Lord T has an interesting post up on Amazon deleting Orwell's 1984 from e-readers. The quoted article said:
This is ugly for all kinds of reasons. Amazon says that this sort of thing is “rare,” but that it can happen at all is unsettling; we’ve been taught to believe that e-books are, you know, just like books, only better. Already, we’ve learned that they’re not really like books, in that once we’re finished reading them, we can’t resell or even donate them. But now we learn that all sales may not even be final.
Lord T commented:
The publishers etc. all insist on having absolute control and will insist that it is built into any platform their media is on. The Music and Film guys have exactly the same issue and it just goes on. You see I’m happy to buy a film, some music or a book but I get a bit miffed if it is cancelled or deleted even if I do get a refund from the publishers. Bearing in mind some people have bought DRM protected music and lost it all when the store closed down so getting a refund is a big step forward.
They need to accept that the world has moved on and people are looking at different things. I don’t want to buy a CD and not be able to play it in my car or on my computer because some rich music executive thinks I’m going to copy and sell it. Hell, I can get a free copy myself that will play anywhere if I want to. Thank you Mr Hacker.
In Russia, Microsoft, for example and other large firms, moved in a few years back and must have paid big bikkies because the next thing, stores were being raided all over the place and pirated copies became like hen's teeth after that. They'll come back again though or go underground in that hacker's paradise and everyone finds lateral solutions to the problems posed by the moguls.
The simple fact is that people like file sharing and don't want to fork out 99p for a download or whatever. That's what people want to do and that's what, despite the attempts made by big business to stop them, they are going to find a way to do. I made the point at Lord T's site [forgive the breach in quoting myself again]:
You’ve touched on a sore point here. I detest the way moguls prevent things. Look, if I like a film or album sufficiently, I’ll buy the DVD or CD because it has extra information and it’s nice to indulge in it.
But if I just want one song, I sure as hell am not going to buy a restricted DRM. It’s a bit like the ridiculous anti-pirate warnings at the beginning of films. I don’t want to sit through that guff and I resent the big brother approach which wastes a few valuable minutes of my life.
Market forces are at work here and people simply will not play the mogul "total control" game - we are not their pawns but people who want a bit of pleasure from life.
And as for draconian lawsuits by billionaire firms and the RIIA against individuals - that is so disproportionate, e.g. in 2008, RIAA suing nineteen-year-old Ciara Sauro for allegedly sharing ten songs online.
As of late 2008 they have announced they will stop their lawsuits and instead are attempting to work with ISPs who will use a three strike warning system for file sharing, and upon the third strike will cut off internet service all together.
This is little better. They should have no recourse in law against anyone who bought the original copy, provided it was not done as a rival commercial venture, nor should anyone benefitting from that be incommoded. If I want to share the album I bought with any number of friends, that is my business.
I don't illegally file share because I'm not enough into music and films and I don't have those sorts of friends - youtube covers my needs. But now I'm seriously thinking that complete civil disobedience over this might just break the stranglehold these moguls have.
All these badges and posters saying that stopping piracy supports the artist is tosh. It actually interests the file sharer in that artist's music and in my case, if I see a discounted copy at ASDA or wherever, I'll buy it. This article reports that:
The royalty rate paid to the artist for CDs and singles is a negotiated rate (called "record rate" or "regular rate"), usually 6-15 percent of the gross receipts. Some superstars will negotiate even higher percentages and often with a guaranteed minimum cash payment.
If the artist[s] were to receive a fair percentage - at least over 50% - of the sale on any one CD or DVD or whatever the new technology is, then fair enough. Knowing that the money was going to the artist, I'd be willing to play ball with the moguls.
But it's not, they're not and so I'm not.
.
I don't have the understanding to file share or to download music illegally[it's a wonder I know what file sharing is] but if I did-I'd be ripping off everyone.
ReplyDeleteWomen can't resist a saving,after all!
Saving is not shoddy.
ReplyDeleteSince 50% isn't going to the artist but instead to the people that made the artist a star, you'll steal...cool
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of humbug in the press on this subject, mostly thanks to the financial muscle of the recording industry.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that they invest a lot in new artists is a fallacy that was true 20+ years ago but the industry has got complacent and greedy. Ironically it was new technology in the form of CDs that contributed. As people replaced their vinyl collections with digital the industry could sit back and milk the fattened cow but now that market is contracting once more they can't accept that they are themselves to blame for the void left behind.
What they really fear is that artists can now record and distribute material without them on the internet, new technology allows this but is still a juvenile market. Most of the artists I listen to are not even available on CD/in a shop.
The reality is that the black market from Asia and Russia eclipses file sharing entirely but this is ignored because its harder to enforce and is not a direct threat to the business model in the way that a teenager in his bedroom with a torrent client is.
I knew you hadn't read it, Lord Nazh. "Since 50% isn't going to the artist but instead to the people that made the artist a star, you'll pay for your music," is what you should ahve said.
ReplyDeleteWolfie - it has become of concern to them recently and they have the ear of the Russian government and have carried out raids all over the country to stamp out the pirate market.
The problem is that the pirate market, in such a lawless country, has ways of going underground.
James, you are spot on.
ReplyDeleteThe business model formerly used by the suits in the record industry has failed because of changing technology, but they won't admit it.
We are entering an age where artists sell their own stuff and nobody needs Mr. and Mrs. Sony to take 80% of the profits. They'll need to get used to it.
As for the percentages quoted as going to the artists - well, in your dreams. The numbers may look like that for established well-known names who have built up a bit of clout, but for anyone getting started, they basically get nothing. They are given a notional advance - it may look like a large sum. But then all the costs of production, promotion, and everything are subtracted from it, and they got what's left. If that's nothing - well hard cheese, it's nothing. But the suits always get paid.
The system stinks and I am delighted it's falling about their ears.
"If the artist[s] were to receive a fair percentage - at least over 50% - of the sale on any one CD or DVD or whatever the new technology is, then fair enough. Knowing that the money was going to the artist, I'd be willing to play ball with the moguls."
ReplyDeleteIE. since it is not 'going to the artists' you will not feel bad about stealing.
Btw, it is stealing :)
M'lord, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the artist can receive upwards of 50% for the work.
ReplyDeleteMuch as I dislike the moguls, that's not logical - they do have costs of promotion, producing and distribution plus a reasonable cut which would make it seem worthwhile to promote that artist in the first place.
Indi labels are good but don't always have the worldwide access for "middling" artists.
Whether it is stealing or not is neither here nor there - if someone in the chain has paid, well and good.