response 76 of 183:

May 17 19:59 UTC 2000

I'd like to reiterate, btw, that my model is based on how every other sector
of capitalism works. At my job, I do work. I get paid. IF the product sells
well, I get a raise for my future work. Some companies do pay bonuses, but
I can't imagine the designer of the Ford Taurus, for instance, getting 1% for
every Taurus that sells. Instead, if the Taurus sells better than anticipated,
the designer might get a single bonus for his work on it.

In the same way, Metallica "works" for whatever record company they're with.
If they think they can sell product better independently, go for it (as Ani
DiFranco did, quite well, and many others do, very poorly). They turn out a
product, the record company pays them for their work (under my system), and
off we go. If it sells much better than anticipated, Metallica gets a bonus.

On the software piracy issue> You're too young. Been there, done that.
Software companies tried various things, such as making software that required
the disc to be in the drive, or writing a code on the distribution floppy to
indicate that the software had been installed, or including a non-producible
code sheet with the software, or some other difficult-to-reproduce password
system... they've all been abandoned, probably because of consumer complaint.
The problem was, if you lost the distribution disk or the password sheet, you
were screwed. 

Also, a sizable sector of the software market, business software, is
overwhelmingly consumed by companies which are large enough that they don't
want to risk lawsuits with unlicenced or improperly licensed software. Most
major corporations have policies about putting software on the network; this
is in part a irus security issue, but also out of fear that Microsoft or
whomever will find out they've got improperly licensed software. So Microsoft
doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the little guys, since they're
getting the money they want from the big guys.

Maybe MP3s will settle into a shareware-style environment, with individual
artists offering songs for a "whatever you want to pay" fee, as long as you
do the download and you provide the media. shareware still exists, despite
capitalist nay-sayers, so it must be making at least a few shekels for
somebody.

At any rate, I think the beef here is with the record companies, not with the
artists, and that's why I'm confused that other's system penalizes the artists
and rewards the record companies, by my read. (Aaron once again, is welcome
to provide a reasonable read of other's post that contradicts this
interpretation.)

(And no, Aaron, before you ask again, I don't feel better, since I didn't feel
bad to begin with.)

response 78 of 183:

May 17 22:18 UTC 2000

To me, the fact of an artist (or a record company) getting a royalty every
time someone plays a song they wrote/recorded/produced is the equivalent of
an architect (or a building contractor) getting a royalty every time someone
enters a building they designed/built.

My point is that entertainment is the only industry in which the creative
efforts at the core of the product are rewarded out of measure with the
efforts themselves (i.e. in perpetuity as opposed to one-time).

Suppose we treated musicians the same way we treat designers, architects,
layout artists, window dressers, etc.

Artists would be a paid a one-time fee for writing a song, and then would be
paid additional fees for each time they perform the song *themselves*. 
Recordings would be distributed freely, and (and here's the real shocker)
recorded music would be the inducement to come and see live performances, as
opposed to the current system in which performances are done to induce people
to buy recordings at inflated prices which result in record industry
executives and a very few artists being made wealthy beyond reason.  

Writing and performing popular music is work, and for many it is enjoyable
work.  
If we are going to treat the creation of art as an industry, then we should
do it in a way which levels the field so that people get paid for the work
they do when they do it, not over and over again for one piece of work they
did way back when.


This way, *good* musicians will have just as much chance to get their work
out as those 'selected' by industry executives, and market forces will result
in artists whose music is proven popular (by, sayyyy, the number of
downloads...??!) being given the opportunity to perform for people willing
to pay to see and hear them do so.

Artist:  Here's an MP3 I made.  
Independent promoter/producer:  Wow.  Lots of people here like your stuff.
Want to come to XXXXX and play a concert?  If it sells well, I might even pay
for you to record additional stuff so more people will want to come to your
concerts (assuming you agree to have me produce/promote the concerts.)

(This works a little like life.  You do work for free -- either as a volunteer
or in school -- to build up a portfolio.  Then, if someone decides they like
it enough to pay you to do more, you do more.  If you don't like the terms,
you renegotiate.  If you can't do that, then you take your portfolio and look
for someone else who likes your work. If your work is bad enough that you
can't find anone who will pay you to do it, then you either learn to do it
better or you do something else.)

response 80 of 183:

May 17 23:28 UTC 2000

I'm not assuming it is particularly attractive, but the reality is that a lot
of people spend a lot of their lives pursuing the dream of stardom in music
and never get much out of it.  At least this way, the goals would be lowered
to a more realistic level so that those people who really want to make music
and be good at it will try to make a living at it (while anyone who wants to
can still do it for their own pleasure).

It simply levels the field.  You do the work.  You make a living.  If you're
really good at it, you make a better living.  Of course it's less attractive.

Would the lottery have any appeal if you only got $500 a week for winning it,
but still had to work 40 hours each week to collect?

response 82 of 183:

May 17 23:29 UTC 2000

#80 slipped in..

response 84 of 183:

May 18 02:23 UTC 2000

Well, for all its flaws, we know the current model works, good and interesting
music gets made under it, and musicians find enough incentive to keep working.
For all people complain about record companies stifling innovation, there
seems to be a lot more variety in music, reaching a lot wider of an audience,
than there was under other models we know of.  I imagine it's tempting to
cling to what you know works, rather than strike off into the great unknown.

More to the point, since things will change whether we want them to or not,
it makes good sense to cling to those aspects of the current model that work
especially well.  There's nothing irrational about trying to have the things
that change be the things that weren't working so well in the first place.

response 86 of 183:

May 18 11:36 UTC 2000

I'm curious why the "few big stars" model which we've been living with is
good, though.  I'd rather see many local/regional bands, even if they aren't
as perfectly polished.  

Back several hundred years ago, composers would freely take melodies and such
from each other.  The idea was to see who could do the best arrangements with
them.  

response 88 of 183:

May 19 03:47 UTC 2000

Did that make you feel better?

response 90 of 183:

May 19 17:53 UTC 2000

  Thank you both, *so much* for playing..  Can you perhaps take all
  of the "I know you are, but what am I" and "am not, are too" to e-mail?

response 92 of 183:

May 19 19:36 UTC 2000

"The last word..."

Personally, I find these spats mildly entertaining.  Of course, if people
wanted to stop providing me such entertainments, they could simply *ignore*
provocative comments which detract from the discussion at hand.  Why anyone
would deny me thusly, though, I'll never know...  ;)

response 94 of 183:

May 19 20:09 UTC 2000

#91 expurgated.
I apologize for allowing Aaron's behavior to affect my posts.
I'm really not in the emotional state that's been attributed to me.
*shrug*
Anybody who wishes to go back to the original thread, please do so.
Anybody who wishes to address the issue of whose behavior is juvenile,
irritating, or whatnot, please don't.
For my part, I'm done with the personal comments and commentary in this item.

response 96 of 183:

May 19 21:43 UTC 2000

  Aaron:  the "he started it" defense (valid or not) only protects those
  who are twelve years old or younger (physical age, not maturity.)
  I realize your specialty is criminal law, but I'm surprised that that
  wasn't covered as part of your education.

response 98 of 183:

May 19 22:14 UTC 2000

re #96: As delightful as it would be to answer you in kind, I will
        instead remind you that we are supposed to be discussing MP3's.

response 100 of 183:

May 19 23:03 UTC 2000

I am perfectly happy to agree with Courtney. She's my heroin. Er, heroine.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36410,00.html