No Sympathy Here

[filkertom]

Sony's quick fix for its bogus copy-protection software problem has problems of its own.

I may not be the best judge of this on the scale they operate on, but... not worrying about copy protection and just asking my fans to support me by purchasing my music if they like it has been working out fine, guys. Heck, the other day I got Little By Little, that download album from Harvey Danger, and then slipped 'em some bucks through PayPal. Happy them, happy me.

No, it's not gonna put any of us into a mansion in Southern California... but I don't think most of us want or need that.

Thanks to denali1 for the heads-up.

Comments

[denali1.livejournal.com]

And ya know, thats the thing. I've never had any problem with paying for music... Be it CDs, Tapes or downloads from iTunes.

However, having some conglomerate of idjits installing craptacularly written software on my carefully hand-built computer just will not abide. From this point forward, I've really come to the conclusion that Sony can bite my Scottish buns.

Ok, I'll stop frothing at mouth now. :)

[fuzzyvanman.livejournal.com]

I should also point out that Baen books is also doing fine distributing their ebooks without copy protection.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

It's good to be a Mac Head! [grin] Does the Sony copy protection apply to me? But I'm avoiding them on general principles anyway. Man, they own a LOT of bloody labels!

I'm already in SoCal, still saving up for the mansion but at least the travel budget is covered. [smile]

I've just started shopping with CD Baby and like them very much. Just received "Harmony Heifers" [regrouped Duras Sisters + Maya Bohnhoff] and your bud the Great Luke Ski. Good filk, speedy delivery and man, do they make us customers feel wanted! For more "mundane" music, I confess to being iTunes' bitch. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss 99 cents goodbye.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Does the Sony copy protection apply to me?

Yes, but slightly less badly. But only slightly.

I'm boycotting Sony altogether for twenty or fifty years, until they prove that they respect their customers and don't treat them as criminals.

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

not worrying about copy protection and just asking my fans to support me by purchasing my music if they like it has been working out fine

If I go to a p2p site and look up "Tom Smith" and don't find what I'm looking for (and therefore have to instead pay for it) is it because Tom Smith's fans are honest and willing to support him, or is it because there aren't enough of them to have listed his whole discography prominently on the swap networks?

Someone like Madonna (not actually on Sony, just an example) has more to lose because A) her entire discography is available P2P and B) there are a lot of people who know to look for her, or who will recognize the name and download what they see.

That, and I've seen you within two paces of my face, so if I was inclined to trade music I might feel guilty about trading yours.

You can't compare your experience with artists with bigger fan bases.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Well, there's also the issue of at least two other folkies named Tom Smith out there. ;)

And the "within two paces of my face" is actually precisely what I'm talking about. The closer fans feel to the artists, the likelier they are to pay for their stuff. I've got MP3s of Christine Lavin, Luke Ski, Uncle Bonsai, etc. -- but I've got all the albums those songs are on as well. Even Madonna's fans will buy her stuff, because they love her and want to support her. I remember when Barenaked Ladies came out with a single -- I think it was "Pinch Me", if not it was "One Week" -- that they themselves put on Kazaa, with an ad stuck in the middle. Got everybody's attention, and boosted sales.

[hughcasey.livejournal.com]

"No, it's not gonna put any of us into a mansion in Southern California... but I don't think most of us want or need that."

Ah, but that's just it, Tom... the people who run Sony DO want that.

We aren't talking about people who are content with "Happy them, happy me". They just want "Happy me... as happy as I can freakin' get, screw all y'all".

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, that is one of the big problems with human nature. Some people want more than what's good for 'em. I mean, I'd like a bigger income myself. I'd love to make six figures a year at this. It might even happen. But, as I said, part of the equation is the sense of scale.

When I press an album (as opposed to burning a CD-R, which is literally one at a time over here), I get a lot of about 1,000. I say "about" because of the overruns or underruns associated with getting CDs made. Call it $16,000 retail value. That's what I get paid for however many weeks or months of work it was to put together that album. In the case of the newest one, that's for about three months' time, over the course of, say, five months. I do not get paid for that time until I have the final product in hand and it goes on sale, or at least until I set up the pre-order, which I will only do when the final recording is ready to go. No contracts, no advances, no front money. I don't know how many indie artists work that way, but I suspect more than a few.

And, what bedlamhouse says below, with an addition: Remember that the big companies are selling a very ephemeral product. They're going for whoever's hot, whatever's hot, selling mostly to impulsive kids who want something to dance to. Think about the artists who really have a following, and compare their bodies of work to the Flavor of the Month. Fans of more established acts tend to be older, to have more defined tastes, and tend not to buy their albums at big-box stores.

Think about it: How many Meijer, Target, KMart, and Wal-Mart stores have you been in that carry a decent folk or jazz or classical or alternative selection? It's all contemporary R&B, hip-hop, a few bands like Green Day and Beastie Boys, and a lot of Alanis/Tori ripoffs. They don't even have a lot of Beatles or Stones or Who or Guess Who or Billy Joel or Elton John or Annie Lennox or or or or or. You will never find Uncle Bonsai, Eric Bogle, the Chenille Sisters, Christine Lavin, Tom Paxton, Pete Seeger, Dar Williams, Tempest, Lou & Peter Berryman, Madcat Ruth, Arlo Guthrie, etc., etc., etc. They sell by volume, and I don't just mean cranking the amp to 11.

As fewer and fewer companies reissue older recordings on CD, the electronic distribution model will become more important than ever.

[bedlamhouse]

I always get into trouble when I enter these kinds of threads ...

First, let me make it clear that Bedlam House recordings are not and will not ever be copy-protected in any way. We hope that those who tend to like this kind of music will copy _responsibly_ (for their own use, which is legal, or at most to provide a sample for their friends - though the upcoming new Bedlam House web site should provide radio-quality mp3s in hopes of making this unnecessary). We plan to have all of our works available through digital sources. We believe in the power of the Internet to help distribute niche music to those who would normally not be able to hear it.

That being said, it is my choice to distribute this way. At our sales level, we clearly have more to gain than to lose by it. I think that much of this is due to the audience, much like I think the smaller number of viruses written for Mac and Linux has to do with the virus writers' attitudes more than some idea that these OSes are perfect and lack exploits (*ducking*)

The bigs don't trust their audience, because their data shows that they are losing more money on piracy than indy artists are likely to make overall. That's a lot of money to kiss off. Add to that the fact that customers of the bigs expect a lot more in terms of studio effort and tour amenities (Tom Smith's concert doesn't need to provide the kind of expensive multimedia experience expected from a wannabe pop star) and that even though the horrible standard contract charges the artist for these expenses the majority of artists never make enough to cover it so the bigs have to pay for it.

I hate that major labels feel they have to do these things. I hate that they screw it up so royally when they do. What I hate most, though, is the idea that those who devalue the real work done by artists, engineers, and producers are somehow heroes of the realm, and that the effort to stop them is somehow inherently evil because it is led by a big company.

The model is changing, and those who refuse to embrace the changes will sooner or later find themselves shut out. Our best weapon is to fund the new model and refuse to fund the old model - but the refusal to fund the old model has to be real, not just a decision to download illegal copies rather than buying legal ones.

stop me before I rant again

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

The people who make unauthorized copies available to the general public may not be heroes, but the villains in the piece are the corporations whose unspeakable greed (built into them by the way our capitalist system has broken down, but that's way beyond the scope of this post) leads them to the belief that they are rightfully entitled to get paid for every single play of "their" music, paid by every person that wants to hear it at all as much money as the most stupid, desparate, and has-too-much-money sheep they can find is willing to give up. I have nothing at all against the artist getting a generous payback for his efforts. That's why I don't gripe about paying $15 or more for a small label CD; the money is going to someone that deserves it. But a major label mass market CD that costs $.25 to produce selling for the same price, when the artist gets less than $1, quite properly pisses off the public to the point where they no longer feel bound to play by the rules. The RIAA brought the situation down on themselves with their greed, and they have poured more gasoline on the fire at every turn by continuing to escalate their arrogance and greed.

Companies have twisted intellectual property law to the point where it does more harm than good to society. Civil disobedience is not unjustified; if you're willing to accept the personal risk involved in playing illegal copies of major label hit songs, I say go for it. Just remember that small independent artists like filkers are a different case entirely, despite the apparent equivalence of their products. Don't rip off Tom or Bill just because you like to rip off Sony-BMG. If you want their stuff in your music collection, pay for it.

Re: stop me before I rant again

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

he RIAA brought the situation down on themselves with their greed, and they have poured more gasoline on the fire at every turn by continuing to escalate their arrogance and greed.

Oh, you mean like this

Yeppers.

Re: stop me before I rant again

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Ah-yup. The RIAA's suing of MP3 pirates and then settling for a few thousand dollars each is a prime example. It's a fear tactic. Because, otherwise, you have to believe that Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney and Metallica and Aerosmith are hangin' there by the phone, waiting for their dime per song from some kid in the Bronx.

It's like I've always said: My audience is not the music pirates. The people who aren't gonna pay for my stuff, aren't gonna pay for my stuff whether I'm an indie artist or filling stadiums. So I don't worry about them. I try to keep up the dialogue with those who are willing to pay, who think my music is worth it. I am incredibly grateful to all of you who do so, and I'm gonna keep crankin' out stuff as long as possible, and make it as good as possible so that you think it's worth it.

Re: stop me before I rant again

[umbran.livejournal.com]

...the villains in the piece are the corporations whose unspeakable greed (built into them by the way our capitalist system has broken down, but that's way beyond the scope of this post)...

Gotta disagree, there. Their greed is quite speakable, mostly because it is not a product of any particular economic or social system - similar greed has been seen in each and every culture and system ever seen on the planet. It is human nature, plain and simple.

That said, it's still stupid, and I want them to stop being that way. :)

[hms42]

One thing I have with ANY music that I have from the filk community is the attitude, if its in print (or I know a dealer with some stock of an old tape), please purchase it because it does two things - 1 It supports the dealer who is providing my filk fix and 2 it supports the original artist (Like you, Bill). If its out of print (IE - OCP, Wail Songs, Dandelion Digital, Thor Records), then ok, a copy is alright, but please send something to the artist (purchase another one of their tapes/CDs or just send an unspecified amount into interfilk as a donation.) I leave it to the recipient on that choice.

As for Bedlam House products, they are findable and in print, which means NO copies beyond the mp3s for my travelling CD. I MIGHT send someone to filk.com to hear a piece or a song (hasn't happened yet on the albums you have published, just a couple of songs that were on out of print tapes). I want to support the publishers and the artists. I am one of those who DOES want more music from the small guys who would get screwed over by this stuff.

Speaking of Bedlam House... So... What new is coming out from you? (I have spare cash and would like to send some your direction, or at least to a dealer who purchased the CDs from you.)

They could benefit MORE by putting some songs out there.. Baen books proves that it works and I know I found an artist or two because I was listening to a FREE song on Filk.com's radio station. (I tracked them down and ordered at least 3-4 CDs because of the mp3s they made available.) Its going to be interesting when they figure it out and start supporting vs hindering the digital market.

As for this software screwup.... I saw the list that they are recalling. I was thinking of purchasing one of the albums on it as a holiday gift. Now I am NOT going to waste my money on it. Time to go look for another gift for my father.

Harold S.

whoa.

[the-blue-fenix.livejournal.com]

You know you're having a bad day when _Microsoft_ says your software is too buggy and shows too much contempt for the end user.

[codevixen.livejournal.com]

You know, for a long time, I was using the filk music from my mom's collection to play on my own computer. Ripping the files and keeping them for my own use, without paying for them, rargh!

Of course, now that I'm over 18 and *have* a job, I've started buying up all the filk CDs I like, even though I already have the music - because I know mostly where the money goes and I *know* the author(s) of the CD(s) deserve it.

(Granted, I only have three right now. I'm working on it!)

I suppose I'm saying that I like this way best - provide your fan base with downloadable music, and the loyal ones will provide back, either right now, or whenever they can. It lets the little ones with little or no money hear the music that they like!

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

Well, you know my stance on buying music firsthand. And when I play or sing one of your songs (or Jonathan Coulton's, or Ookla the Mok), I am always sure to tell people where I got it.

Believe me, while I haven't set up torrents of your files or anything, I do appreciate your vote of confidence in your fans, in letting them decide whether to share your music.

Sorry to hear about Sony's li'l greed problem. Maybe if they'd just loosen up, they wouldn't have managed to eclipse the whole MiniDisc disaster.

[kengr]

I note that yesterday's User Friendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051116

says that the root kit is covered by the LGPL. And that Sony is in violation.

:-)

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Speaking of the BNL, have you heard about Barenaked On a Stick? A release not on CD, but on a 128MB flash drive. Although they don't SAY that it should be shared, that certainly facilitates multiple versions being downloaded, say, to one's home and work computers. Or single tracks shared with friends. Or whatever. Go, them.