You Can Make Money From Free
Dec. 17th, 2007 01:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksSo, it's always nice to hear about another band
getting the hint and figuring out that better distribution of music means
more fans which means more money from live shows and merchandising. These
guys aren't big -- or at least I've never heard of Big Head Todd and the
Monsters -- but just a few weeks ago 50 Cent was saying the same thing, and
one of my favorite bands, Abney Park, made a point a while back that they
don't need a recording label. And they don't. When you can distribute your
own music and promote yourself, what can a label offer you? It's even been
proven that it doesn't really have to be free -- people are more than
willing to pay about a dollar for tracks of known quality from a reputable
seller, will gladly choose non-DRM over the alternative, and file-sharing
doesn't hurt artists.
In related news, the CEO of Universal Music is an idiot. In
an interview, he readily admits that he doesn't understand anything about
technology, doesn't even know enough to hire people who can tell him about
technology, and laments the days when his job was easy and he could just sit
back and watch the money roll in. He's got some great quotes, too. From
the Techdirt article: When asked about giving up money now to be able to
make more later, Morris tells the interviewer that if you do that, then
"someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you." that line made me
thing of a Far Side comic: Anatidaephobia, the fear that somewhere, somehow,
a duck is watching you. It's mania is what it is. The best is when he
makes the analogy that file sharing is like having Coca-Cola coming out of
your kitchen faucet; how much would you be willing to pay for Coke? As the
Techdirt points out, that's a dumb analogy to make because people
have water coming out of their faucets, and still pay Billions
on bottled water. And that's not even really of known quality, just
dubiously-better quality.
One final point before I shut my trap on Intellectual Property for a bit.
There's A
Bill right now that's been lobbied for by the recording industry which
would apparently create a new government agency for the enforcement
of Copyright law, as well as make the penalties (which obviously aren't ridiculous
enough) even more harsh. Full disclosure: I generally think
Intellectual Property as a concept ought to be abolished. The laws, which
were enacted to ensure creators and innovators got credit and
reward for their work, now stifle innovation and punish people for
derivative works. Copyrights now outlive their creators by decades.
Perhaps a loose set of rights with a life of ten to fifteen years would be
alright, so that artists can still be sure they're going to get something
for their effort, but 50 Years?
Anyways, now I'm rambling. The final point was that even people
who are avowedly pro-IP are against this "pro-IP" bill, for many of the
same reasons I just quoted. Copyright is meant to be used as incentives to
create, not a cudgel to beat down competitors.
getting the hint and figuring out that better distribution of music means
more fans which means more money from live shows and merchandising. These
guys aren't big -- or at least I've never heard of Big Head Todd and the
Monsters -- but just a few weeks ago 50 Cent was saying the same thing, and
one of my favorite bands, Abney Park, made a point a while back that they
don't need a recording label. And they don't. When you can distribute your
own music and promote yourself, what can a label offer you? It's even been
proven that it doesn't really have to be free -- people are more than
willing to pay about a dollar for tracks of known quality from a reputable
seller, will gladly choose non-DRM over the alternative, and file-sharing
doesn't hurt artists.
In related news, the CEO of Universal Music is an idiot. In
an interview, he readily admits that he doesn't understand anything about
technology, doesn't even know enough to hire people who can tell him about
technology, and laments the days when his job was easy and he could just sit
back and watch the money roll in. He's got some great quotes, too. From
the Techdirt article: When asked about giving up money now to be able to
make more later, Morris tells the interviewer that if you do that, then
"someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you." that line made me
thing of a Far Side comic: Anatidaephobia, the fear that somewhere, somehow,
a duck is watching you. It's mania is what it is. The best is when he
makes the analogy that file sharing is like having Coca-Cola coming out of
your kitchen faucet; how much would you be willing to pay for Coke? As the
Techdirt points out, that's a dumb analogy to make because people
have water coming out of their faucets, and still pay Billions
on bottled water. And that's not even really of known quality, just
dubiously-better quality.
One final point before I shut my trap on Intellectual Property for a bit.
There's A
Bill right now that's been lobbied for by the recording industry which
would apparently create a new government agency for the enforcement
of Copyright law, as well as make the penalties (which obviously aren't ridiculous
enough) even more harsh. Full disclosure: I generally think
Intellectual Property as a concept ought to be abolished. The laws, which
were enacted to ensure creators and innovators got credit and
reward for their work, now stifle innovation and punish people for
derivative works. Copyrights now outlive their creators by decades.
Perhaps a loose set of rights with a life of ten to fifteen years would be
alright, so that artists can still be sure they're going to get something
for their effort, but 50 Years?
Anyways, now I'm rambling. The final point was that even people
who are avowedly pro-IP are against this "pro-IP" bill, for many of the
same reasons I just quoted. Copyright is meant to be used as incentives to
create, not a cudgel to beat down competitors.
