

Arrington On Copyright: Wrong - markbao
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/05/arrington-on-copyright-wrong.html

======
sanswork
There are quite a few huge bands these days who owe all their success to the
internet and more specifically Myspace. The Artic Monkeys are the first that
come to mind, but I know there are a few others I could list if I thought
about it.

"Third, if the recorded music industry goes down, concert sales will not grow
– they will shrink"

Also wrong and with no reasons why he believes this. The record industry and
the concert promotion industry are separate yet complementary industries. The
loss of the record industry will almost certainly have no huge effect on the
concert industry.

I'll be honest I stopped reading at the end of that paragraph.

~~~
hank777
One other thing...

"The loss of the record industry will almost certainly have no huge effect on
the concert industry."

Name a successful touring artist that has not had a successful, label based,
recording career.

~~~
sanswork
Correlation does not imply causation.

You're looking at it the wrong way, in the current world popular bands get
signed to labels so pretty much all major touring bands will be signed to a
major label. It doesn't however mean that an absence on labels will kill
touring since the labels for the most part aren't into touring. It's another
set of companies that handle that.

~~~
hank777
I am very familiar with how this works so I promise you I am not "looking at
it the wrong way" but describing how things actually work. I am not making
this up.

Labels create band demand. Concert promoters do not. I promise you this is
causation and not correlation. People go see shows because they have the
record and know the band. I am sure you have never gone (willingly) to see a
show from a band whose music you didnt already have and/or or know pretty
well. The band marketing (the label) created the market environment for you to
know and like their music. People do not go see artists because they saw some
add in a local paper advertising an artist. It doesnt happen. Promoters only
provide awareness so that if you are a fan you will know that this band you
like is in town.

~~~
llimllib
Hank, I agree with you overall on this issue, and I liked your article, but
your argument in this comment is terrible. You are appealing to your own
authority and you're not provably right in any sense.

~~~
hank777
You are right. But sometimes authority and experience are relevant. I cant
help that I really do know what I am talking about on this matter. I guess I
could go out and interview some other people about how this part of the
industry works so that I would be relying on someone else's authority and not
mine, but we don't all have equivalent knowledge on everything. I have been
involved in music for a long time and know how this part of the business
works.

I am not sure how, other than expressing that, that I can explain this. This
is not really a judgment issue but about explaining the dynamics of an
existing market. If you would prefer to believe that I don't know what I am
talking about that is fine. But at minimum I would suggest, if you are really
interested in how artists today become successful that you do a little
independent (and therefore not tainted by my bias) investigation from people
that are really in the biz. The funny part is that there really is nothing to
argue about here. No one in music will tell you that concert promoters create
demand for artists. It feels a little surreal to even be arguing the point.

~~~
sanswork
If you read what I said I never said concert promoters were the people that
create demand, just that labels aren't the only way to create demand and the
disappearance of labels will not cause the disappearance of promoters or live
music either.

------
enra
Williams On Copyright: Wrong

First, what is with the "music goes down"-statement. Arrington just said that
"a new era of free recorded music and paid live performances is a very good
thing". Lots of things are free and still up and running (eg. this site, tv,
radio..).

"Second, there is no evidence _at all_ that free music on the Internet is an
effective". Ok, but there is. Next.

"Third, if the recorded music industry goes down, concert sales will not grow
– they will shrink." There is no evidence that it would happen like this.
First, marketing efforts results are usually hard to measure. Second, cleary
marketing isn't the only thing, or even the most important thing on creating
demand. It's the music.

If we get back to the original Youtube-Viacom case, what's the harm if you
watch some clips of the Office from Youtube? It isn't like you were going to
buy the dvdbox, just for watching it at work while sipping your coffee, but
you might buy it afterwards, because it got your attention again.

Ok, I understand that Viacom has the copyrights, and Youtube is making money
of them. This dispute, as many others, isn't about ethics, morale, downgrading
our culture, terrorism or ripping of the artists. It's just about money. You
can even watch South Park for free on their own site

------
noonespecial
_Our visual entertainment would be confined to things like Star Wars Kid._

He forgot "Ow, My Balls", I think.

Seriously though, I think live music and recorded albums are actually
disconnected and septate products. What will happen is that there will be no
more soccer moms going to $100 million dollar REO Speedwagon reunion tours and
instead there will be a resurgence in small venue, local music scenes."Pop"
music as we know it today, when it becomes a free commodity, will be seen by
most people as a product for children.

This can be good because although there will be no more "Madonnas", hundreds
of smaller acts will take her place and offer much more variety. I can't wait.

------
dmm
There was art before copyright and there will be art after it as well.

The rights afforded artists under copyright laws are not natural rights, but
were created for the specific purpose. If that purpose is no longer served by
these laws then they should be eliminated.

It is a federal crime now to take a camera into a movie theater. You can
receive jail time for this. When will the insanity stop?

~~~
hank777
"The rights afforded artists under copyright laws are not natural rights"

There are no such thing as "natural rights" - only rights that we as society
agree are beneficial. IP rights are no different than the rights for you to
own your shoes or your house. They are just social contracts.

------
jackarcalon
No more $100000000 movies is a small price to pay for no more copyright. I
could happily live the rest of my life without another professionally made
book, program, or song. In fact I would be ecstatic.

~~~
greendestiny
You might, but seemingly you'd be in the vast minority. There is currently any
number of bands and film producers making stuff available for free legally.
But even with the threat of prosecution, and the hatred for copyright, these
bands can barely make an impression.

------
ideas101
Time has arrived where original content creator/artist (musician, writer etc.)
has to decide how they want to publish their content and make money. Self-
publishing is gaining momentum in the book arena, the same can happen in
music, movie and tv - the only thing is someone has to make self-publishing
and internet distribution eco-system simple and affordable (wow! here is the
business idea).

The other platform that can be explored is creative commons. Licensing under
creative commons and sharing content freely with the support of some kind of
revenue generation is one of the best option (i think).

