Justin Frankel of Reaper - Featured in Time Article .

[TAFKAT]

Interesting read.

The Men Who Stole the World : (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2032304_2032746_2032903-1,00.html)

[ROCKINROG]

Just goes to show ya that it's not all about piracy but freedom. It's just like what we did in the 70's when taping someone's LP's only now it's easier and on a grander scale. ;>)

[kdm]

Taping someone else's album was theft then, and it still is. Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.

Very bright guys no doubt, but I can't say I agree that what they have done for the world is necessarily good for all. I'm also not sure they really understand that the seemingly "free the people of the industry" mindset just ends up hurting artists, musicians, and composers trying to make a living.

These guys changed the internet, but just like with copy protection, the people who really end up paying for it aren't some nebulous evil corporation somewhere (that doesn't really exist), but people just like you and me. I make my living at music 100% and can say from personal experience that piracy doesn't hurt my income nearly as much as the "free/cheap music for all" mindset does - i.e. the mindset many musicians think is wonderful for them (it isn't).

It creeps into the budget thinking at lower levels of the industry, then works its' way up in the form of devaluation of artists' work, and hence pay rates and music budgets decline, and an entitlement mindset replaces actual respect for skill and talent that is due a reasonable wage. I'm fortunate to have a quality clientele, but I've watched solid pro music markets evaporate over the last 10 years, and this is just the beginning.

In years to come, the the concept of professional musicians, writers, artists, composers, painters, etc won't exist - all but a tiny few will be relegated to hobby status. Musicians that actually get paid will be working for corporate marketing departments making $20-$30k/year. I can see film and high end games taking a huge hit in the coming years as well.

I know people in many levels of the entertainment industry, and not one of them is evil, greedy or out to rob consumers or artists. But all of them (myself included) have been hit by losses from this trend. Some are no longer in the music/entertainment industry and have had to find other means of income (incredibly talented people making little or nothing from their artistic talents now).

Ever notice that people most publicly willing to give away someone else's farm are the ones that own their own 10000 acre ranches, or never had significant obligations at the time to understand just how many hard working people would end up paying for their "free the world" gold mine? It is ironic that these guys in the article are all now millionaires, and that most people who support file sharing and free/cheap music aren't professional musicians/artists or understand how difficult it really is to run a business in the music industry (generalization from other net threads I've seen, not directed at anyone here). Most people never make a mint and retire at 25. Most professional musicians, artists, etc make a decent to modest living year after year by being smart, not just talented, but those ranks are very quickly declining, leaving only the ultra successful, and hobbiests.

In one sense all they did is force the world to either consider high cost, highly intrusive security to stop rampant theft, or simply write off large sectors of creative content as a lost cause - the latter is what is happening now - let the artist eat the losses and turn music and art into nothing more than cheap marketing tools.

Consumers never seem to understand that you get what you pay for. Free will eventually mean not worth downloading because there aren't artists willing to put the time in to actually be decent when there is nothing to show for it, yet many still do just that on the hopes of striking it rich someday only to eventually give up. It's easy to bash the "industry" from the outside, but most if not all people actually making a living in music are dependent on a larger, established marketing and distribution system in some form, even supposed "internet breakout" artists.

Get music for free from people with day jobs doing music as a hobby in coffee shops, just as you would get free food from a grocery store with excess profits to survive on (irony intended), but let professional artists, musicians and composers have a way to live from our craft without starving to death or becoming homeless to serve the insatiable desire for "free content for all" perpetuated by large content delivery corporations and 14 year olds with no concept of paying bills.

Sorry for the seeming rant - I know the article covers more ground than just music, but that's the relevant part to what I do. I applaud the innovation of programmers like Justin, and winamp was an incredible, and positive innovation regardless of the problems the industry and artists are facing. But I can't applaud putting people out of work with no consideration of how to replace those jobs and calling it progress.

[ROCKINROG]

I guess that struck a sore spot with you then eh. :icon_yes:

[Animus]

Interesting discussion. kdm, have you ever let anyone borrow a cd? Wouldn't that technically be illegal too since they are listening to it and haven't paid for it? Or is it only when they make a copy?

[kdm]

I guess that struck a sore spot with you then eh. :icon_yes:

What gave it away? Couldn't have been the 5000 lines of rambling rant.... lol ;-)

[kdm]

Interesting discussion. kdm, have you ever let anyone borrow a cd? Wouldn't that technically be illegal too since they are listening to it and haven't paid for it? Or is it only when they make a copy?

Yes, but they never gave it back, so technically it isn't illegal since I apparently no longer own it. lol

Have you ever let anyone release your music under their own name and make money off of it without paying you a dime? Same principle as distribution of music, software, artwork, intellectual property, etc without paying the content creators.

Would you work for free at your current job just because it feels good to give away your work? Would your mortgage company/rental agency give you a free home under the same principle?

[Animus]

Yes, but they never gave it back, so technically it isn't illegal since I apparently no longer own it. lol

Have you ever let anyone release your music under their own name and make money off of it without paying you a dime? Same principle as distribution of music, software, artwork, intellectual property, etc without paying the content creators.

Would you work for free at your current job just because it feels good to give away your work? Would your mortgage company/rental agency give you a free home under the same principle?


I am not arguing with you at all, and agree with you actually.

I stole your Christmas cd just last week, and seeded it online but then I felt really bad and guilty and decided just to make hard copies and send them out as xmas gifts for the family and all. No harm done.

[kdm]

I stole your Christmas cd just last week, and seeded it online but then I felt really bad and guilty and decided just to make hard copies and send them out as xmas gifts for the family and all. No harm done.

Ah - I wondered where that went. My dog and a package of prime rib I borrowed from your freezer played a prominent role on that CD, so you should gleen many hours of enjoyment from it.

[ROCKINROG]

What gave it away? Couldn't have been the 5000 lines of rambling rant.... lol ;-)


uuuuum Hmmmmmm :eusa_think: :icon_lol:

[Daryl]

I agree with kdm. I make the vast majority of my living from Royalties, so the current "music should be free" mindset affects my income directly. There have also been a number of projects that I investigated and then didn't do, as there was no way of stopping people copying the content. Unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon, and I can't think of any way round it, apart from fining people when caught file sharing. I don't like the thought of doing this, but as parents are equally ignorant as their kids, and don't really care anyway, the only thing they understand is to hit them in the pocket.

D

[TerryG]

I also agree with kdm.

It's obvious anyone who believes downloading/trading music for free is a good thing has never been an artist trying to make a living (or get started) who sent out a few tapes or CD's to magazines or radio stations for promotion, only to find six months later the culmination of years of work and investment is getting bootlegged and seeded and you-tubed in an age when nobody wants to pay for anything.

The magazines make money including you in their content... the radio stations make money including you in their content... yet they themselves will copy and trade and disseminate your material to their friends without regard for the fact that you cannot survive to create the next recording if nobody pays you for the first.

It's very difficult even wanting to be an artist once you've been ripped off by every other facet of the music industry who makes their money from your content whether you ever see a dime or not. Because, as the artist, you've already paid for everything from the start (gear/rehearsal/photos/recording/website/etc)... and the "promotional outlets" and what's left of the "industry" solicit you and expect you to send them everything for free.

Then... you hope they, or their listeners/friends/readers, don't bootleg it or upload it.

[kdm]

Good points Daryl and Terry.

And it isn't just the artist/mp3/CD sales side that suffers, but composing and commissioned music suffers as the art of making music itself is devalued.

If anyone reading this (since we mostly seem to agree here) runs into a free music supporter, ask them what they think of this scenario:

A national chain pizza shop normally sells a large pizza for $12.99, but decides to start offering 1 free large pizza per customer on Fridays. It's reasonably good pizza, so you forgo buying pizza the rest of the week since it's free on Fridays. You get used to free pizza on Friday, and simply don't want to pay for it anymore.

The pizza chain can't sell a pizza Saturday through Thursday, and everytime they try to stop the Friday-freebie deal, their customers stop coming completely, so they keep bringing it back - for 2 years. Other, better pizza shops can't compete, and either close down or start selling something else instead of pizza. Then the pizza chain's money to fund the Friday-freebie runs out and they have to pay the bills, and investors that funded the free pizza (somebody has to buy the dough, sauce, toppings, pay the light bill, water bill, rent, insurance, employees, etc), so they start charging for pizza 7 days a week again, but by now they are also in debt, so to make it a viable business, they are forced to start charging $19.99 for a large pizza.

Customers are used to free pizza now, and though they try to get by dropping the prices back down to $12.99, then $9.99, then $4.99 and even $2.99, customers just don't buy it like they did before Friday-freebies. Eventually the company goes under and 15000 people lose their jobs across the country. In those areas, other pizza shops try to make a go of it, but consumer expectations for free pizza, or no pizza, have been set and none can sell pizza for enough money to enough customers to be worth it. No more pizza.

I know this isn't completely realistic, but it's closer to the truth, esp. with music and creative content, than I think a lot of consumers looking for free/cheap products really understand. It might be easier to rebuild a pizza business than this example, but substitute music for "pizza" and the scenario is exactly what a lot of market sectors are facing right now, not just with music, but photography, art, illustration (my wife is a professional illustrator), graphics design, etc.

A marketing guru advised a company I work with to never discount or give away your product as a promotion. Instead offer something else as a promotional tool to accompany it at a lower cost to you. But with the internet stampeded for free content, advertisers and companies have started looking at music (since it isn't their product) as that free marketing tool, so consumers have undermined their own path to quality music by making it a throw away for other markets. I fear the slippery slope down to music being an unsellable common commodity is nearly unstoppable at this point.

[UntamedSpirit]

I remember the good old days when people were only able hear music in the presence of a real person. These new fangled recording gizmos gutted an entire industry. Music used to be something special, now it's just sonic wallpaper to accompany soap opera lives. Blah blah.... I can't make a living now.... blah blah the world is much worse off.

Oh, and sampling orchestras, you think that does alot of good for classical musicians??

Oh well, back to my horse and I've almost developed this thing I call a wheel which will put thousands of people out of work.

Hmm, I guess what really happens is, new industry and opportunities appear.
I think there are more pressing things to be really concerned with that threaten our actual existence on the planet than the collapse of one of the more cynical and exploitative industries on earth. ;)

[kdm]

I think there are more pressing things to be really concerned with that threaten our actual existence on the planet than the collapse of one of the more cynical and exploitative industries on the planet. ;)

Nice sentiment, but save the planet banners don't pay the bills. If the industry is that cynical and exploitative, why are you in music? Not saying it isn't exactly that - just that at some point one figures out how to make a living in spite of that or goes to work in another industry where you might more readily ignore the very same problems in different forms.

[UntamedSpirit]

Nice sentiment, but save the planet banners don't pay the bills. If the industry is that cynical and exploitative, why are you in music? Not saying it isn't exactly that - just that at some point one figures out how to make a living in spite of that or goes to work in another industry where you might more readily ignore the very same problems in different forms.

Good question, and the answer is I love music.
Performing music even more than listening.
Over the past 10 years I have seen maybe 60% of the venues I used to work in change over to prerecorded music.
Of the remaining 40% ,maybe 30% demand a full band for the price of a duo, or if I do get to play there solo, I'm asked to use backing tracks.
I used to say yes, but now just say no.

So, I have about 10% of the venues I used to have, and strangely enough, the pay is about what it was 10 years ago.
The thinking seems to be, "why have a solo guitarplayer/singer, when I can get someone doing karaoke for the same price with great recorded music?"

As you noted, you change with a changing industry if you still want to work.
I average 2-3 nights a week now, where I used to have 5-6 because I just want to do what I like doing and don't change.

I don't think the music industry is that different.
Before I played music I was paid pretty well to kick a ball, something I was happy to do for free.


But, you see, I even play for free when I am asked if I like the people, because I love to play.

In my 20's I spent a couple of years in what was virtually a self subsistence community on a small pacific island.
Life was pretty good there.
I haven't experienced a significant improvement in quality of life during my years in "civilised" countries around the world.

Maybe that has colored my view significantly.
If it all collapsed, and I ended up sitting under a full moon by a fire, listening to the waves crashing.
Guitar in hand and a drummer on either side with the beaming faces of people communing through music gazing back at me.
I think it would be as ok now, as it was back then.


Maybe I'm just an egg breaking in the making of an omelet.
Thanks for allowing me a moment to remember ;)

p.s I never even touched on the exploitative nature of the business, oh well.

[Daryl]

Oh, and sampling orchestras, you think that does alot of good for classical musicians??

That is a false analogy. It would be more correct to say that the musician plays for the sampling session and then only receives half the money that they should have. Sampling just means (theoretically) less work for the musicians, not less money for work that they've already done.

D

[UntamedSpirit]

That is a false analogy. It would be more correct to say that the musician plays for the sampling session and then only receives half the money that they should have. Sampling just means (theoretically) less work for the musicians, not less money for work that they've already done.

D
Not a false analogy from my point of view. Less work means less money at the end of the day.
where a real musician would have been required, after being sampled, that musician's performance can be duplicated by anyone with those samples and hardware to play them back over and over again.
No longer is a musician who has learned that instrument or an instrument maker to make the instrument, required.
Instrument makers are even more disadvantaged by sampling.
So, as has happened more and more, "real instrument" players become marginalized, and instrument makers, I assume, are dwindling in number.
Technological advances are often designed to replace human labor.

I use technology when it suits me. No moral high ground here.
If I were growing up now, I doubt I would be "wasting my time" doing endless scales as physical technique is barely needed to create great music these days.
Tools are still just tools.
It's just an observation.

but,
I'm just saying, were it all to disappear, recording equipment etc, people would still be making music. I would be one of them ;)

[Daryl]

Less work may mean less money, but at least you would get paid for the work that you already did, so it is a false analogy.

You also imply that a real instrumentalist's performance can be captured by someone who isn't a real instrumentalist. That is only the case with 1 shot phrase samples. for the rest the programmer also has to be an instrumentalist or at least a musician. In any case, as a violinist I have no more right to work than a keyboard player using samples. Less work for me, but more work for them. Nothing wrong in that. What this discussion is about is not replacing people, but stealing from them. I'm sorry that you don't seem to get that.

D

[UntamedSpirit]

I certainly see your point, I just think your definitions are a little narrow.
I don't like seeing anybody being stolen from.
I actually thought the discussion was about Justin Frankel and how innovation can assist some people to both advantage or disadvantage others, legally or illegally.
Technology has no innate morality.
People having their livelihood removed is a theft, whether you acknowledge it as such or not.
It's just called something else.
Stealing seems to have many faces, not all of them illegal ;)

[Daryl]

Yes, I think this has got rather off the original point. Maybe we should start another thread to discuss whether or not sample use has lost anyone any work?

D

[UntamedSpirit]

:wink:

[kdm]

We could always discuss the merits of living on a small self sufficient island away from the rat-race of "civilized" life. ;-)) (no argument there from me)

Well, detours aside, unless the topic were to simply be acknowledging that Justin made Time magazine, one could always speculate about the next steps in net-technology - streaming content replacing broadcast TV seems almost inevitable. Other suspected innovations?

[colony nofi]

I *REALLY* want to have a good couple of hours to reply to this.
This message is just a marker for me to remember to do it when I get the time. I think there are still many things to discuss, and ideas to explore.
Cheers, Brendan.

[TerryG]

Where it is, and where it's going (where EVERYTHING is going) is to an exponentially increasing demand and dependency on electricity for every facet of modern life. Communication, entertainment, work and leisure... We will eventually diagnose a saturation point where animal life will no longer be able to tolerate sustained wireless transmission levels without suffering physical harm. Then, we'll wear protective sheilded clothing and push the limits of common sense...
Those very few who control the power grid will be our masters. The rest of us will work to afford the electricity to stay alive.
Reliance on electricity will become so absolutely critical that advanced notice of a 48 hour blackout will cause massive pandemonium, so they won't tell us it's coming...

...light some candles, grab the acoustic, and remember when that was enough...


Seriously, the forecast for where cloud computing will be in 10 years totally blows my mind.
I have no idea where the power is coming from, I only know we'll be paying for it.