Bumblefoot on the music industry

[michaelvincent]

In the grand scheme, the internet is pretty young. And even more so in the context of using it as a form as commerce for music (the reason we have drm, and all of the debates surrounding it), but we're slowly learning that it can be effective as a marketing tool. In time it can be just as effective as any major print campaign or big budget marketing campaign. Sure, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or the Arcade Fire aren't as huge as the latest top 40 sensation, but the fact that they made their name on their own without those big budgets points to a time in the not so distant future where independent acts will be on equal footing with the majors.

And bands make way more from touring and merch sales than they do record sales. Wilco did just fine for themselves touring on an unreleased Yankee Hotel Foxtrot without a label supporting them before the signed to Nonesuch. Jeff Tweedy himself said he wasn't terribly concerned about rushing into a record deal because they were plenty successful on the road.

The internet isn't just a way to pirate music. It can be a very sophisticated marketing tool. I think Trent Reznor did a good job of proving that. I think Axl Rose would be wise to pay attention as well. Almost all of the hype surrounding Chinese Democracy has been via the internet and people talking about it on the internet. I don't remember any point where Interscope made an effort to market CD.

[kyrie]

This may have been pointed out already - I didn't feel like reading every reply - however:

There is one section in  that little dialog (which reminds me a lot of old Philosophy and English classes so kudos to bumble on his choice of formats) that is completely false:

"You?re buying the objects that carry the music, not the music."

You are *not* buying the media the songs come on.

You are buying the songs.

How so?

For years the record industry has repeated, ad nauseum, that the reason there is no guarantee on the CDs and DVDs we purchase is because we are purchasing the *content* - not the media. This is why most labels wouldn't replace damaged media. It's why there is no warranty on CDs that, after a decade or two, due to shoddy manufacturing, have begun oxidizing after their sealant has withered away and are slowly becoming unplayable.

CDs and DVDs were marketed as an "indestructible" media - that's right from the horse's mouth (the horse being the recently deceased ex-MPAA chief Jack Valenti). Only, they obviously are not and are just as fragile as records were.

Which is why the copyright laws in almost every nation - before draconian measures like the DMCA were created by bought-off politicians living off campaign donations - allowed for users to make a backup.

Media shifting - the right to move copyrighted material that you have purchased from one format to another - is also part of copyright law in many nations.

No one buys the media. Without the content, the media is just a bright shiny disc that makes a lame frizbee. We pay for the content - we buy the content, no matter how badly the industry now wishes to claim otherwise (contradicting their own past statements). We do not "license" the content, which is the latest gimmick  the RIAA likes to contend in their quest to further milk the cash cow they believe Joe Consumer is.

We pay for  the content, and yes, we can transfer it.

*** /rant over

Aside from that... bfoot put together one of the most coherent looks at the copyright debate I've seen thus far. And his conclusion sums it up nicely (as it should):

People want their music (or movies, or TV shows).

But there's an addition that needs to be made:

People want their entertainment... in a quality format that is not restricted or forces them to jump through hoops to get it, and at a price that is fair for the product in question.

That means, no DRM, no "you must have an HDCP compatible TV," no rootkits (Sony), no defective discs (EMI), no price fixing, no bullshit.