Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/02/09
08/02/09
08/03/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
I like the way you're happy to suggest that artists should only be paid for performance and then you can say that Mozart must have "had an orchestra" and that he "probably made a lot of money."
Think of orchestras as the iPod of Mozart's time -- if you had one and you had a copy of Mozart's score, you could listen to music. The only people who had iPods in the late 1700s, though, were the rulers of the day -- royalty, government and the extremely rich. These performances were not mounted for Mozart's finanacial benefit and any monetary gain did not go to him. They wouldn't even let him sell t-shirts at the door!
Mozart died destitute and was buried in a mass grave.
"So...um...again...what?"
So...um... it seems likely that a sustainable system for cultivation of the arts doesn't look like just PERFORM OR DIE! The situation just might be a little bit more complex than that.
Here's a bit of optimism: These days people can have their own orchestras, almost literally. A motivated individual can produce work that in even the recent past would have required resources that were not generally accesible -- recording and distribution, primarily. You can have your own recording studio, radio station, television channel and record store. So while things are screwed up at the moment, they're also changing pretty fast and I think that what we'll find in the near future is that artists of all sorts (not just performing artists) will be able to make a respectable living off of a system that everyone will feel good about supporting. Indeed, I think that even given how much people argue about this subject, the idea that a self-sustaininng system is within reach (one in which artists rewarded in a meaningful but not indulgent manner for their work) is something on which everyone generally agrees.
08/01/09
08/01/09
When you copy music, it cost nothing for the music industry. Its not like they pay for stocking excess copies of music online, its not like they need to order more copies to 'stock the shelves' in itune. so how are they justifying 100s of thousands of dollars of monetary loss? Will grocery stores sue me for 'potential loss' if I plant my own organic garden that I planted by cloning grocery store tomatoes?
Crucifixion really does describe what is happening here and is totally not fair for the guy who is getting sued. He isn't responsible for all our sins, yet he's paying for them because RIAA wants to make a business out of suing people. If they are really honest about 'protecting the industry' they should significantly reduce fines and return them to the artists much like how parking tickets pay for our roads and highways. RIAA is like the crooked cop who takes bribes and does nothing to improve the traffic infrastructure.
Well, at least they stopped suing people and their new strategy of working with ISPs won't work because ISPs don't want to loose customers since most of them are sharing files, especially for their premium customers who pay more for the higher bandwidth. I don't know what the right way to deal with piracy is, but everything the RIAA is doing are not working. Perhaps they should think about rewarding loyal customers instead of punishing 'potential customers' who weren't your customers in the first place. They should provide incentives for buying new songs because no matter what they do, people will always find ways to rip music and share them.
08/02/09
Yes, copying a CD is like sneaking into a theater, but that's not the issue. We're talking about filesharing.
If you rip a CD, the "crime" ends there, since it will likely be for personal use. But if you then go ahead and distribute the items on P2P, then it's like passing a copy to a couple of your friends, and they in turn copy out to a couple of their friends, and it keeps going. You are enabling a distribution network. You now have an act orders of magnitude above lifting a CD from a store.
I have no love for the RIAA, but at least you can see some of the justification for these crazy high penalties.
08/03/09
08/03/09
08/01/09
In regards to the commenter who suggests firing the RIAA lawyers...the RIAA are LAWYERS. It's an entity that exists in a vacuum subsided BY lawyers for lawyers.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/02/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
If that's true, then why isn't a cent of this money going to the artists? This thing hasn't been about artists or music companies being paid for their work. It's been about a crusade to fight off the coming invasion of digital music long enough for the old hats to learn how to control it. If they were really concerned with artists getting paid, they'd be finding ways for artists to get paid.
Get your eyes off Tenenbaum and Thomas and start actually helping your artists.
08/01/09
08/01/09
But the RIAA is there to protect publishers, and the publishers are losing potential profit because of piracy.
That's not to say that every pirated song amounts to one real potential purchase, but you have to admit that, were piracy not around, a lot of people would be buying a lot more music.
08/01/09
08/01/09
When I hear those acronyms I always think about those door to door tax collectors that used to exploit poor workers back in dark ages europe or something like that.
It is a clear case of abuse of power, crucifying some people to serve as example to others, using fear tactics and infecting society and politics with their venon.
I won't enter the whole "piracy is bad" discussion here again, since it's a long one, but just to reiterate my feelings: FUCK RIAA and MPAA... the world will be a better place when both associations cease to exist.
08/01/09
The way things lie now, big business produce manufactured boy-band music that only lingers in the memory for a week or less and our kids are being educated by morons whilst the most successful students are graduating and going into the financial sector (and look how that has turned out).
Is society doomed?
An album isn't worth what they want you to pay. That's why people are downloading it for free. Have a look at the iPhone app store - they know what they're doing - an app for a dollar please - that's the equilibrium price for anything in that category. You'll pay a dollar for an app without blinking. $10 or more for an album you can listen to for free on youtube? I don't think so - c'mon music industry, who are you fooling?
Stop fighting the P2Pers, you're the ones out of sync, not them. Stop letting the tail wag the dog.
08/01/09
I overheard a coworker talking about using limewire still. jeebus.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
And then watch as the artists start leaving the respective companies in your organization to form another group to finally counter you.
08/02/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
This is why:
06/19/09
Key words "PAY A GUY".
It costs money to make music. Instruments cost money. Production gear costs money. Studio time costs money. An engineer worth a damn costs money. It costs money to have an album mastered, so that it sounds appealing to the masses. It costs money for a decent website.
All you people who think that all artists are OBLIGATED to give you their product for free, F*CK YOU!
I have almost 10k invested in my home studio. And it's not even that much of a studio. How do I recoup that investment without charging money for MY BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS? And I'm about to spend another grand just to promote my new album, and even more to have it mastered, and make CD's for promo purposes.
Labels are necessary. They help the artist sell their product so that they can concentrate on making the product. OOOH, but the major labels are BAAAAAD. Where do you draw the line of "major"? Is Metropolis records a major label? The VNV Nation song mentioned in all the articles is on that label. most people have never heard of them, but they're the biggest label for industrial music right now. And I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that VNV Nation paid for everything up to the mastering stage.
It is the artist's or rightsholder's decision to give music away for free, not yours to take it.
Yes, the jury award is outrageous in inappropriate to the crime. But she's the one who decided to take it to trial.
Oh, and all of my previous work is available for free, to share. Bu that's MY decision, not yours.
06/19/09
I personally find it interesting that all these sharing and copyright rules apply to music and film, but you take a visual artist and the jpegs are all over the place for people to download and no one gives a crap.
The artist in this case puts in the same amount of money and work...if not more - instruments, hard drives, master tapes - all that equipment can be reused easily. Art supplies, not quite so. Of course, there is natural media software such as Painter and ArtRage, Wacom tables that last for a long time and so on but then there is no "original" to sell. But I digress.
Anyway, the artist makes a painting, can sell the original and prints, or anyone can nab a jpg and have it for free and post it wherever and no one will do a damn thing. It is also copyright infringement, but there's this amusing double-standard whereas the visual artist's legal case is a joke but the musicians is serious business.
I wonder how many of the people who are anti-music piracy have never downloaded a piece of visual art. I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I would guess very, very few - if not none.
Maybe there should be a VAA (Visual Artists Association) to sue people for 80 grand apiece for all the jpgs of artwork and professional photos they downloaded off the internet.