Red Mosquito

You have no idea. Like the ever widening gap between the two of us, it breaks my feelings.

It gives me life.

It gives me hives.

I'm not sure where to put this. Maybe it should be in N&D? Maybe it should be in the not worthy of a news thread? I don't know. Mods, feel free to move it or whatever. But I thought this was interesting and wondered what other folks around these parts had to say about the issue:

http://www.stereogum.com/1807599/read-m ... -the-beef/

Steve Albini wrote: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. I think that the idea of intellectual property will naturally have to be modified to accommodate the way that people naturally exchange ideas and music and information. That old copyright model of the person who wrote something down owns it and anyone else who wants to use it or see it has to pay him, I think that model has expired. And people who are trying to defend that model are like people on horseback trying to fight against the automobile… I think the term “piracy” is absurd. Actually, piracy is people boarding a slip with violence and killing people and physically stealing material goods that are then no longer available to people who used to own them. I think equating somebody downloading something on his iPhone with that is preposterous.

To which Marc Ribot responded:

I’m writing as a recording artist, musician, and activist with c3, the Content Creators Coalition, a working-artist-run organization dedicated to economic justice in the digital domain.

In a recent Billboard article, you referred to copyright as an “expired concept”.

You further stated that:

“… the intellectual construct of copyright and intellectual property ownership is not realistic…That old copyright model of the person who wrote something down owns it and anyone else who wants to use it or see it has to pay him, I think that model has expired.”

If you truly believe that “Ideas, once expressed, become part of the common mentality. And music, once expressed, becomes part of the common environment…”, are you willing to sign a Creative Commons license placing your entire catalogue in the public domain?

Or are you just another lousy hypocrite shilling for Google and other huge tech corporations who have made billions in ad-based profits while using our work, often without paying us or asking our permission, as click bait to increase their advertising rates?

Working artists and musicians, at least those of us who can’t afford to make another record unless the last one paid its production costs, await your response.

Sincerely, Marc Ribot

I have to think about their arguments before I can take sides but I'd just like to take this opportunity to express how much I love Marc Ribot

Knowing what I do about Albini, I would not be surprised at all if he agreed to issue all his music under a Creative Commons license.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Knowing what I do about Albini, I would not be surprised at all if he agreed to issue all his music under a Creative Commons license.

Definitely. Also, he's kind of an idiot.

But what do you think about what he's saying about intellectual copyright? And once something is out there it belongs to everyone?

I see his point, and I think there's a good chance we could get there eventually. But I think it's rather extreme, at least at the current point in time.

It's hard to have an opinion on the comments without having been embroiled in the topic. If I was a musician dealing with this, my thoughts could be entirely different than being a schmo sitting at a desk job, listening to tunes on Rdio.

I think artists should be paid well for their art. Im sure we are in the minority in that we will go see their shows, buy their records, or maybe even a shirt. Most people listen to music for free and could give 2 shits about it. I love streaming music but i think the artists should be paid more for that to happen.

It's something that could affect consumers as well as artists, though. So your office opinion is still valid and worth discussing.

Strat wrote:I think artists should be paid well for their art. Im sure we are in the minority in that we will go see their shows, buy their records, or maybe even a shirt. Most people listen to music for free and could give 2 shits about it. I love streaming music but i think the artists should be paid more for that to happen.

Absolutely.

And from every interview or comment I've ever read from a musician, all of them say they get paid dick from streaming royalties and album sales.

I have never used streaming services. Sounds like it would be terrible.

That's definitely a part of the paradigm that I wouldn't mind seeing a shift in. I pay for Spotify and I have no problem paying for it. It gives me amazing access that I've never had before and I can take it with me and download music so I can listen underground. It's fucking great. I would still use it if they charged me a bit more even. I'm doing the 9.99 option now.

Here's an example. I love HoneyHoney. There album came out Tuesday. I pre-ordered the vinyl w/ a digital download. But I also loaded it up via Spotify yesterday so that I was able to listen immediately. I listen on a streaming service but I also buy the physical media from the band's website because I want to support them.

durdencommatyler wrote:Here's an example. I love HoneyHoney. There album came out Tuesday. I pre-ordered the vinyl w/ a digital download. But I also loaded it up via Spotify yesterday so that I was able to listen immediately. I listen on a streaming service but I also buy the physical media from the band's website because I want to support them.

This is what I do too. For albums that I just don't really care to buy, I'm ok with streaming them legally and at least throwing some cents towards the label (no idea how much an artist makes after labels take their cuts). Curious to see what the payouts are from Tidal after at least 6 months or data.

bodysnatcher wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Here's an example. I love HoneyHoney. There album came out Tuesday. I pre-ordered the vinyl w/ a digital download. But I also loaded it up via Spotify yesterday so that I was able to listen immediately. I listen on a streaming service but I also buy the physical media from the band's website because I want to support them.

This is what I do too. For albums that I just don't really care to buy, I'm ok with streaming them legally and at least throwing some cents towards the label (no idea how much an artist makes after labels take their cuts). Curious to see what the payouts are from Tidal after at least 6 months or data.

This is from a Stereogum piece in March:

For some context, consider this 2014 article in TIME. Spotify disclosed that it pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream. Based on those numbers, “Wake Me Up!” should have generated between $1,200,000 and $1,680,000 in royalties. And based on those numbers, would Jay not consider Spotify a successful model?

Maybe not. No doubt artists would like to be paid more for their work. But Tidal is no more transparent than Spotify — in fact, it’s considerably less transparent at this point. Spotify is open about its payouts. Tidal is barely even open about its ambitions.

http://www.stereogum.com/1790959/behold ... ses/essay/

It will be interesting to see what Tidal reports after a few months. Hopefully, they'll be more transparent by that point.

I respect Ribot's position, but he's paraphrasing Albini incorrectly. At no point did Albini say, as Ribot alleges, that "copyright is an expired concept." What he said was:

"I think that the idea of intellectual property will naturally have to be modified to accommodate the way that people naturally exchange ideas and music and information. That old copyright model of the person who wrote something down owns it and anyone else who wants to use it or see it has to pay him, I think that model has expired."

He doesn't appear to be proposing outright the complete elimination of all copyright laws; he suggests that a modification of the old model might be in order. And I suspect that this is not because he believes the fundamental idea of copyright to be inherently wrong, but because he looks around and sees a culture where copyright -- as a legal function -- simply can't do what it's intended to do. Therefore, if the modern mode of intellectual property consumption -- "wrong" though it may be -- is indeed an unchangeable reality, the smartest move for everyone (artists included) has to involve some acknowledgment of that reality, and a willingness to adjust according to it rather than continue to operate under laws that are only effective in an ideal world.

I am in favor of musicians being paid for their work, and will never support any legal measure which makes it okay for artists to be flat-out ripped off, but the reality is this: There are more musicians making records and playing shows now than the economy can realistically support with living wages. There is more supply than there is demand. However, because music is "passion" as much as business, and because there are so many avenues for self-releasing music now, it puts a lot of artists in the position of having to choose whether they would prefer to be compensated for their music, or to have it be free and heard. I think it's natural to look at this model and feel sympathy for all these artists who aren't being paid, but to an extent I think there's just a huge inverse relationship right now between how lucrative music is as a career option and how many people are still electing to make records anyway. Unless Ribot's point about not being able to make a record until his last one is paid off is meant only to apply to him, he sort of implies that the existence of new music at all is dependent upon label support and a studio budget and whatever other privileges come with album-making when you're Marc Ribot, and this is false. It has never been easier -- or cheaper -- to record an album. For many of the artists that are doing it this way, allowing their music to be free to a point (meaning letting people stream it for free, not sicking the copyright police on YouTube videos, etc.) is the only chance they've got. It doesn't surprise me that Albini would sympathize with this type of musician more than with a guy who gets a first class ticket every time Tom Waits or Elvis Costello or whatever other famous singer-songwriter needs a critically lauded guitar player for his or her new album.

I love Ribot as a player but it's becoming increasingly clear that things aren't going back to his preferred way of doing things. It also seems from his rebuttal that he has no idea who Albini is.

Goddamn fuckin' A. That post killed it, KD.