2008
Here's what I don't understand: how does someone with such a fundamental lack of knowledge about how and why copyright exists and works make so much money writing about it? (Although I'm perfectly aware that "so much money" is a relative term, and by using that particular phrase, what I really mean is "any money at all.") It seems that every article of his I read on this subject, and I'll admit that the old "car wreck on the highway" adage applies here, contains a general litany of complaints about some very specific aspect of how a particular industry chooses to protect their IP, coupled with some silly "wouldn't it be cool if" anecdote.
Summation of the linked article: "O NOES! RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES YOUR CABLE MODEM IN TO NORMAL MODEM BECAUSE YOU WANT FREE SHIT! Oh, and by the way, I write and teach. (Euphemistically speaking in both cases, of course.) Wouldn't it be nice if the music industry charged you like the electric company charges you? Otherwise, people won't steal out in the open like they do now! SHIT!"
In the article, he bemoans an inter-industry deal cooking in the UK where some ISPs have hatched a plan to throttle the bandwidth of massive P2P abusers. (Which leads me to wonder what will happen when Warcraft patches come out; will the whole country go back to the level of a mid-90s ISDN? The horror! The horror!) While that's all well and good, it leads me to wonder the following: I've seen many articles where Mr. Doctorow has bemoaned the music industry for doing the very things that he's suggesting they do in this particular case instead of what they did. Essentially, he won't be happy until he and everyone he knows get all their music for free (as in "the grocery store advert that shows up in your mailbox" free, and I don't mean any other kind of free, although I'm constantly amazed as to how many degrees of "free" can be thought up.)
So, Mr. Doctorow: please just come out and say it. I'll think you're a better person for it. You would like music to be ENTIRELY free. You would like artists to bankroll the creation of their music, and release it in to the wild, and hope that some enterprising soul can figure out a way to make a little coin, and hopefully that enterprising soul will perhaps, in the kindness of their heart, cut the musician in on the action. I know that's what you mean. You definitely know that's what you mean, because that's EXACTLY what you do with your writing, with the obvious exceptions of the for-pay work you do for the Guardian, et al. (Which brings up an interesting sub-question, but I'll leave that for another day.) So stop beating around the bush. Just man up and admit that shit, and we can all move along.
And no mr. d, no one will ever make money off hits, wuffie, meme status or whatever. Tay Zonday is the face of the first net platinum artist.
posted July 31, 2008 by herrprof
Our society does not suffer if the RIAA decides that someone that downloaded "Master Of Puppets" needs to be sued. There is a legal system in place to decide those matters, the very same legal system that Mr. Doctorow has bemoaned many times, but says is the Proper Recourse In These Matters in the linked article. I guess I didn't make my point very well, but it is thus: this particular idiot makes no sense, and should shut the fuck up. This new article is directly counterpoint to many he has written.
"We should embrace digital reality and make business models that work."
That isn't future tense, my friend. It is past tense. The exact same model that works for iTunes and the people that sell music on it works for Audio Damage. The reason that Cory Doctorow doesn't like this model is that he can't mash It's A Small World After All and Closer at will, but rather has to take an extra step to remove the DRM, thus breaking the "law" which he trumpets in the linked article, but decries elsewhere.
In short, my argument is that Cory Doctorow is a fool.
-CR
posted July 31, 2008 by Chris Randall
True- but that same legal system all but ignores if some small-time artist who put out a 1,000 pressing album gets downloaded... just because he/she doesn't have the money of a big label to hire high-priced lawyers to kick up a stink about it.
On the one hand I have never bought the excuse some people use to try to differentiate stealing ("well, it's ok to download this album because it sold millions of copies, made everyone involved lots of money and so no one will miss my $14, but it would be wrong to download this other album that only sold 50 copies and actually would make a difference in their profits")... but on the other hand, if we are supposed to look at all illegal downloading equally as stealing (one not be more 'wrong' than the other), then it would be nice if the RIAA was just as vigilant about protecting the rights of the small indie labels that don't line the RIAA's pockets with cash. By only going after those who steal from the major labels, it proves that the RIAA cares nothing about artists losing money, but rather protecting their own bank accounts.
Doctorow made some silly arguments (subscription paying will *ensure* smaller artists never make a dime), but he is correct to criticize the way the industry is going about the illegal downloading problem.
posted July 31, 2008 by mad ep
How can you not factor recording and the time of the artist into the cost of manufacturing?
It's funny, because music is the only industry suffering from piracy that everyone suggests "should" be free. Movies can be distributed freely, but I hear very few cries that movies ought to be free. Granted, there a some fringe GPL loving beard growing freaks who think they should be, but if you ask joe blow about it he'll tell you that movies should cost money because they take a lot of money and effort to make. The same goes for books. But it isn't so for music. So why is music different?
posted July 31, 2008 by squidgee
..that is why i read this mans blog!!!
posted July 31, 2008 by TD
Compare NIN. You hated it when they released stuff for free, and hated on them for a bit, sure. But you didn't start claiming that just because they released some shit for free that they suddenly weren't musicians.
posted July 31, 2008 by Dave Cake
Dave: do me a favor and go look up "irony" in the dictionary.
-CR
posted July 31, 2008 by Chris Randall
posted August 1, 2008 by Downpressor
I will sully your blog with a doctorow quote (from the guardian article):
"
It's the tried-and-true answer to the problem of copyright-disrupting technology:
* acknowledge that it's going to happen;
* find a place to collect a toll;
* charge a fee that's low enough to get buy-in from the majority;
* ignore the penny-ante fee evaders;
* sue the blistering crap out of the big-time fee-evaders.
"
I'm not sure what you find so offensive about that, or worthy of vitriol. That he doesn't have an album out? Neither does Andrew Dubber.
posted August 1, 2008 by angstrom
Consider this: Basic economics says that stuff will cost very close to the cost of manufacturing. Music = digital files = no cost. The only way to make a digital file cost anything is to regulate the market (DRM - War On Piracy - etc). I don't like that and neither should you.
Doctorow and fellows aren't suggesting that music should be free, but rather that our society will suffer tremendously (and is suffering) if we insists on preventing basic economics with draconian legal and para-legal measures.
Instead we should embrace the digital reality and make business models that works. I like to pay for your products because
a) I like them and would like you to continue making them
b) I <strike>hope</strike> expect to get good support
And I enjoy your blog. But in this piece you're just pissing against the wind (excuse my English - ain't native). Not a solid, serious argument to be heard.
posted July 31, 2008 by thomasc