music without buying—be it via CD ripping and space-shifting, streaming your paid-for content to other devices over the Internet, watching YouTube videos, illegal file-sharing, or legal secondhand sales—is “stealing” and leaves musicians and their families “starving in the streets”, as if more than the luckiest handful of musicians are living solely off of first-sale royalties. There was no “therefore everyone should share and never pay for music” claim made or implied. I merely point out that the financial harm to artists is often exaggerated.

17. Why is Simon Cowell’s name at the top of the list? What has he ever created?

18. Your post is a convoluted mess, but I will do my best to respond.
    1 I didn’t find it fun to “Go digging through your tech dirt profile” As you put it. But I did find it insightful into how you reach your conclusions. So for that reason I did find it relevant. Which is why I tried to address some of what you said in your profile.
    2 quoting from your profile and addressing some it doesn’t prove that you are right. It just proves that you didn’t read the thread fully. I didn’t sidestep anything, because I addressed the very issue you bring up earlier in the thread. I figured I didn’t need to repeat myself. Go back and read the thread and see for yourself.
    3 I have to address the following quote from you “Since you completely sidestepped this, and instead yammered on about the moral rectitude of the artist’s apparently unlimited entitlement to payment, you utterly proved my point. Thank you!”
    I NEVER “yammered on about the moral rectitude of the artist’s apparently unlimited entitlement to payment”
    I do not believe that artists are “entitled” to make money just because they create. I believe they have a right to fair compensation when others use their work for their own financial gains. I also believe that content creators have right to decide how their content is distributed. That is why I made the facebook comparison with you.
    Take the money out of this argument and you still have the plain and simple FACT that in an ethical world, that only the content creator should be allowed to decide how their work is distributed. I said this to you the last time and you distorted it into something it wasn’t.
    3 Here is the next quote I am going to respond to: – “Since I’m feeling plucky, I’ll go ahead and respond to one of your completely off-topic reactions to my TechDirt profile. “just because we have other sources of income doesn’t mean our content should be shared” — Had I actually said such a thing, you’d be justified in ridiculing it” –
    Well you sure seemed to imply it. Using words like “It’s well kept secret that musicians have other sources of income” was laughable because this is NOT A SECRET. It was like saying, “You see it’s ok if we don’t compensate them for their royalties because they have other sources of income”.
    Now maybe that’s not what you meant but it sure reads that way.
    4 Here’s the next quote I want to address: “I merely consider it disingenuous when, in an attempt to shame and guilt-trip consumers who aren’t paying enough, it is claimed that copying or listening to music without buying—be it via CD ripping”and space-shifting, streaming your paid-for content to other devices over the Internet, watching YouTube videos, illegal file-sharing, or legal secondhand sales—is “stealing” and leaves musicians and their families “starving in the streets”.
    Why would anyone shame you for ripping the CDs you paid for? Or streaming the content you paid for, or legal 2nd hand sales? Or watching videos on youtube? Youtube has already worked out a system option where copyright holders can control the situation by either monetizing the videos people post that uses their content, have it taken down, or do nothing at all…..But you see, YouTube has left that decision to the content creator and not someone else so there is no problem here.
    Now the illegal file sharing is another matter. It’s ethically wrong. Once again, it feels like you are shaming yourself subconsciously.
    5 Here is the last quote I want to respond to: “I merely point out that the financial harm to artists is often exaggerated”.
    It doesn’t matter if you think that these claims are exaggerated or not. Because it doesn’t change the fact that nobody but the content creator should have the right to decide how their work is distributed.
    It also doesn’t matter if Simon Cowell and company are only in it for the money. Because (surprise, surprise) it doesn’t change the fact that nobody but the content creator should have the right to decide how their work is distributed.
    All I hear is excuses, and I don’t hear an argument to convince me that anyone else but the content creator should have the right to decide this.
    You know for some time now, I have read articles like the one above and read ignorant comments from people who cry out things like “greedy bastards” and “aren’t they rich enough”?
    And I have wanted to challenge them, but have stayed out of it because. Quite frankly I have work to do, and that people like you are not the decision makers. You are just the dupes of the tech companies that want to profit off the work of others and that there are more important battles to fight.
    But yesterday I had the day off and time to actually get into the thick of it so to speak. I am glad that I did. It’s been invigorating.
    Respond if you like. I WILL read it, if you do. But I will not respond. I have top much work to get to.

19. TheEducator, do you think Intel and Google should be forced to share their ideas with the rest of the world for nothing in exchange? Do you think they will benefit? Will society as a whole? I doubt it. As for your example about food, etc., there are laws that cover “matter”. Think drug laws (you develop a pill that helps whatever, that idea is protected). Yes, patents and copyright are different, but they achieve the same end: letting creators have sole benefit of their creations for a period of time. Granted, copyright lasts for too long and for no good reason, so I would be for scaling back the length of time it protects people, but not repealing it.

Comments are closed.