Crisis in Music

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
289
Reaction score
219
Location
Los Angeles, CA
But the technological cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in.
You must not understand technology then. Solving this all with technology is simple. Getting everyone to buy into it is the issue. That will only happen with regulation.

file sharing isn't anywhere near the top of the music industries challenges.

and all legally and above-board
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,195
Reaction score
1,315
Location
California
You must not understand technology then. Solving this all with technology is simple. Getting everyone to buy into it is the issue. That will only happen with regulation.
Why go to "You must not understand technology"? Can't we have a CIVIL conversation - which doesn't include casting personal aspersions? When you could've have just as easily skipped that and started with your argument?

I don't agree that solving it with technology will be easy - as is always the case when something fundamentally changes. In the past, the public didn't share this kind of copyrighted material at will - BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T. It wasn't because of laws and regulations - it just wasn't possible to do at this kind of scale.

Remember RIAA freaking over cassettes? At that time a new public ability that threatened the existing model? How did that fight go??? If you remember, not all that well. Bans didn't happen. Copy protection schemes failed. Getting device makers to hobble tape decks failed. This what happens when the technology available to the public - be it the printing press, the automated washing machines or the internet - the world changes and businesses adapt - or they cease to exist. (I really do understand technology - in the narrow and broad sense of the term - pretty decently.)

So sure some legislation will be of great help - IMO particularly in the area of licensing standards. But it will not be a panacea - the structure of the music will change - actually already is.

To clarify - I never said that file-sharing is not a problem. It is just not at the top of the list. Why? Well one, it's the hardest to fix. Where a better deal for creators from the music sellers is much more doable - and with a clearer path to success.

Please note though that the MUSO article states as of two years ago, the biggest share of illegal file sharing happens with TV shows... not music, nor movies. I'd suggest that is because TV is furthest behind in creating a consumer palatable legal method of acquiring current program - except through the cable company. We can listen to legal streams from Spotify, Apple Music, etc - we can legally download from numerous sources - but current TV shows???

Netflix has been the most successful - but far from comprehensive, nor current. And unlike the iTunes, TV is miles from the one-stop shopping that consumers desire. And this looks like it's going to get worse - with streaming subscription services coming from Disney, Apple, Universal, and Warners looking to basically destroy the headway Netflix has made towards being ubiquitous.

I've read many analysts discussing how this broadening of the market - this need to pile subscription upon subscription in order to see that latest content is likely to drive a huge growth in illegal file sharing for TV shows - as the result of an industry that can't grasp what the market will bear and what it won't.

They want to maintain iron fisted control over distribution and the rewards that comes from that - in a world where they can no longer control distribution to that degree.

No amount of regulation is going to fix that - not all of it.
Again - old news. This regarding a case filed in 2014 - settled in 2017 - that deals with the way YouTube was then - not the way it does now.

The court decreed that ""YouTube must in future -- through advance controls -- ensure that no content that infringes copyright is uploaded".

Well that future is already here. YouTube has done this. Try it - make a short video with your camera pointed at anything with "Purple Haze" playing in the background on your speakers. Upload it - and see what happens. It is no longer illegal to do that - because YouTube has in place the "advanced controls" turn that formally illegal act into a legal business transaction - a 3way transaction between you, YouTube and the owners of that recording of Purple Haze.

YouTube no longer claims to function as a "neutral intermediary" - but rather a broker of advertiser based marketing. They are in effect - a TV station. Broadcasting 3rd party productions (user videos) sometime with advertising, sometimes without - but also with rights clearance.

So again - it is no longer 2014. And the fact that it took 3 years for that court to decide on something - that no longer applied to the world of 2017 - just demonstrates how difficult and trying this is all going to be to work through.
 

dcrigger

DFO Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
5,195
Reaction score
1,315
Location
California
So are record companies no longer suing consumers over file sharing?
I think that's been proven to be a pretty losing strategy - both from a PR and a return on investment standpoint.

Here's an article about the state of that - circa 2010


These days - the idea is to go after the file sharer's ISP account. The right's holders file complaints to the internet service providers - who are then obligated to inform their user of the complaint - and tell them that further abuses could result in their account being suspended.

So lawsuits currently are focused on the labels suing internet service providers for not following through on the threats to repeat offenders.


I guess the current question is whether the big ISP's would rather cancel subscriber's or just shoulder the lawsuits (and their settlements). My take is that this conflict isn't being a slam dunk for either side. And again, considering that VPN (virtual private network) accounts are legal and available from virtually free to about $10 a month - enabling the end-user to transfer files entirely anonymously, we're back to the same problem of business interests not having the physical means to share locked down. Compared to say, the manufacture of CD's in the 80's. Or the pressing and distribution of records prior to that.

So it's incremental - the warnings, the account terminations, the lawsuits can certainly have an effect. But it will by no means be total - not even close.

Which brings us back as always - to the market. And the inevitable need to restructure the industry to reflect what the market will bear. Much like long distance telephone calls merited premium rates that are now most often simply included with service - some of the premiums the labels can charge have simply disappeared. When you are selling a license to a file - you can no longer expect to continue to collect profits on manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, brick and mortar store partnerships - those aspects of their businesses are gone. Their businesses thus are smaller - and as a result, the profits derived from that smaller business must be smaller as well.

Lots of changes - and IMO lots of changes to come...
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
Anytime there's technological advance of any depth, there's going to be industries turned on their ears - sometimes for awhile, sometimes forever (chimney sweep business anyone? Ice Delivery??) Heck you think this is bad - just buckle up - we got automated trucks coming in 10-20 years. Which will mean moving 80% of those drive anything for a living into other work? What other work????
I think we both agree this is am complex subject.
For me, the only thing that is turned on it's head is the lack of income for working artists.
It takes the same amount of time to learn an instrument, it takes the same amount of time to hone one's skills as a composer/songwriter. It takes as much effort and (more) money to take your show on the road. You can't really compare it to automation, where the human element has been completely removed. The main thing in music that has been removed is the purchasing of recordings.
 

lissa

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom,CA
This speaker maybe highly educated, but he is seriously mixed up.
Record companies care about one thing and one thing only......UNITS SOLD.
If a female jazz singer who weighed 300 pounds and did not look like a fashion model
came out with a record...called..."the fat lady sings" and it sold 10 million units.
The "Fat lady sings volume two" would soon be on its way.

This dude needs to grow up.
Agreed
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
I get that times change. I get that there has been a technological revolution. I get that the 'genie is out of the bottle'.
Etc, etc.
I think it's still reasonable to discuss the negative impact a lot of this has brought.
There are some interesting vlogs on Youtube about how hard it is to earn a living as a Youtube.

In short, from my point of view, the gatekeepers are gone, but the vast majority of the income has also gone for the vast majority of musicians.
Like a tiny proportion of Youtubers, a tiny proportion of artists are earning huge amounts, while everyone else is barely covering their costs.
can we fix it? maybe? Doing nothing or saying nothing is not going to change anything.
You have Greta Thunberg sailing to America to attend a climate conference, or catching a train from Stockholm to London (over several days) to speak at the Houses of parliament.
Meanwhile you have hundreds of thousands of working musicians flying everyday, sometimes twice a day, to play gigs, when pre-internet they would have been working in a nearby recording studio.
Electronic music sells zero basically. So DJ's and electronica artists travel by air every weekend of the year, putting in. personal appearances which bring in enough income to make the next record. You have legacy artists (from the 70's and 80's) flying around America every day of the week, when in the past they would be at home, with record income enough to put food on the table. Live show ticket prices have gone from $30 to $300.
I'm not saying touring is bad, just stating the plain facts, that with every new technology there are negative impacts, negatives that effect everyone in society.
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
Since the internet that has only got worse. No label will take any risk any more.
Sure, it was already heading that way in the 90's, but you had Susan Boyle who had major hits on a major label. In the past you had Mama Cass in The Mama's And The Papas. Do you think Steely Dan are 'lookers'?
Major labels supported Frank Zappa and Capt Beefhart. Major labels had top ten hits with Weather Report (Birdland) and Laurie Anderson (Oh Superman).
It's never that black and white. There were more music enthusiasts working at labels in the 70's and 80's than there are now running tech companies.
In addition to them just loving and therefore supporting some niche artists, it also attached some 'cool' to the label.
 

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
289
Reaction score
219
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Why go to "You must not understand technology"?
I went there only because you said that "the technological cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in" which tells me that your understanding of technology is limited. I wasn't trying to offend you; just making an observation. Sorry.

Remember RIAA freaking over cassettes? At that time a new public ability that threatened the existing model? How did that fight go???
Yes, I do. But cassettes weren't an exact copy of the original. Do you remember when the RIAA and AFM dealt with DAT recorders?

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 imposed taxes on DAT recorders and blank media. However, the computer industry successfully lobbied to have personal computers exempted from that act, setting the stage for massive consumer copying of copyrighted material on materials like recordable CDs and by extension, filesharing systems such as Napster.

As soon as people were allowed to rip CDs (let alone turn around and burn their own copies) the damage was done. Only by forcing computer and electronics hardware manufacturers to change their offerings will this ever stop.
It's totally possible. As an example, try scanning a $5 or $20 bill. Chances are your scanning software will detect what you're doing and do its best to prevent you from counterfeiting money.
 

dsop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
289
Reaction score
219
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The main thing in music that has been removed is the purchasing of recordings.
Sort of, but don't lose sight of the fact that TONS of money is changing hands thanks to music. It's just going to the wrong people.
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
Yes, I said that in my first post.
For me, the ratio of share is unfair. It's not so much 'the wrong people', as a handful of people making millions, while most are making virtually nothing.
In the end it's bad for music, and that's bad for music consumers.
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
Only by forcing computer and electronics hardware manufacturers to change their offerings will this ever stop.
I agree that streaming is an evolution and I highly doubt we're ever going back to anything that resembles the pre-internet music industry.
The difference between music and TV/film is stark.
In music, any new artist is competing with every record that's ever been released. And most consumers are using 'free' services like Spotify free and Youtube (albeit they are ad supported). To stream movies and current TV, you are looking at a paid subscription. And you can't find every movie or every tv show ever made available free and on demand.
 

thenuge

Very well Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
837
Reaction score
79
Location
brooklyn
Everything can be amended. Online newspapers may not be the best analogy, but if anyone remembers when the internet was really exploding in the late 90s, the NY Times was completely free, and this was true for years. You still had to pay at the newsstand, and I guess they were banking literally on physical sales staying strong. They did not. And now? Not free online! One freakin bit. And last year was the first year streaming out-earned physical sales of music, so maybe it’s similar. Maybe there’s hope. Musicians will have to organize better than we have though. If youtube/google can write code to stop people from uploading copyrighted material on yt, why can’t they write code for the whole internet to do the same? But the real issue is: no music should be on youtube or spotify or anywhere else, at least at current prices. If someone wants to stream a whole song it should cost them or more of the ad revenue should be going to musicians, and it should happen either on a label’s website or on a band or songwriter’s site instead of a third party’s. The genie may not be going back in the bottle but to say we can’t give that genie a pillow party is giving up way too soon.
 

Mcjnic

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
834
If youtube/google can write code to stop people from uploading copyrighted material on yt, why can’t they write code for the whole internet to do the same?
They do not own the browsers or the internet.
They can only write effective code for their programs and sites ... YouTube and the search engine etc.
... and thank GOD they are powerless in that.
Imagine for a second ... one tech company that can write code that would control YOUR actions within the entire internet.
Scary freekin thought.
 

Whitten

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
66
Google are close to controlling people's actions on the net.
Scary - is already here.
 

Mcjnic

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
834
Google are close to controlling people's actions on the net.
Scary - is already here.
No. They are not.
It is a voluntary action by the individual to utilize their software.
The internet is quite large.
Google is trying to expand.
It has a ways to go.
If you choose to utilize gmail and the web based office offerings, that is a choice.
If you choose to blindly allow a search engine to control your results, that is also a choice.
If you choose ... and I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would ... to allow a device in your home to listen to you, or watch you, monitoring you and your family 24/7 ... well ... your search engine choice is the least of your problems.

Software is not difficult to understand.
Computers are not intelligent.
They carry out what actions are written.
So ...
 

dale w miller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
489
Reaction score
278
Location
Ocean, NJ
This speaker maybe highly educated, but he is seriously mixed up.
Record companies care about one thing and one thing only......UNITS SOLD.
If a female jazz singer who weighed 300 pounds and did not look like a fashion model
came out with a record...called..."the fat lady sings" and it sold 10 million units.
The "Fat lady sings volume two" would soon be on its way.

This dude needs to grow up.
I think what most of us realize is they would most likely not invest in an unknown Fat Lady Sings.
 

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Roxbury, NH.
No. They are not.
It is a voluntary action by the individual to utilize their software.
The internet is quite large.
Google is trying to expand.
It has a ways to go.
If you choose to utilize gmail and the web based office offerings, that is a choice.
If you choose to blindly allow a search engine to control your results, that is also a choice.
If you choose ... and I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would ... to allow a device in your home to listen to you, or watch you, monitoring you and your family 24/7 ... well ... your search engine choice is the least of your problems.

Software is not difficult to understand.
Computers are not intelligent.
They carry out what actions are written.
So ...
I agree with Whitten, Google's power can not be denied and coupled with most people's inability to recognize malevolence allows for a technological dictatorship.

Google owns YouTube. I specifically remember during the last election when "Fake News" became a catch phrase. Sergey Brin immediately took this opportunity to announce that there is no room for "Fake News" on Google and by default YouTube. So now Google decides what is true and what is a lie, what is real and what is fake. An unbelievable amount of intellectual content and investigative research was Memory Holed since that announcement, shade of Oceania's Ministry of Truth that was anything but. To this day Many YouTube channels that interest me have been muzzled out of fear of loosing their channel over Google's three strike rule.

As far as computers not being intelligent, again I disagree. We as a society are clearly being primed for a Kurzweil-ian Singularity, whether it is your children and Transformers or you with "Ex Machina", "I am Mother" and the "Matrix". They do not condition for no reason.

Mcjnic makes some solid points but does not address the sheer market share and absolute dominance Google has in the game and ignores that the vast majority of people have been so throughly dumbed down that they are simply unable to see the malevolence, which is necessary to even think about pursuing alternatives.
 

dale w miller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
489
Reaction score
278
Location
Ocean, NJ
I think live music has always had an issue in my lifetime. Did bands have to draw people to these big clubs back in 30’s-50’s? When did it become you have to bring people in to drink the clubs overpriced drinks from you have to entertain the club’s people already there so they don’t leave from paying for these overpriced drinks?

Ted Gioia is not an idiot. I have his book West Coast Jazz, the best and most informative source on that topic.
His message is important. The music business has been taken over by big corporations that have no interest in anything but the low common denominator. The effect is pervasive, right down to those of us who work locally.
Musical freedom and creativity are no longer commercially viable. Oh yeah, there are great creative musicians out there, but the majority of them are starving.
If you're a musician and you don't get in line with the drone mentality, you'd better get a day job.
This is nothing new. This has been going on since my life in music. When was that famous Frank Zappa interview about record companies and their executives recorded?

This is nothing new. This has been going on since my life in music. When was that famous Frank Zappa interview recorded

This is one of the main things my union, the American Federation of Musicians, works on now. They are working with legislators and the streaming services and music companies to get the songwriters AND performers paid from the streaming services, as well as increase the pay rate from terrestrial radio.
Any other Union musicians on this Forum would know this if they read our monthly magazine, the International Musician, free with membership.
The union has been utterly worthless in my lifetime at least in the various scenes I’ve played in in my lifetime.
 


Top