Red Mosquito

I guess it's the "I think we’re seeing that the intellectual construct of copyright and intellectual property ownership is not realistic. Ideas once expressed become part of the common mentality. And music once expressed becomes part of the common environment" part that I latched onto and that concerns. Because I don't exactly what he means by that. And it seems to me that this is largely what Ribot is responding to.

It's pretty clear that Albini thinks we need a new model. He says that pretty explicitly.

Thanks, LV. To be fair, I think ethically I absolutely come down on Ribot's side, and ultimately believe that there should always be some measure in place -- in some capacity -- to protect what's "right," regardless of how often or how effectively it actually comes into play. But you can't help but feel a little like Ribot is swinging John Henry's Hammer with rants like these, working himself to death trying to rail against a reality that everyone else can see is inevitable.

Maybe.

People say the same thing about those of us in the theater who try to keep patrons from taking photos and/or texting during the show. But I still think it's well worth fighting that fight. And I'll happily go down bloody and swinging.

durdencommatyler wrote:Maybe.

People say the same thing about those of us in the theater who try to keep patrons from taking photos and/or texting during the show. But I still think it's well worth fighting that fight. And I'll happily go down bloody and swinging.

Who the fuck says that? Tell them to shut the fuck up. That's dumb.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Maybe.

People say the same thing about those of us in the theater who try to keep patrons from taking photos and/or texting during the show. But I still think it's well worth fighting that fight. And I'll happily go down bloody and swinging.

Who the fuck says that? Tell them to shut the fuck up. That's dumb.

THANK YOU

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Maybe.

People say the same thing about those of us in the theater who try to keep patrons from taking photos and/or texting during the show. But I still think it's well worth fighting that fight. And I'll happily go down bloody and swinging.

Who the fuck says that? Tell them to shut the fuck up. That's dumb.

THANK YOU

That's outstanding.

And I have such a huge problem with that attitude. Good on Alamo Drafthouse! Also, keep in mind that I work in a Broadway Theater. It's even worse when you have live performers working their butts off.

dct -- I think if what Albini is proposing is a kind of "IP communism," then he's gone overboard. Like you said, I don't think he really clarifies exactly what an alternative model entails in his mind. But everything you quoted from him is nonetheless indisputably true: The current copyright model has proven to be unrealistic; expressed ideas do become part of the common mentality; released music does become part of the common environment. This is true regardless of whether or not the law proclaims it so. A copy of "Nevermind" is not a product in the same way that a wrench or a stapler or a ceiling fan is a product, despite the fact that it is transacted the same way in a store; more than any of those things, it is a form of cultural currency which people use to define themselves, to bond with each other, and to estimate others' cultural identities. We quote its lyrics to summarize our feelings, learn to play guitar by trying to replicate its riffs, and call it up in conversation to reflect how our culture has changed. Does this mean that Dave Grohl shouldn't receive royalties from it? No way. But does it go a long way towards explaining why it's a lot easier to enforce legal action against someone shoplifting a wrench than it is to police IP theft, not to mention why people feel more ethically flexible about accumulating it via whatever means is most convenient? Absolutely.

If I seem like I'm being insensitive to artists, it's probably because in my eyes Albini was just being unflinchingly honest -- and, uncharacteristically perhaps, objective -- about what he sees as the state of the business, and Ribot came back with a flippant rant that would lead one to believe that Albini was singlehandedly spearheading an activist movement designed exclusively to put eclectic and slightly off-kilter session guitarists out of work.

Ribot's reply didn't come off as belligerently or militantly to me as it did for you. So that's probably part of the very small disconnect here.

You're right and Albini on the face of it, is right. I'm not arguing that. What I'm questioning and hoping to discuss (which is exactly what has happened here and I'm THRILLED by it) is what exactly Albini means by some of his phrasing and what he thinks should be done as these things shift. What is the alternative? What exactly, in his mind, does "intellectual property ownership is not realistic." Because that could be the sound of a nail being hit on the head or it could be a dangerous idea that could hurt artists. I'm just not sure what he means, exactly. And I hope, if nothing else, Ribot's remarks spark a reply from Albini.

It's not that I disagree with Albini. This just feels like one of those moments where things could go very very wrong very very quickly if people aren't careful. I just want to explore and define and clarify.

On the other hand you could argue that current IP law can't help artists for much longer, but it is costing tons of money to prop up, as well as criminalizing behavior that society seems to have overwhelmingly decided is ok, whether we like it or not.

Yet another aspect of this that I hadn't focused on enough.

How do you think steve albini consumes music?

Strat wrote:How do you think steve albini consumes music?

Judgmentally

I have a foot in both camps but I'm more Team Albini than Team Ribot.

There's grand canyon sized gulf between Steve and people who want to make lots of moneyz. I fear there's middle ground we'll never reach.

bodysnatcher wrote:

Strat wrote:How do you think steve albini consumes music?

Judgmentally

Ugh. Getting tired of this old cranky bastard

Streaming has ended for me. I hope this is ok for my fans.
It's not because of the money, although my share (like all the other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad deals made without my consent.
It's about sound quality. I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music.
For me, It's about making and distributing music people can really hear and feel. I stand for that.
When the quality is back, I'll give it another look. Never say never.Neil young

Who said that?

sounds like something chud would say

Sorry, Neil Young