Book on Music, Liberty and the Internets

TimMasonTimMason
edited February 2010 in General
Music and Cyberliberties by Patrick Burkart has been recommended to me as a good study of what has happened to music distribution over the last few years. I haven't read it myself yet, but you might want to check a copy into your local library.

Comments

  • selfrisinmojoselfrisinmojo
    edited February 2010
    should be interesting.

    i would be interested in the general consensus amongst emusers on the subject of visiting the murkier waters
    to obtain music too obscure to be found elsewhere or only available used and overpriced? (obscure 60s/70s for example)

    edit: glaringly bad grammar
  • amclark2amclark2
    my opinions:

    legally: in the U.S. this murkier waters stuff is definitely illegal - out if print does not mean out of copyright, so there is a legal violation.

    safety (legal): it seems that any powers that be have, to this point at least, only been interested in going after people who provide the stuff, not the downloader, and it would seem that the downloader, even if someone did go after him/her, is only going to be liable for what they downloaded - a huge difference in making you pay for a few albums v. a few thousand copies provided to others.

    safety (computer): I won't go anywhere near file-sharing or bit torrents or any of that. Maybe I'm too paranoid. But I have found that with some patient use of google I can almost always find somebody offering the thing on a blog, which I usually consider safe because the blogger is offering it for love of the music. There could be exceptions though I'm sure...

    ethically: if something is not reasonably available elswhere (and I don't mean the new Joanna Newsome album which is available, just that people disagree with her price), especially from an artist that I have or will support otherwise, I personally don't have a huge problem with this. It is fantastically easy to make music available for sale, so there's really no excuse for this stuff to be out of print.
  • frogkopffrogkopf
    edited February 2010
    I dunno, it might have some valid and interesting points to make, but the pretentious post-modern academe-speak makes me want to hurl....

    Musicians and music fans are at the forefront of cyberliberties activism, a movement that has tried to correct the imbalances that imperil the communal and ritualistic sharing and distribution of music.

    I've been in Academe for the last 25 years, and when someone starts talking like this I don't know whether to snicker out loud or give them a serious beating.
  • frogkopffrogkopf
    edited February 2010
    ditto on amclark's post.

    edit: I meant that I agree with amclark's points, not that they made me want to hurl...
  • selfrisinmojoselfrisinmojo
    i am pretty damn ignorant when it comes to this stuff.
    i've been curious about the safety of the blogspots and the use of rapidshare, megaupload etc.

    for the sake of discussion, aside from the cost, what is the difference (ethical or otherwise) between the blogs and the thousands of used music dealers selling stuff on Amazon or other "legal" sites? (assuming that the original artists do not benefit from either transaction)

    speaking of hurl, has anyone else noticed the abundant use of vomiting as a dramatic device?
  • amclark2amclark2
    in the U.S., (I don't know about elsewhere) you can legally sell any physical copy that you own, so sale of used stuff is legal. Ethically, buying and selling used does not benefit the artist, except that maybe you might discover someone and spend more money on them later, and I guess maybe there's a certain environmental ethic to it too - if not for the used cd market, it would all be in landfills. But also selling a used disc moves one copy of that disc, depriving the artist of one sale. Even if people rip and then re-sell, the artist loses a lot lot lot less than if its up online somewhere where thousands can download in a day.
  • DoofyDoofy
    Book or CD = physical object, which you own and can dispose of as you please. Similarly for car, couch, cat, etc.

    MP3 or ebook = intellectual property, which you cannot reproduce for anybody's use but your own. You also can't reproduce the book or CD, of course. Though it would be awesome if someone would pirate *this* book! How you like that, Mr Cyberliberties?

    I'm with amclark on P2P, torrents, etc. Seems unhygienic. I've been kind of surprised that copyright holders don't go after mp3 bloggers (though they do shut them down from time to time). And of course, some mp3 blogs have developed into perfectly legitimate promotional outlets.
  • NereffidNereffid
    @amclark2: "But also selling a used disc moves one copy of that disc, depriving the artist of one sale. Even if people rip and then re-sell, the artist loses a lot lot lot less than if its up online somewhere where thousands can download in a day."

    In fairness I think that sentence needs a couple of "potentially"s. If I buy a used disc it's often because I wouldn't buy it at full price. So in those situations the artist hasn't lost a sale at all. Obviously everyone's not me, and overall, yes, the artist is deprived of sales because of used discs and downloads, but it's not a one-to-one correspondence.

    As regards selfrisinmojo's original query about "music too obscure to be found elsewhere or only available used and overpriced", my attitude's always been, there's plenty more fish in the sea. If I can't get something legally or at a price I'm willing to pay, I'll just buy something else instead.
  • kargatronkargatron
    If one considers the old-fashioned concept of a single sale is made in exchange for a single recipient's use, a used sale doesn't "deprive" the producer (artist) of a sale at all - the artist made one sale, and one person has use of it (that more than one person separately had control of it over time is not ethically relevant). Of course, if the original owner makes a copy then sells it, there are issues (as then there are >1 users for 1 sale). But used sales certainly aren't inherently ethically problematic. This particularly applies to music, which typically undergoes multiple uses in a recording's lifetime.

    Books are worse, actually - they are most often read only once, so a used sale (a longstanding tradition most people have never challenged) does statistically/partially deprive the author of a sale (2 reads for one sale, when most sales are for one read).
  • DoofyDoofy
    Books are worse, actually - they are most often read only once, so a used sale (a longstanding tradition most people have never challenged)

    Well...of course not. Does selling your used car deprive Toyota of a sale? I'm sure they'd like it if everybody were required to buy a new car every time, but that ain't the way it works. Not even to mention libraries, where people can read books for nothing!

    The issue is reproduction, not reselling. Selling your CD (even at a profit) is perfectly kosher. Ripping it first and then selling it (as I'm sure lots of people do these days), not so much.
  • amclark2amclark2
    In fairness I think that sentence needs a couple of "potentially"s. If I buy a used disc it's often because I wouldn't buy it at full price. So in those situations the artist hasn't lost a sale at all. Obviously everyone's not me, and overall, yes, the artist is deprived of sales because of used discs and downloads, but it's not a one-to-one correspondence.

    This is true - I didn't think of that - it's like two people cooperating to buy one thing.

    Another reason that buying used doesn't bother me is because the used cd market tends a lot more toward big label big artist kind of stuff - not that they don't deserve money - but I feel less bad for someone who has plenty.
  • NereffidNereffid
    I don't know much about the economics of selling cds and books, but presumably used stores have been around long enough that there's an implicit, or maybe even an explicit, taking-into-account of the fact that some percentage of new cds and books will be resold, and the industry is able to live with the situation. Perhaps in a few decades' time a similar sort of approach will be feasible as regards file-sharing. Or maybe the scale of it is just too great.
  • kargatronkargatron
    Doofy:
    The issue is reproduction, not reselling.
    No, amclark2 specifically raised the issue of reselling, and I was addressing only that bit. The bit about depriving authors of sales can be seen if the whole purchase scenario was a one-read Mission-Impossible-self-destruct kinda scenario - a scenario that actually wouldn't affect that many readers, because most only read a book once - the point being such a scenario wouldn't be far from just selling book copies as now (for most readers). In that scenario, a sale would correspond to a single read, and other readers would have to purchase from the author to read on their own.

    Regarding libraries, I do consider them ethically questionable concerning authorial compensation - I don't doubt that libraries contribute to sale-deprivation for at least some authors (the more popular ones - hard to say about less popular ones). Libraries exist the way they do because of their age - starting the concept today, they would not resemble current ones in a copyright environment. At the least, there would be per-rental fees associated with them (which I support anyway).
  • thomnottomthomnottom
    I'll start off by saying that since the actions of the music industry have historically had little concern with what was right ethically or even legally, I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who downloads 10,000 albums to their iContraption and doesn't pay a cent for any of them. This is not an argument of convenience. This is not an argument of justification. It's simply a matter of being tired of the transgressions of corporations being looked over by the government, law enforcement, and even public opinion.

    When the record labels decided that ethics and laws only needed to be followed to their benefit, I decided that they only needed to be followed when it was to our benefit.

    More to come later, but a foot of snow beckons.
  • amclark2amclark2
    I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who downloads 10,000 albums to their iContraption and doesn't pay a cent for any of them.

    I don't know that I necessarily have any qualms with that person either - just don't want to take the inherent risks of being that person.
    More to come later, but a foot of snow beckons.

    You too? I spent a good two hours shovelling this morning.
  • kargatronkargatron
    edited February 2010
    I don't really follow the 'evil corporation' logic. Whether you care or not about corporate suffering, the artist loses money either directly (through sales losses) or indirectly (through less profitable future contracts due to corporate losses) when the music is "stolen". Now, maybe you think they deserve it by being in bed with the evil corps, but I find that pretty unconvincing. Maybe you think that there's a greater good, driving the artists away from corporate incentives to self-release or drive them to alternative profit models or whatever, but if so, those ethical calculations should be detailed, and don't fall under the 'evil corp' logic at all.
  • selfrisinmojoselfrisinmojo
    edited February 2010
    I do not advocate the blogs that carry the obscure, out of print music that no one is likely to ever reissue. (I tried one once, got myself a bellyful of virus and never returned).
    I do find it hard to condemn them though, as far as I know (and that ain’t very far) they are not making any money sharing music that people may not hear otherwise. Are they any less ethical than the used dealers, the collectors market or the ostensibly reputable mail order outlets (Midnight, Metro etc)-who play fast and loose with the “import” and “reissue” definition-that are (or were) making money?

    In my opinion, currently available and music in print is a totally different beast.

    @amclark2’s environmental angle:
    Unfortunately, regardless of the used market, there are thousands if not millions of bad ideas, serious missteps and one hit wonders committed to CD that are still headed for the landfill.
  • thomnottomthomnottom
    @amclark2 - I could barely find anywhere to put the snow this time.

    I have to admit, I'm surprised so many people are worried about the "safety" of gray/black market downloads. Maybe it's just my tech background, but I haven't actually had a virus on my system since '96 (got it from a floppy). And you don't want to know how many terabytes of suspect d/ls have gone through my system.

    @kargatron - I'll be honest, I've stopped buying the whole "artists' compensation" angle myself. If anybody is really concerned about that, they certainly wouldn't be buying digital downloads anyway but directly from the artists. And if those aren't available it would be new CDs all the way.

    It's not strictly an "evil corporation" thing, it's a "the system is broken" thing. The labels have been downright abusive with the support of both governments AND artists. It's amazing to me how many people I meet in music who completely ignore any kind of independent distribution because signing with a major label is the only way to make the big money. If the artists are so willing to buy into a system that marginalizes them on the off chance that they become one of the very few millionaires, why should I care?

    If there's a greater good to be done, it's the entire music industry and the insane copyright laws that support it being overhauled.
  • Bad ThoughtsBad Thoughts
    How does licensing figure into this? Lala's model suggests it is possible to separate the license from actual ownership of the music as well as having access to the music in different formats (if I rip a CD to my hard drive, I can access it on their website). Indeed, is there some legal problem with retaining access after the music has been deleted and the CD sold?
  • JFLLJFLL
    "selling a used disc moves one copy of that disc, depriving the artist of one sale."

    What about lending a disc to somebody? I suppose you could say that possibly deprives the artist of a sale, but it's legal (isn't it?) I'm always surprised that libraries can lend CDs and DVDs. OK, they charge, but I thought the proceeds went into their own coffers (and by God, they need it).
  • choiceweb0pen0choiceweb0pen0
    I read Ripped by Greg Kot that sounds like it deals with similar issues and basically notes that the major labels passed on getting into MP3's at the ground floor and has never quite gotten over it. Also touches artists like Radiohead that eliminated the middleman or sampled music like Girl Talk. Worth a read, though some of it probably won't be new to folks on this board.
  • brittlebloodbrittleblood
    scenario: 2 y/o ipod saunters into sony headquarters and plugs itself into the company docking unit and goes about a random broadcast of its contents.

    cathy in marketing is off colluding with werner so its a case of the cats away the meece will play.

    walfus in the conservation lab, uncomfortable in a relaxed setting, begins to stew about the brow. circumstances continue to deteriorate as he knocks an entire lab-tray of watermarks from the lab-counter onto the lab-linoleum. i am stainless! shouts the lab-tray as it braces for impact with the lab-linoleum. gravity forgives no one

    the watermarks, for their part, become glib at the chance to stain and beeline down the freight elevator shaft, seeking out docking unit and - to them - the holy grail.

    qwynwyn - walfus' geeky, bespectacled lab-partner - appears at walfus' side and the two cast a mad-glance at the overturned tray.

    o walfus! what have you done???

    the last of the watermarks is seen jumping down the shaft.

    they'll go right past legal! we need to get down there fast and distract them. c'mon walfus! hurry! the two awkwardly join arms and enter the stairwell and immediately descend...
Sign In or Register to comment.