It’s not if they are honest or not, it’s how we are programmed to think we deserve it for free. Marketing is a great tool…and for many years here in the usa, many now expect something for nothing or at least ask what they get for free should they buy…

Yes, the companies load every expense on the royalty system, but in my case it’s even more than that. Some of the major labels never even sent an invoice or accounting on many of my songs that were recorded on record. They knew it didn’t matter…because of the all the hidden expense they would never owe me.

As far as I’m concerned, I would give it all away . Just make sure I have a job that will pay my bills.

I guess it all comes down to whether you think people are basically honest or not. If you think not, then it obviously makes sense to do anyting possible to crack down/limit piracy/listen for free.

If you think people are basically honest, then you recognize that trying to eliminate piracy/listen for free is counter productive.

One thing that would tick me off as a writer/artist is the way entertainment companies (film/music) seem to load every *&$& expense on the royalties to ensure the minimum net payout, if that is what you mean by not getting paid by the artist or company.

There are many who have a heart and will eventually buy the product…but many more will never even consider it. It’s easy when you have had a profitable career and now choose to have your product available free on line, because you know that your success will bring the customers. As a songwriter who may have 1 song on a CD of 10 songs by a certain artist and your song might not be the “hit”…is how so many writers are being forced out of business and not receiving their due . Personally, I learned many years ago that I could not count on being paid by the companies or the artists…and I still chose to participate. I just made money doing other things to pay my bills.

I have to say I agree with Trish on this. From the outset, I am not a music consumer. I have never really listened to music radio stations.

However, I am a voracious reader of history/historical fiction, Sci-fi, and fantasy. Most of my reading is through the ‘evil’ libraries, free libraries online, and used bookstores. Thus, I must be one of the ‘pirates’ to be keel-hauled as destroying the authors’ way of life. (”Quick get the firing squad ready!”, said the author mob.)

A funny thing has happened, though. Now that I am making sufficient to cover my family’s needs and more, I am starting to buy new books. What books am I buying? Those that were available for free online. Who would have thought that free sampling might drive future sales?

FYI, you might want to review Eric Flint’s ideas on the whole read (listen) for free idea. His essay is at http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm. By the way, Mr. Flint is an author with at least 20 novels, anthologies, and other published works.

I’m a writer. I have not yet had a book published, but I am perfectly aware that when (not if) I do, people are going to pass it on to friends. Even worse, libraries may buy it and actually let HUNDREDS of people read it for free! Wow, what a ripoff!

Well, no, not really. The people who read books for free are also the people who buy books. The people who download music and buy used CDs–this has been proven–are also the people who buy more music than any other group. Cage and punish them, and you’ve lost your consumer base. The more you cling to your product, the less likely anyone is to purchase it. They’ll just turn to other artists, artists who will work with the new technologies to produce solutions viable to all.

I’m sorry you struck a bad deal. But it was, and is, completely fair, because that was what you were willing to settle for. It was no one’s choice but yours. A better day IS coming, if you have the vision. If you believe your fans are ripping you off, that day may never come for you. I’m sorry if that is the case.

(On a side note: I stopped listening to “Christian Music” because so much of what I heard was stolen from other artists. Yes, you read that right. I went to a concert with a friend who told me, “This band is great. They write all their own music.” The first song they performed was a Michael Nesmith song with two or three words changed to make it seem like a religious song and not a secular song. I don’t know how much of that is still prevalent; I hope little or none.)

The only way to get any type of understanding on what these people owed me was to pay an independent company to go through their records…which was so costly that none of us could ever afford it. And…not everything gets put on record.

I find some of my songs are available to download…but because companies sell their catalogs all the time, who knows who owns what at the moment?!

I’m just one writer who had a fair amount of success in the “Christian Music” business…and with all those songs recorded, I always had to have side jobs to make a living as many of my peers did and still do.

None of this is fair…get rid of the evil companies, and the customer who downloads your music from your own site…will still give your music away to others. You can’t stop that. People don’t understand or care to understand…because in their mind, they paid for it so what gives the artist/writer the right to tell them what they can do with it?

gecko57 – A CD that was “copy/rip proof” would not be a CD at all; it would be a silver disc that looked like a CD but would not be up to “Red Book standards.” CD players have to be able to read the bits off a CD to play the disc, and, if the bits can be read, they can be copied. You can’t encrypt them or anything like that because then no CD player anywhere could play the disc. Maybe you can make it more difficult to copy the actual bits off the disc (as with the infamous Sony “rootkits,” which, in the long run, did more harm than good), but you can never make it impossible. (With DVDs, it’s harder to copy the actual bits, because there is encryption involved, but it’s still not impossible. For HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs, it’s harder yet, but again, still not impossible.)

And, as I also pointed out before, if I sell my van, Nissan doesn’t get a cut. They’ve already got theirs. So people need the royalties from CD sales, so what? People need the money from car sales, too, but there isn’t any law that lets the car companies take another bite of the apple.

Mark LaRoi–
I believe you about the “public broadcast”. “Publication” of a song has for years meant simply passing copies around trying to get someone to sell or sing it. My cousin and I both tried to break into the music business as songwriters many years ago. I never thought I’d say this, but thank the good Lord we never succeeded.

A better day is coming for artists and songwriters, if they’re willing to take the opportunity. The RIAA’s complaints are the last dying gasps of a monster. Good riddance.

The only breakdown I’ve seen recently was in an article at The Minnesota Daily. I also posted it here.

It’s true that artists only get a small percentage of CD sales. It’s no longer posted that I can find, but Rich Ward of Stuck Mojo had a very long explanation on stuckmojomedia.com about why he decided to release their latest album for free download. Apparently several record companies shafted them.

The RIAA is using the legal system to maintain record companies’ status as middlemen. Record companies are becoming archaic and they know it. Artists don’t need record contracts to distribute music. Instead of listening to the market and adjusting business models accordingly, the RIAA member companies have chosen to sue their own customers, fight new technology, and refuse to innovate. I respect intellectual property, but clamping down on consumers using the legal system is only going to make the consumers and artists create a new model that doesn’t include the RIAA members.

You described a temporary solution using “implied licenses.”

I suggest, as a temporary solution to the illegal downloading problem, that artists attach an “implied license” to digital renderings of their work to allow consumers to copy, share, and transfer files at will until copyright law is rewritten for the digital age.

Just wanted to make you aware that the Creative Commons website provides “customized” licenses for those that want to allow their music to be reused, remixed, or repurposed. Started by Larry Lessig, the famous Intellectual Property Rights attorney, the organization provides artists and creators an alternative to the current mess that is copyright law.

A short video describing Creative Commons can be found here

~Believe it or not, that could now constitute “public broadcast” in the eyes of some, and thus require paying usage fees. If you charged an entrance fee at that party there definitely would be those who’d attempt to make you pay. I know of a couple instances where coffee shops were served notice that if they continued to play background music without paying the reporting agencies, they’d be fined, and one instance of a church/coffee shop type setup which had no cover but a “suggested donation” received a notice that it was time to pay up. I dunno the outcome of that one. A local gym owner told me that he had to tell his aerobics instructors that they couldn’t use their home made mixtapes in their classes anymore on advice of his lawyer because of the copyright issue, even if they owned the original copies.

It’s nuts out there, and the hardline crackdown on consumers/users is only going to make the problem worse. I see right and wrong on both sides, but can’t deny that the ol’ frontal assault is only going to add fuel to the efforts to defeat it rather than secure some self-defeating “victory”.

-Jeff-