Re: [microsound] microsound future correction

[dave palmer <palmderski1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/29/00 12:37 PM, Geoff Farina at geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
well geoff, i totally respect your argument and your point of view on the
issue. perhaps you're right; i sincerely hope that you are. the only problem
i see with your argument is that we've never seen anything quite like what
is about to happen with these musical piracy sites. soon anyone will be able
to download anything in a truly accurate hi-fi format and that is what is
different. for example, if you could download for free any dvd in existence
in perfect quality at any time would you ever by or rent a dvd again? i sure
wouldn't; and while that would expose people to movies they had never seen
before it would also make it impossible to make money off those films unless
the downloads were associated with ad sponsors who would surely be picky
about what they would support. like yourself i have also supported myself by
selling independent music and by helping others make thier music happen(i am
a keyboard player/programmer and have worked with artists from MC 900 ft
Jesus to Seal) and i agree that so far the internet music piracy has helped
proliferate SOME independent labels and individual artists,however, when the
downloads are as good in sound quality as the actual product and thier is no
order links as in mp3.com, who in the world is going to waste thier money
buying the product from the label or the artist. small market and
independent artists will be the first to suffer. no, i don't think that this
will impact the industry for long as they have the money and the juice to
find ways to profit from thier products. they will somehow exploit it to
thier advantage. they will be able to protect the rights to their artists
material. indepent artists stand a large chance of having material straight
up stolen by other individuals or labels and used for other songs with out
proper credit given. many people whose music is being stolen by programs
like napster have no copyrights to thier material at all and,in fact, don't
even know the material has been posted at all. mp3 at least takes an artists
permission and pays royalties based on # of hits per track. this service
gives the kind of wide spread advertising you're talking about while also
keeping track of hits and how much money should be given. napster is a way
for napster to make money off ads and rip artists off in the process.
> 
> 
>> On 12/29/00 12:44 PM, "dave palmer" <palmderski1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> we should be figuring out new
>> ways to protect our musical rights and find new ways to make money off our
>> efforts instead of rally crying alongside piracy just because it seems
>> somehow non-status quo.
> 
> Nobody embraces so-called piracy because it "seems somehow non-status quo,"
> but because it in fact has helped proliferate independent music and helps
> sell independent records by facilitating new communities around common
> interests. 
> 
> My primary income has been from independent music for 7 years now, and the
> Internet, so-called "piracy" and Napster/Gnutella have only helped me and
> the label that sells my records. In general, most independent labels like
> the one that puts out my records has not been hurt by the Napster/Gnutella
> phenomenon, but has actually been helped by it. Independent CD sales in
> general have been higher than they ever have in the past two years precisely
> because the Internet and the proliferation of information technologies have
> facilitated a strong interest in music and helped break down geographical
> boundaries that would traditionally isolate independent artists and their
> music. 
> 
> Your argument is the same argument that has been made throughout this
> century and had it prevailed we would be without recorded music today, not
> to mention many other technologies. The same argument was made earlier this
> century by performance-rights organizations who naively argued that recorded
> music would take money and resources away from live performances. There was
> heavy opposition to the new technology of recorded music and it was only
> able to be marketed after a long struggle. Of course, recorded music
> facilitated a strong interest in music in general, which helped everyone
> involved, and certainly helped promoters of live music.
> 
> Your argument was also made more recently lobbyists for the first-run movie
> industry. The industry tried to stop VCR production for many years naively
> thinking people would stop going to theaters to see movies. Fortunately for
> all of us they failed to stop the new consumer technology, and to their
> surprise, the years following the popularization of VCRs also saw a sharp
> increase in the first-run movie industries profits. Today, of course, the
> industry is stronger than ever.
> 
> In general it's dangerous to try and stop seemingly-threatening new
> technologies without addressing the social situations and already-existing
> inequalities that exist. Technology is built by us and we still have agency
> within our current historical situation. Technology doesn't create problems,
> but amplifies already-existing social inequalities. If we're living together
> eating fish and rice (which we're not), it's not because of Napster, but
> because of power inequalities that Napster simply brings to the foreground.
> This is clear to anyone who studies the emergence of new technologies in
> America.
> 
> --Geoff Farina
> 
> PS: Because of the cut&paste below, the last email in this thread made it
> appear as if I wrote the following paragraph, which of course makes this
> thread seem confusing. However, the following paragraph was written by Dave
> Palmer, not me (Geoff Farina).
> 
> 
>> on 12/22/00 12:13 PM, Geoff Farina at geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> once again i would point to the true profit margins of both the majors and
>> most of the "indie" labels of which you speak. let me make it clear that i
>> do not want to argue about what truely was the most profitable label, i want
>> to mainly point out where i think the ability of artists to make thier
>> living with thier art is headed. i appreciate what internet piracy has done
>> for "underground" music but i'm afraid it will also help to destroy it.
>> small time artists must garner very loyal fans to compete with what is
>> coming, namely, the ability to download for free hi-fi recordings of
>> anything placed on a hard drive that has any form of music sharing software
>> on it. the majors will figure out a way to weather this storm and ,in fact,
>> will probably find a way to control it somehow but the little person will
>> lose alsmost all ability to profit from thier work. now those of you who
>> don't believe in profiting from what you do need to all move in together and
>> eat fish heads and rice for a while. it is unbelievably naive to think that
>> making a living off of your art is somehow bad or detrimental to the work
>> itself. you either make your own money from your art or you are completely
>> dependent upon the machinations of others. we should be figuring out new
>> ways to protect our musical rights and find new ways to make money off our
>> efforts instead of rally crying alongside piracy just because it seems
>> somehow non-status quo. in the end all this destruction of property rights
>> will give more power to the labels and less to the individual and all the
>> "radicals" out there will less heard than ever.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> thrill jockey records was the most profitable record company in th US
>>>>> last
>>>>> year and they deal mostly with indie rock and various forms of
>>>>> instrumental
>>> 
>>> This is silly. Any one of hundreds of major-label artists alone generate
>>> more net profit than TJ's entire catalog, and there are many indie labels
>>> that sell much more accessible indie music that make much more profit each
>>> year than TJ. Look at the sound scans and you can get a glimpse at how
>>> labels like TJ are excited to sell 15K-20K copies of one release, while any
>>> one MTV star (Britney Spears) alone constitutes a massive industry
>>> supporting many small companies that and merchandising endeavors.
>>> 
>>>> it is unwise to think that rampant piracy will somehow make underground
>>>> music more viable,on the contrary, the small time operator will never be
>>>> able to sell anything. perhaps this is what you want? if musicians can't
>>>> make aliving off their music they'll be more dependent than ever on big
>>>> business or private investment or fucking day jobs which really suck! the
>>>> little person,like always, will suffer first.
>>> 
>>> But "piracy" is only a function of our current system of music
>>> commodification. Many people say (and I agree) that the 20th century will be
>>> remembered as a brief point in time in which music/art was treated a as a
>>> mere commodity in our Capitalist system, with it's little idiosyncratic
>>> categories of "royalties" and "piracy" playing into the brief and
>>> relatively-meaningless drama. Music/art typically had a much more social and
>>> communal function for thousands of years before our current historical
>>> context, and Napster hints that it may reclaim this role in the future.
>>> 
>>> I should also say that music has been my primary employment for the past
>>> seven years and recording royalties have been my primary income, second only
>>> to performance fees, so I (seemingly) have a lot to loose in this debate.
>>> However, I am in full support of Napster and Gnutella because what's at
>>> stake is the stuff that makes underground music vital in the first place,
>>> which is far more crucial to me than my own short-term profits.
>>> 
>>> Geoff Farina
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

--Boundary_(ID_BKgs/QuIunPxua7WdCDGKA)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] microsound future correction"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit