An exchange took place last night that I feel compelled to share. My friend, who lives on the west coast, recently came into town (the east coast) on business, and last night we went out to dinner with some other friends. We were enjoying ourselves well enough when the dinner talk moved to the question of how I've been doing lately with my songwriting. Now, before I tell you what ensued stemming from my response, let me please explain that my friend is a very well established equestrian photographer, who can also do wonders to a canvas or sketchpad. Through her art and hard work, she nets over six digits a year. I think that's great. She's an artist and people pay her very well for her art.

Okay, back to the conversation. While telling her briefly about my latest musical escapades, I threw in that my current trend for song titles is simplification, so that there will be a better chance of getting hits within file-sharing communities. Little did I know how big a can of worms I'd be opening. She snapped back that she is against Napster. Though I hadn't mentioned a company name, it's the one she thought of and responded with. "Okay," I said, "what is it you're against?" I'm a glutton for punishment. She said, "Napster is making unauthorized copies of music, and nobody's getting paid." Already, you can see that I'm dealing with a somewhat uninformed person. I'm so sick of listening to people refer to the Napster community as a website, a storage facility, etc. I simply replied, "Napster isn't making copies of anything." She amended, "Napster allows people to make unauthorized copies of music, and the artists are not getting paid."

I could see that this conversation was quickly dissolving to a somewhat familiar tenor. A debate I've seen at dmusic, ad nauseum. I calmly tried to explain to her how I see it; how file-sharing helps the artist and how if those who were against it would rethink their mammonistic stance, the artists could make twice what they do now, if not more. She said, "I work very hard for my money, and I don't want anybody just downloading my photographs from the internet without paying me for it. I want to be paid for my work. Don't you wanna be paid? If you were established in your industry, you'd feel the same way I do."

"No I wouldn't," I shot back. "Yes, I wanna be paid for my work, but I'm not willing to devalue my art to get it." "What?!," she's nearly yelling. "Giving it away for free devalues it, and makes you one poor dude!" "I disagree," I said calmy. "On the first point, I think that the idea that art cannot be possessed and enjoyed without first being directly PAID for is ludicrous. I want as many people as possible listening to my songs. Don't you want as many people as possible looking at your photos?" "No, I want as many people as possible paying me for them and their use. I own all the copyrights, and I don't want my work to be distributed without my knowledge." "So your main goal is money then, not exposure?," I queried. "Yes," she said, without hesitation. "You're no artist," I jabbed back after a brief pause, at the risk of losing her friendship. "How can you say that?," she asserted, nearly choking on her food. "Are you insane?" Getting louder now, I retorted, "You're a businesswoman whose art department is internal. You don't create for the love of it; you create for the love of money. As long as you can still afford your health insurance. On the second point," I continued almost shouting, "I personally would rather have 10 people possessing and listening to my song, even if it means only 3 of them paid for it and 1 of them is BOOTLEGGING it, instead of having just 1 person with it. I'd work in my suckass job for the rest of my life if it meant that everybody was listening to my music!"

Already I've had enough. I just wanna throw up what I've already et and go home, but she probes, "How can you consider that not stealing?" "Several reasons. For starters, supply hasn't decreased, demand hasn't decreased. I also don't see art as a product per se; I see it as a service. When was the last time you paid anything to watch 'Friends?' When was the last time you paid anything to TAPE 'Friends?' With cable tv, there are _two_ services. One is the advertising for the various channels, and one is the service provider bringing the signal to your home. This way, we pay a nominal amount to watch 10x the garbage we watched before. Ever wonder why there are no ads on premium channels? Look at their prices for the SERVICE. You pay a museum an admission fee to view their exhibits; you don't pay the artists directly for the service. How about public libraries? They're not a new concept. This is a service provided to you by your local taxpaying dollars so that the entire town may have access to just about any book in the world. The author has been paid once (at a discounted rate), but anyone can read it, borrow it, even copy it. It's not free, but it FEELS FREE." Btw, your local library probably has a shitload of albums you can borrow.

All of a sudden, you could see the lights go on all around her head. I said, "You see, you have always handled your own distribution, and it's always been within a relatively small special interest audience, at least on the grand scale. I still think your motivation for creation is wrong, but you need to realize that music is on a scale more like books, and it needs to be distributed to a much larger consumer base. This large consumer base is simply asking that distribution be brought up to date, so that everyone may enjoy music as they enjoy reading material. Think of it as the internet bringing the museums and public libraries into the home on a massive scale some local building could never hope to handle."

We then went down the roads of how each download does _not_ necessarily represent or indicate a lost sale, how the copyright laws need to be modified to allow older songs to placed in the public domain, and how the RIAA/labels need to change their methods, but this was effectively it. I actually think I made some headway. I truly believe we walked out of that restaurant with everyone in our party seeing things on a somewhat different plane. Here's to good friends.

Milla

that really is cool.. this should be posted on all the big sites to help the ignorant people around the world understand. greedy artists are not artists.. that's why wasted youth hasn't sold out

um.. wow. What a story. Actually, I do beleive that Napster and MP3s encourage users to buy more CD's. I use MP3s as a way to listen to my songs, when Im just too damn lazy to go look for the CD in my cluttered room. Sometimes I will get 'that song' stuck in my head, and I dont wanna buy every CD I see trying to find out what it is. So I look on Napster, download some songs.. until I find it. If I like the song, the majority of the time I actually go out and buy the CD. Like with Prodigy, I got the mp3 'voodoo people' and then went and bought the cd. Offspring (btw, they support napster fully) I downloaded 'Come out and Play'. Then I bought the CD.. on the other hand. Metallica. Well, I had the black album, I was a big fan. But when I heard what they started with napster. I gave the CD to my 4 year old cousin. Who knows where or, 'what' it is now. Anyways, this has been a pretty long comment, so I will withdraw now. Later!

very good story. i like the analogy to libraries... i'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time i get into that sort of discussion.

Dam what a fight, there was probably a slap and everything hee hee. But this just proves how GREEDy the RIAA is because they simply want the money.

I wonder how the RIAA justifies libraries loaning out CD's! My daughter borrows CD's from the public library all the time and makes cassettes of them. Shouldn't the RIAA sue all the libraries then for contributing to copyright infringement..
Get with it Hilary! this one's been going on for YEARS!

Also, ever wonder why there's no place to rent CD's?

There's lots of places to rent movies, but no where to rent CD's!

Seems that the RIAA lobbied Congress about 15 years ago to make the rental of CD's against the law! ...and of course, Congress accommodated them... (thank you maam...may I have another??!!)

Why do I tend to think tone of the following:

1. The RIAA has pictures of every mrember of Congress in bed with a sheep.

or:

2. Hilary Rosen is a dominatrix who Dommes every member of Congress into doing whatever Misterss wants!

LOL

milla, great story. "Here's to good friends."

~Heidi

What else is there?

milladrive 0wns!

The analogy of books to music really hits home for a lot of people. Good work, and thanks for informing one more near-lost soul about the myths of file-distributing.

`Matt

What a memory...

There are some flaws in the public library analogy.

When you check out a book at the library, you get to read it and use it within a set period of time, then you have to return it. Not so with Napster. It's yours to keep forever.

Also, public libraries are beholden to a wide range of copyright legislation that the operators must constantly be aware of and follow. Photocopying is subject to a wide range of copyright legislation, depending on the type of material -- as is digital distribution of the same material. Photocopying an entire book (analogous to downloading an entire song) is obviously prohibited in nearly all cases. By the same token, any music borrowed from a public library is meant to be returned within a certain timeframe. Making a copy of the music before returning it is illegal.

I have to side with the equestrian artist on this one. She sounds like she loves what she does, and is good enough at it to be making a lucrative living of it. This IS her means of livelihood, after all. So yeah, I'd want to get paid for my work too, just like any other profession. And it IS a profession. Sure, it is a genuine means of artistic expression, but it is also a means of making a living. As long as it serves both purposes for her, then she deserves compensation for her hard work and dedication to her art, her chosen profession. You might not like the word "profession" when attached to artistic professions, but if it is a person's means of making a living, then the word fits and it does not devalue the art itself in any way.

Ansel Adams, the renowned nature photographer, loved what he did. He was fantastic at it, creating astounding photographs of natural landscapes. He was paid handsomely for his work, as well he should have been. His work had tremendous aesthetic value, and that value translates into monetary value for the artist. It's the Ansel Adams made his living. The fact that he made a good living at it does NOT devalue his art in any way.

wow, great story and discussion! But it's a shame she creates for money istead of the love. I hate to see that, espically with an artist and my jaw droped when i read what she said. although she is your friend, a sell out is more accurate in describing her rather then saying shes an artist.

p r e m i s e
e s i m e r p

You know what, space? You make Simon sick! Me too, no offense intended. While you state your case very well, it's people like you who passively keep the current system running in the corrupt way that it does. YOU still perceive art as a product. It's not. It's a service. A SERVICE. People who put such a high value on it INTRINSICALLY devalue its aesthetic value dramatically. At least in my opinion.

Your statment, "His work had tremendous aesthetic value, and that value translates into monetary value for the artist," completely contradicts your whole argument. That statement is something I've been trying to convey for a long time.

As for making copies of media borrowed from the public library, I believe the law states that is NOT illegal and is fully within your rights, so long as that which you are copying is not "valued" at more than $1000 and you're not selling it to anyone else. And if it IS illegal, then the legislature needs to make modifications to _make_ it legal.

The libraries even encourage copying! They provide you w/copiers at every turn and charge you a dime for every page (unless it's a no-loan reference book; then it's FREE). Do you actually think there is an author's society demanding their cut? Space, I want you to feel free (no pun intended) to go to your local library, borrow a book or a musical album, and make a complete copy of it for your own collection. Believe me, the author or musician should be more than happy that you thought enough of it to go through the effort to cherish it so.

You know, there are many _professions_ out there, and artist (painter, photographer, musician, songwriter, etc.) is one of them. How the hell does my definition of the word "profession" have anything to do with seeing art as a service? :x Cab drivers perform a service. Are they not performing at their profession?! When business is good, they do well; when it's down, they don't do well. It should be the same for the music industry. Currently, though, 3 or 4 lucky people get the secret password, and the rest can all drop dead, even if they've had partial success.

Thank god my friend has more sense than you. Evidently, I was able to enlighten her a bit (remember, she walked out of the restaurant thinking a little differently); you're a bit thicker.

Yes, I _was_ a little disappointed by several of her responses, but whaddayagonnado? Some folks are just too far gone in certain regards.

Milladrive,

I agree with you completely on the idea that music and art should be a service. That makes perfect sense to me.

Where we seem to part ways here is that I believe that in order for it to be distributed as a service, two things need to be in place:

1. The artist needs to PERMIT his/her works to be distributed through the service, whatever that service may be. It is not even so much of a matter of compensation or "payment" to me than a matter of permission. Napster and other MP3 downloading sites are distributing these artists' work for free WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. If they want to permit it, great. If not, then we have no business freely distributing it.

2. I am not contradicting myself in the least when I say that aesthetic value often translates into more monetary value. That's why oceanfront properties cost more than urban properties. That's why the new Apple G4 "cube" costs more than a G4 tower system, even though the tower system is more expandable. Like it or not, money is the means of acquiring things in the world, and it is only natural that the more desirable an item is, the more monetary value will be assigned to it. Ansel Adams was not taking photographs thinking, "Wow, this photo is gonna fetch me some serious cash!" But the fact that the photos were so fantastic and were the result of much work and talent, naturally counted for something monetarily. It is the way the world works, like or not.

3. Libraries have xerox machines to provide photocopying of material, sure. But if you read my response again, I was referring to copying *entire* works (which is analogous to downloading entire songs or albums through Napster, Scour, or whatever). This is illegal, and should STAY illegal.

4. Besides, libraries exist through government funding largely due to the fact that the government thinks they are good things for promoting literacy, to promote more reading, and for providing places for students and others to research and learn about things. Having access to this *information* is good. Music does not really fit into the "information" category in this sense. Sure, libraries have some albums and CDs to lend, but every library I've ever been into has a very limited quantity of these compared with the number of books, and not really a lot of new ones either. So you can't make a direct comparison between the paltry selection in most public libraries (not a "shitload" as the article says) and what something like Napster is doing. On a good night when a lot of people are on it, logging into Napster is like walking into the most enormous record store in the world, and taking just about any song or album that exists, for free. Without permission. And without a return date (a la the library). It is an entirely different animal, and is not analogous to books in a public library.

5. "How the hell does my definition of the word 'profession' have anything to do with seeing art as a service? :x" I don't know. You tell me. You brought it up; I didn't. I didn't even mention the "music as a service" argument in my original response. (See #1. I agree with you on that point.) I will say this, though: For the artists, it can and most likely will be both: They will make songs and albums, a service will distribute them, and the artists will be compensated by that service, whatever the service turns out to be. The artist's profession will still be to simply be an artist, and to make a living doing it, through revenues generated through the distribution service.

I'm all for that. It sounds great. But it IS their copyrighted PROPERTIES that they are distributing via THE SERVICE. The SERVICE distributes their PROPERTIES. Got it? The music itself is NOT the service. The music is the PROPERTY distributed THROUGH the SERVICE. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Again I am all for that sort of distribution model, and I'd pay for this sort of service. But until something like that is in place, we can't just go taking the stuff for free without the artists' PERMISSION.

Just to clarify, as I inadvertantly started numbering more items after I said "two things need to be in place":

The two things that need to be in place are (1) a FAIR distribution method -- fair to the artists as well as consumers, and (2) the artist's permission.

The rest of the numbered points after #1 are just that, numbered points in response to your post.

"Sell out" is sure a word that gets bandied about a lot. A band finally gets popular enough to be signed by a major label, and the fans scream "sell out." A band changes their sound a bit to be more accessible, and people scream "sell out." An artist's album goes platinum, and everyone screams "sell out."

As if the only respectable artists are the ones that are broke, stay planted in a cult status, and are stupid enough to turn down more lucrative offers.

I am an independent artist, my band Lancaster recorded our first EP recently. We funded the recording completely from the money we got by playing shows, plus we chipped in a little of our own cash [we all have full-time jobs]. We spent three days in a good studio and made 500 CDs of what we recorded.

I put up two of the four songs we recorded on MP3.com, and I share them on Napster and Scour. The fact that my music is being downloaded, listened to and enjoyed means a lot to me. On the other hand, I have 300 of the 500 CDs we made left sitting in my cupboard - and I'd really like to sell them to make more money to do more recording.

If I didn't share my music as MP3s would I still have 300 CDs in the cupboard? No, I probably wouldn't - I'm pretty sure I'd have more!

To bring this back to the library analogy - how many of the people who borrow a book from a library would otherwise have bought it to read it? I expect not many. How many of those people might buy the next book by that author when they happen to see it in a book store? Maybe a few - a few more than none. How many of those people might recommend the book to friends who buy it rather than borrow it?

Mark
Lancaster [http://www.mp3.com/lancaster_au]

Seems that anonymous from spaceport.com obviously misunderstood some points the author made. Maybe they were so flustered like the artist mentioned in the article they wouldnt even reason with the other side.

For one, no one said art is not devalued by not being shared. The author is trying to correct the misconception that sharing art to millions as a service devalues the art.

For two, making music is a total different 'profession' than photography or painting. Music is meant to entertain people on a massive scale rather than be a single transaction(who ever heard of a painting selling millions of copies?). So of course you are going to be upset if you learn someone is getting it for free.

Well enough ranting to deaf ears. It's people like this, the ones who learn about new technologies through the media and gossip, who are shutting napster down.
the.13th.animator

That was an awesome story. Sounds like a rough conversation, but a very well discussed one on your part. I definatly agree...good job
_Clair

in my infanite experience, i have seen millions upon millions of ignorantt people. i offer salvation for free... you would think artists would offer their music for free... someday they will see the light... or else, um, something else will happen. butt we do not need to talk about those things

My ears aren't deaf, my friend. I am listening (or reading, as it were). I get a lot of insults from people (including from the so-called "journalists" of this site, which I think is pretty unprofessional and low). It always amazes me that, on a subject as controversial as this (and can anyone deny that this is a controversial subject?), anyone who is in disagreement on even ONE point made by the site's operators is immediately labeled "thick," "flustered," "stupid," "brain-washed," and so on. And those are just the POLITE words. This is a controversial topic, OK? There will be disagreements. I'm not stupid, and neither are a lot of you. So refrain from the petty insults.

To reply to your post:

"No one said art is not devalued by not being shared."

You're right. No one said that. Least of all, me. The point I was making is that the word "profession" fits artists just as well as it fits any other profession. I was taking issue to the comment made by Milladrive to the woman when he told her that she is a "businesswoman making art for the love of money." As if any artist that actually puts prices on her work and sells it is no longer an artist but instead merely a shrewd businessperson. And the works that the person creates are somehow less "artistic" (in other words, *devalued* in that sense of the word). I disagree with him on that.

Regarding your next quote: "Music is meant to entertain people on a massive scale rather than be a single transaction(who ever heard of a painting selling millions of copies?)."

Plenty of paintings have sold millions of copies. They're called "prints."

Also, as far as paintings not being able to be enjoyed on a massive scale, ever been to a museum? Paintings are enjoyed on at least a larger (albeit not "massive") scale there. They are there to be viewed and enjoyed by the masses. Also, the Internet makes it possible to enjoy paintings on a massive scale, in digitized form. However, actually OWNING the original paintings is quite another story, of course. For that, you need money. And rightly so.

So, therein lies one of the problems with MP3s and digital music. MP3s are so extremely close to the original source material that, for all intents and purposes, when you download an MP3 for free, you are getting an original...for free. You can bring up the technicalities of lossy compression and differing sampling rates all you want, but for all intents and purposes, you are getting an original for free. Without the artist's permission.

That's my main point. I am all for having a service to distribute musical works -- the artists' properties -- through a digital service, for a fee that is fair to both artist and consumer. (See my response to milladrive's response on that.) I want something like that to be put in place; in fact, I can hardly wait. But in the meantime, the artist's copyrights -- the artist's wishes regarding the works -- need to be respected. We can't just go distributing and grabbing the stuff without their permission.

And again, the music itself is not the service. The music is the PROPERTY being distributed VIA THE SERVICE.

One last point -- As a systems architect, and part-time musician, I most certainly do NOT learn about new technologies through "gossip and media." I laugh every time a journalist refers to Napster as a "site," or to Gnutella as a "company." I definitely know what these things are, how they work, and their underlying technologies. So don't insult my intelligence. But at least you allowed me to neatly wrap up this reply by emphasizing the point I made at the beginning of it regarding the insulting of anyone who disagrees with you on any point. There are a lot of petty insults and mud-slingers here, led by the site operators themselves. Too bad.

1. The artist permits his or her works to be distributed simply by creating it. After all, why is the artist creating? It's to have it distributed. How that music gets distributed should be of little interest, other than that it gets distributed. Also, I'd like to ask you: when does this requirement of permission end? Current law says 50 years after the owner's death. I hardly think anyone can give their permission that far into the afterlife.

2. The fact that your idol, Ansel Adams, was very wealthy when he died is terrific. He was a great photographer. However, he never DEMANDED a higher price for his work than anyone else. His supporters made him wealthy. I agree high aesthetics fetch more money than that which irks. This is why a great artist will acquire more wealth than a lousy one. However, your property and material possessions argument is apples and oranges, since every album, good or bad, has essentially the same list price. Besides, art is not a possession, it's an experience.

3. Since when is a whole book or song worth more than $1000?

4. You miss my point entirely. You make Simon sick. Why is some information "good" and some information not so good. You really should stop thinking like this. Reading is good for things like literacy and independent thought (OMG!) and music is good for coordination, math skills, and the list goes on. Who are to decide that this music is any less an important art than books? The fact that libraries have a very small budget for musical information is largely due to people like you who think it's relatively insignificant. It's a sign of times, one that could change if taxpayers such as yourself change their way of thinking.

5. Okay, we both see artists making their art their profession. However, you see it as the equivalent of being a salesman, and I see it as the equivalent of being a waiter. And let's get something straight: The music is the service, NOT the property. When will you see this? The property is that plastic piece of shit you go to the store and buy it on!

I _am_ glad to see that we both feel that the current model for distribution needs some real modification. Only then will the real hero, the true artist, be properly appreciated. Until then, see you at the library.

Boy, are my words getting twisted around a lot.

1. The method of distribution is of MUCH interest to both artist and consumer. This is blindingly obvious, even by just looking at the articles on this site alone, many of which discuss this very topic -- music distributed through a service. My only point here, again, is that the methods of distribution -- whatever they may be and there obviously will be many -- need to be fair for both artists and consumers. The act of creating art does NOT immediately give anyone license to distribute it. You are flat-out, dead wrong on that point. The creation of a work also certainly does NOT automatically place that work in the public domain, for free distribution. Yet this is what Napster, Scour and other services are facilitating right now. I'm not against digital services such as these. But their models need to change to be fair to both artist and consumer -- to respect the artists' wishes and to refrain from distributing their material for free without their permission. That is my point.

2. Again, you are twisting my words. I know all albums are the same list price whether good or bad (and of course, "good and bad" is highly subjective anyway). What I am saying is that, the more aesthetically appealing something is to the public, the more money it will ultimately make, in terms of sales. Experience, object, possession, whatever you want to call it, there IS monetary value associated with it.
And Ansel Adams isn't my idol, merely one example of many I could have used. (Again with the snide insulting remarks, eh?)

3. Um...since never. Huh?? What does that have to do with anything that I said? Again, you are twisting my words beyond recognition here. I am saying that photocopying a *complete* work -- whether that is a $15 CD or a $4 book or whatever -- is, and should stay, illegal.

4. "Reading is good for things like literacy and independent thought (OMG!)" Again with the insults thrown at anyone that disagrees with you. I am quite capable of independent thought, thank you. And you missed my point entirely. An exposure to music is important; I am not arguing that in the least. I merely said that, *in the government's eyes*, music is not really "information" in the same sense as books and literature. I am all for having a larger music section in the public library. That would be fine by me. The point is that the music is meant to be BORROWED -- not owned, not copied (although of course this cannot be enforced). But nevertheless, that is the intent. So, I was pointing out that the library analogy to MP3 downloading falls apart a bit at that point.

5. The artist is NOT the salesman. Again with the putting words in my mouth. I made no such suggestion. The artist is not the salesman; the service (whatever form it may take) will be the salesman. The artist, as I SAID, will be free to function simply as an artist, provided that the service for distributing the art is fair to the artist. And your example of "property vs. service" is really a weak example. Property doesn't have to be something physical like a plastic credit card. It can, and does in many cases, exist very well outside that realm. Again, the music is the artist's property that will be distributed via the service. Let's not get hung up on semantics here, because I think we have the same basic idea in mind as far as the type of service we would like to see. My point is that Napster, Scour and others currently do not provide this type of service, since they allow distribution for free without the artist's permission. A service that is fair to both artists and consumers is something I would like to see very soon. Until then, I think that the artist's copyrights -- and their wishes -- need to be respected.

One would think that in the countless millenia that you've been around, you would have picked up a "hooked on phonics" set and learned to spell. hehe..

Sounding it out can be a bad thing. Phbwt.

Boy, isn't it amazing how your words get twisted so much around here when you fail to make your point adequately? Believe me, it takes some doing to straighten them out. Guess what? They're not getting twisted. You're just too busy defending this antiquated way of thinking to be listening to anything said here.

Yes, we agree, that the artist and the consumer are the ones getting screwed by the current methods. This is not my point. Stop talking about the service that the music will be distributed on and start thinking about the music itself as the service. Stop thinking about it as this material possession to be bought and sold. This is where you fail to see the light. You should stop seeing the currently unfair laws as "good" and the ones that haven't been passed yet as "bad." To a true artist, ANY distribution is GOOD distribution. When will you see this?

I will say it again. I believe the law states that is NOT illegal and is fully within your rights to make copies, so long as that which you are copying is not "valued" at more than $1000 and you're not selling it to anyone else. Whether you want to admit it or not is your problem; it's the law.

I don't ever want to hear again a comparison made between real estate and record albums. It's a stupid comparison. Aesthetically pleasing real estate fetches more money; aesthetically pleasing music fetches more exposure. With this exposure (and word of mouth, money will follow, as it did w/AAdams. The translation of income are two totally different things.

"An exposure to music is important; I am not arguing..." You just don't fucking get it, do you? YOU are the government. YOU make the laws. YOU need to change how you think in order for the government to even consider new laws. Using words like "borrowed," "returned," "owned," etc., shows that you just don't get it. Music (all art) is NOT something to be possessed!

Don't get semantic? Are you fucking kidding?! Yes, like we've said, we both agree that the current model for distribution needs to be changed. HOWEVER, I will say it again: despite what the money-grubbing greedsters of the think, ANY DISTRIBUTION IS GOOD DISTRIBUTION. If you like an artist, pay them. Why do we need the RIAA to collect this money for them? Why do they DEMAND that you pay them before you are "allowed" to experience their creation? All I'm saying is that if they want guaranteed pay, they should go take a desk job, and get out of the profession where one needs to take the good w/the bad.

The artist is getting due respect from the exposure and distribution that takes place within file-sharing communities. It is unfortunate that the RIAA doesn't want to compensate those artists signed to their labels by signing a licensing contract w/Napster, Scour, etc., because IN THIS WAY the artists are getting shafted.

Thank you, Space. I'm grateful that there are people such as yourself to show us poor lost soles the way. I mean, after all, it's obvious that you have way more sense than me, my good friend, and everyone here at DMusic.

OK, this is getting nasty.

Look, WE AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON MOST OF THE POINTS HERE, OKAY?!?!?!?!?

I am NOT defending an "antiquated way." I stated over and over again that I CAN'T WAIT for a NEW WAY of distribution that is fair to both the artist and consumer. I keep saying this OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I DON'T LIKE THE ANTIQUATED WAYS OF TODAY. I WANT A NEW WAY THAT IS FAIR TO BOTH THE ARTIST AND CONSUMER. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck (*beating head against the wall*)!!!!!!! How many times do I have to say this???!?!?!?!?! We AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON THAT POINT, DAMMIT!

My only point about this is that while I LIKE the Scour, Napster and other technologies, I don't think that they are fair to artist. Not in their current forms. Not when the artist has not given his/her permission for the free distribution of the work. Therefore I want to see a model that is fair to both artist and consumer.

Look, I do NOT see the current laws as "good" and future ones as "bad"!!!! That should be PAINFULLY OBVIOUS from reading what I said before! I don't LIKE the way things are now! I don't LIKE the RIAA! The RIAA can cease to exist for all I care! Instead, the service that I want to see would definitely allow a more direct relationship between artist and consumer. Again, it needs to be a model that directly benefits both the artist and the consumer. I do not see Napster, Scour and the like, in their current forms, being fair to both artist and consumer. I can't WAIT for new laws to be passed that allow the service that we are both talking about. One that is fair to both parties. I would be quite willing to pay for such a service, as long as I know that the artists get more of the DIRECT BENEFIT from it than they do right now under the current oppressive RIAA regime.

I will continue to use the words "owned," "borrowed," and so on in regards to music. I currently *own* over 800 CDs. When music becomes distributed through a service (or IS the service -- whatever language you prefer), and I download the music to my PC or onto a hard disk-based player or even stream it live into my car player, I am the owner of the music, by way of being a subscriber to the service. Subscribing to the service gives me ownership rights to any of the music I download or listen to.

Again, music (and all arts) will never cease being a property. That, I think, is just a given. You disagree with me on that, and you seem to think that artists should be paid solely based on some sort of honor system. It appears that distribution of all music under your concept would be completely free of charge (much like it is already under Napster and Scour), and then "If you like an artist, pay them." But the honor system just won't work. If I were a professional musician, (I currently do it as a hobby solely for the enjoyment of it, and make no money from it), but if it were my means of subsistance, I would NOT go along with my works' being distributed everywhere for free, and payment for my hard work coming only from an "honor system" model. After all, while I would be an artist that wants to be heard by as many people as possible and would work very hard to make good worthwhile art, I would also be an artist that NEEDS TO EAT and SUPPORT A FAMILY. The "honor system" just doesn't cut it, because as Napster, Scour and other services have shown, a lot of people simply don't HAVE any concept of honor. They will simply take and give nothing in return. (And as a side note, Simon is actually talking about this article about freeloaders on Gnutella.)

So, I want a service that:
1. Guarantees a GLOBAL distribution of an artist's works.
2. Is easy for consumers to use and is fairly priced (perhaps a monthly flat fee?)
3. Directly and automatically provides a way for the individual artists to be compensated. (The more people download or listen to a U2 song, the more money U2 gets, for instance.)

So you see, I largely agree with you on most things. Your concept of the means of distribution and your concept of the service may differ, but I think in the end we are looking for very similar things.

Regarding your remark, "I'm grateful that there are people such as yourself to show us poor lost soles the way." Again, here is a snide insult. I take issue with the attitudes of the people here. You seem to have to use insults and profanity to make your points. (By the way, it is spelled "soul." A "sole" is what is on the bottom of the shoe you keep wanting to kick in me in the head with. So again I see the attitude that anyone that disagrees with you on any of your ideas is automatically a retard or a "poor lost soul." (And that is ACTUALLY what you were implying, isn't it? That *I*, not you, are the lost soul here?)

We agree with each other on most points, and obviously disagree on some. I think that music and all art will always be a property of some sort; I think there is no escaping that. Artists will always consider their works "my song that I wrote" or "my painting." *MY* song. That doesn't mean that they don't want those works distributed and enjoyed by the masses. That doesn't negate what you are saying about distribution. Again, I just want to see a distribution model that is more directly fair to both artist and consumer. I don't think that Napster, Scour and the like, in their current forms, are fair to both parties. I disagree that ANY distribution is good distribution -- just like ANY software distribution is not good distribution. (And much of software creation can very well be considered an art.) Posting a software program up on a warez site for the masses to "download and enjoy" is NOT good distribution. So, as the same with music, I disagree with you that ANY distribution is good distribution.

Again, I want many of the same things you want. We both don't like the RIAA. We both don't like the current situation. We both would like to see a service distributing music. I simply have different ideas than you do as to what a FAIR AND EQUITABLE distribution service would be -- fair to both the artist and the consumer.

Does that make me a clueless, lost soul -- especially when it comes to this very controversial issue? I think not.

Right on dude! You've got the right perspective here--I encourage you to spread it.

Brian
http://www.screwmetallica.org

You truly get it, man. The world should be filled with artists like you.

Keep up the good work, and keep the faith.

Milla

"Who knows where or, 'what' it is now."

lol

\\\"Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck (*beating head against the wall*)!!!!!!" LMAO

"I don't think that they are fair to artist. Not in their current forms. Not when the artist has not given his/her permission for the free distribution of the work." Why? Why don't you think it's not fair to the artist? Doesn't the artist give permission TO THE WORLD simply by creating it? I'm sorry, but I think you still see it as a material possession. I'll never agree w/you on this.

"I will continue to use the words 'owned,' 'borrowed,' and so on in regards to music. I currently *own* over 800 CDs." Wrong. Dead wrong. You don't own the music, you (again, I say it) own the plastic piece of shit you brought home from the store. "When music becomes distributed through a service (or IS the service -- whatever language you prefer),..." Don't confuse the two. Napster is one service for music, which is ALSO a service, whether you want to admit it or not. "...and I download the music to my PC or onto a hard disk-based player or even stream it live into my car player, I am the owner of the music, by way of being a subscriber to the service. Subscribing to the service gives me ownership rights to any of the music I download or listen to." Again, you're wrong. You don't own the music; you own the file it's contained in (and the hard drive or plastic piece of shit it's stored on).

We will apparently always disagree on the property issue. However, are you telling me that you would not support your favorite musical talents by making personal donations to their cause if you knew that it was a primary source of income? I'm sure you work hard (and love it) as a musician. If you're good, your admirers will compensate you, especially if you know how to operate the internet. Charge for it if you wish. Set a price. I'm just sayin' that you should not be disappointed when people download it from file-sharing communities. It's exposure. They've shown an interest. Don't worry, be happy (to coin a phrase). Until then, go drive a cab or give it up. (And as a side note, believe me, I fully understand where Simon is coming from.)

I like your ideas for prospective services. Perhaps that monthly flat fee could be absorbed by everyone through their taxpaying dollars, or through their isp bill, or some other way where the consumer would not be bothered by it. After all, it should not be a monthly burden.

"So you see, I largely agree with you on most things. Your concept of the means of distribution and your concept of the service may differ, but I think in the end we are looking for very similar things." I agree.

"Posting a software program up on a warez site for the masses to "download and enjoy" is NOT good distribution." Why? If it's art, as you say it is, it should be enjoyed by everyone. We will always disagree here. I don't see the songs that I write as "my songs," or "my babies," or whatever other artists call theirs. Once they're written, they're there for the world to hear. Lots of people out there. Lots of money to be made, even if by just good will. Here is where you'll go your way and I'll go mine. Yes, I'll accept a legitimate contract if I'm offered one, but simply because I have few options at this point in the system. I will always think that any distribution is good distribution.

I like you, whoever you are. You have a passion for your points and an intelligence to articulate them, although I'm amused my your sensitivity. I won't use the word "brainwashed," because you don't like it, but I really feel that you should learn to open your mind to new thoughts (this is not a snide comment, so please don't accuse me of making snide comments, because it is not intended to be a snide comment).

"Doesn't the artist give permission TO THE WORLD simply by creating it?"

No.

Sorry, but that line of thinking is just plain stupid.

"I'm sorry, but I think you still see it as a material possession."

It is as material as anything else. Once again -- It absolutely does not have to be physical for it to have material value.

"You don't own the music, you (again, I say it) own the plastic piece of shit you brought home from the store. Again, you're wrong. You don't own the music; you own the file it's contained in (and the hard drive or plastic piece of shit it's stored on).

Yeah, riiiight. I bought a CD today in order to own yet another piece of plastic. Get a clue. The music is what I bought. The CD is merely the storage/delivery medium. I own the music just as much as I own the piece of coated plastic that stores it.

"Napster is one service for music, which is ALSO a service, whether you want to admit it or not."

OK, it's a service. Whatever. The practitioners and purveyors of most every service (in this case, the artists) needs to give his permission -- agree -- to serve you, right? You also pay them for their services. So, I am looking for a music distribution service that will distribute the music -- or "music service", if you prefer -- in such a manner that is fair and equitable to both artist and consumer.

"However, are you telling me that you would not support your favorite musical talents by making personal donations to their cause if you knew that it was a primary source of income?"

No, not at all. From all of my posts, I think it should be obvious on which side of the fence I reside on that issue. My concern for the fair treatment of the artists, to make sure that their works receive their just rewards (in monetary terms, however much or that may be depending on how much people like and use/download your stuff). So, certainly I would pay for music that I like.

But a whole lot of people will NOT do this. Let's face it, you and I both know that one of the big reasons Napster, Scour and the like are wildly popular, especially among kids and college students, is that they are getting the stuff for FREE! As another example, there are a lot of pretty good artists on MP3.Com, and a lot of people have downloaded their stuff, but most of them have made absolute peanuts so far. Sure, a lot of them make mediocre music that nobody wants to pay for, but I'm talking about the good ones here. I've found some really good unknown bands through MP3.Com and other similar web sites. But nobody seems to be paying them either, even though their download counts are high.

So this is why I think that Napster, Scour, and the like (including FTP sites, IRC, Usenet, *whatever* means of free distribution is out there), are inadequate and not fair to the artist in their current forms. And I would say that, in a very tangible way, they are also not fair to consumers like me -- consumers that would like to somehow compensate the artists for the stuff I download. To quote an old Byrds tune, I would feel a whole lot better about using Napster or Scour if they had a compensation infrastructure built in.

"Why? If it's art, as you say it is, it should be enjoyed by everyone."

Boy, I just cannot disagree with you more on this particular point, especially if you extend it to warez and the like. First, why should art be treated differently than any other human endeavor? The word "art" itself is a limiting term. There is creativity and artistic talents displayed even in endeavors and products that would not normally be labeled as art. You can't, for instance, just divide things into "left-brained" and "right-brained" categories -- and then go on to say that the right-brained ones should be distributed freely.

Most human inventions and indeed, just about any human endeavor draws upon a combination of thought processes, the artistic and creative, and the analytical and logical. There is a yin-yang concept to all of this.

So, you can't just say, "Well, this falls under the 'art' category, so therefore it should conform to a different set of rules than things that fall under the 'non-art' category." I would dare say that the human mind thinks artistically and creatively in nearly ANYTHING it does. So you can't just go around saying, "If it's art, then it should be free for everyone to enjoy." Such thinking, for one thing, denies any consideration for the artists' wishes regarding their works, their endeavors.

And I'm sorry, but warez is just plain wrong. That's all there is to that. I shouldn't even have to explain that.

"I like you, whoever you are."

Well thanks, but if that's true, you sure have a funny way of showing it. Thanks for refraining from all of the condescending, smirking insults this time around. I am not being "sensitive" about this -- I just don't appreciate it nor think it is necessary in any way. Insults piss people off, including me. So since it annoys me, that makes me "sensitive"? On the contrary, I would argue that throwing out insults is quite INsensitive.

"I won't use the word "brainwashed," because you don't like it, but I really feel that you should learn to open your mind to new thoughts."

No need to lecture me on that point. My mind is already open to new thoughts. Like I said, I embrace these new technologies and can't wait for them to evolve into something that is fair for both artist and consumer. I would like to see the big corporate music machine go away (or at least be reduced in power) and have a more "personal" relationship between artists and consumers, without the middleman messing things up for both parties. Heck, I think the technology is really cool. The MP3 format is definitely a neat thing.

I just want a distribution method (service, whatever) that ensures fair rewards for the artists, while being reasonably priced and easy to use for the consumers. The monthly flat fee idea, I think, would be good -- at least for people like me that are music junkies. But I think there also needs to be something built in to the pricing structure that compensates artists directly depending on how much their stuff is downloaded or listened to. The more popular artists would therefore get the most compensation for their works, directly related to consumer interest. I imagine that this would be more of a back-end type of arrangement, where the consumer only sees and has to care about a monthly flat charge, but behind the scenes all of the appropriate kickbacks to the artists are doled out.

I'm also not sure that a flat fee model would work well for the more casual user that for whatever reason, doesn't use the service enough to justify the monthly charge.

So Napster, Scour CuteMX, Gnutella and others, in their current forms, are not fair to both the artist and consumer. (Of course I realize that there a gajillion other ways to distribute files too -- Usenet, IRC, private FTP, email, whatever. But those that want to "pirate" will always find a way to pirate.) But those, like me, that want to acquire (or if you don't like the word "acquire" because it sounds too much like property, insert your own favorite term) their music legitimately, should have a better system. Like I said, I'd feel a lot better knowing that the artists are getting something in the way of material compensation for their works that I am enjoying. And I think the artists would feel better too.

Whatever we disagree on, one thing is certain: The landscape has changed already and will continue to change. And it will be very interesting to see what transpires next.

:.

Beating a dead horse. An anonymous filibustering dead horse.

Thank you. I understand now. I didn't before, but now I do. Thank you for showing me the error or my ways.

Thank you. I understand now. I didn't before, but now I do. Thank you for showing me the error or my ways.

Other than being anonymous, the same can be said about you, Simon, and the rest of the staff here. You guys write essentially the same article over and over again (especially Simon), and just take a look at your equally long responses to some of my lengthier posts.

If you want to call any ideas that contradict yours filibustering, fine. Just don't tell me "I like you" and then turn right around and throw insults.

hey milladick

did you even read this space guy's last post before you just dismissed it out of hand as filibustering?

i mean geez give the guy a break because he does agree with alot of what ur saying and you agree with alot of what he's saying too. his last post made a lot of sense to me.

I suspect that you're being sarcastic here. If so, fuck off. I don't usually say that sort of thing, but in this case it is well deserved. I've had it with the smirking insults.

If you're not being sarcastic, then great.

"....shared a story with us...that blew me away."

Wow, like, that article like really like just totally blew me away!! It's like soooo true and so like, profound, you know? God, like this milladrive guy is just sooo wise, and OMG, just really really deep!

Heh. What a joke.

Laugh it up warez boy but I can sure see how someone could beat his head against the wall talking to you especially if you think that pirating software is ok. The mindsets of some of the people that run and contribute to this site are just incredible sometimes.

In the worst possible way.

Listen, douchebag, please don't lump me in w/all the good folks at dmusic who are diligently working their asses off trying to bring us the latest info on the digital music scene. Yes, I agree w/most everything they seem to be saying, but nobody speaks for me. I've had one article posted and now I'm guilty of redundancy? You see, I don't _have_ the patience to sit here trying to think up a zillion ways to say the same thing. You're not that important to me.

If you notice, I haven't disagreed w/you about anything we've agreed on. That makes sense, doesn't it? We know how each other stands on the issues at hand, so let's leave it at that. We agree on some things and disagree on others. Hopefully, we will soon see some adequate solution, part of which should be releasing a song's copyright into the public domain, at very least, at the artist's death.

I don't see snide comments (or insults) as hurtful, because I don't take them personally. You must be one arrogant, pretentious, self-important human being. If you weren't so insulted by these comments, I wouldn't be so additionally entertained by your responses. You may be very intelligent, but you are also an ultra-sensative pussy. This doesn't mean I don't like you, though. Aside from the issues we agree on, I can like you for your entertainment value.

Look at this, another loser without the thrust to give us a name.

I read every fucking word of it, you freak. Repeatedly. My head is about to explode from reading it. We simply agree on some things and disagree on others. Space makes a lot of sense to me, but space also makes a lot of nonsense to me.

Neither you nor I know _which_ gender *.spaceproxy.com is. How can we? We've got nothing to go on. We couldn't even testify in a court of law that it's the same writer for each post.

See? Just the fact that you aren't sure of sarcasm when you receive it shows me just how insightless and humorless you are. Just remember, though, your entertainment value for me is skyrocketing.

I think I'll fuck off. >-|o

Heh, I'm very honored. Thanx for the high praise, and I'm glad my tale provided you w/a laugh or two.

Again with the insults.

I'm not being sensitive about them (and I fail to see how in the world this would make me "self-important"). I just don't think it's necessary. I am completely capable of carrying on a discussion or argument, on which we disagree on certain matters, without using insults.

Evidently, you are not. You try to belittle me at every turn. And you call ME arrogant? Again -- too damn bad.

Hehehehehehehehehe. This is just too damn funny. This spaceproxy guy succeeded in driving you nuts "until your head is about to explode" and wasted a whole bunch of your time! Hehehehehe. And you didn't even notice that that is what he was trying to do all along. Boy do you look like the sucker right now, milladick. Too funny.

Well, that wasn't my intent.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.....hint hint fucker.

....hint hint fucker.

Huh? Who posted this crap?

Keith Lizza,a.k.a.Joe Rigatoni
The story was riveting,
poignant,as the words just
danced off the page.I can't
wait for the movie.Keep up the
good work.Can't wait for the
next installment.

You know, while, on many issues, milladrive seems to be a very radical thinker, I have to agree with him when he says you don't own the music you buy on a cd. If you owned it, you would be legally able to distribute it and make a profit doing sdo, something i'm sure you don't think would be right. What you are buying is a license to use that music for personal use. You are not buying the music; you are buying the unit it's stored on.

I also agree with him when he says that when an artist creates, he is prolly not thinking about the money he'll make. he's prolly thinking about the desire for the whole world to see or hear the creation. Therefore, art should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

I see "sell out" as meaning an artist that "sells out" to the business surrounding their craft.

Hehe, nice going spaceproxy aka stbhos aka tstonramp aka.... You had at least some credibility right up to the very end.

L M A O! Hahahahahahahahaha.

Right now, we're working on the Swahili version of the paperback, but casting will begin shortly.

Btw, who'll play you, Joe? LOL.

milla, I'm glad you posted that story - I'm finally starting to understand your point of view, which has some real valid points. The money in the music industry is really being made by charging for a service - the service of providing the music. I finally see that. In essence then, copyrights are used to control who provides the music.

Napster is great, if the copyright owner wants to provide their music that way. For those who do not want their music distributed that way, it probably feels like they've been robbed.

Whether commercial concerns 'devalue' art, and whether a person can or can't be an artist if he or she isn't starving, is a philosophical question - hence, an excellent way to start an argument.

You've also mentioned that Napster fills a few needs that are not being met by the music industry - and yes, if the industry would start providing services to fill those needs, I bet both parties would be happier. Consumers would have a better and more consistent quality experience, and the industry could make more money.

Direct distribution, though - I can't wait for that to take off - more artists, who'll be able to afford to spend more time making more music

Thank you for this post. Yeah, what some folks should understand is that many of the ideals I express will never transpire in a million years. Inside my head is a utopian society. Unfortunately, the world is ruled by the ideals of money-grubbing control-freak whores (I like that phrase).

No comment, other than to say I was about 99.99999999999999999999999% certain that you WERE being sarcastic -- but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt anyway as a matter of courtesy.

Something in which you seem to be lacking.

Sorry, you're wrong. I don't know what was going on here, and said so. This is one of the things that ultimately convinced me to register, if only to identify myself in more concrete terms and prevent things like this. I think someone was playing with me here. And if stbhos was trying to imitate me, he/she was doing a poor job of it, since I make it a point to never post in a crude way or use profanities.

All they need is to use the same proxy server as me.

So hopefully now that I'm "Greggg" this won't happen.

Talk about hot artist check out D-Prophit on WWW.Globe-7.com,Hot Hot Hot and also on page 150 of this month edition of Vibe magazine,with R kelly on the cover

the thing that pisses me off most about this is that when metallica first started (1981) the only way to get thier music was by tape to tape ,friend to friend.I am positive that lars ulrich would have used the site to obtain the obscure/unsigned/ relatively unknown bands from other countries that he was into as a youth.milla is a genius.your #1 fan PAGAN (comming soon)

No no, Pagan, I'm YOUR #1 fan. You rule my world. I only wish you hadn't taken so long to grace us w/your presence.

"Information wants to be free"