Depending on what kind of material is being shared - different moral views and opinions may be held by people concerning different 'categories' of recordings.
At the broadest, 'categories of music recordings' could be
Live recordings: - so-called ROIOs (Recordings of Indeterminate Origin). It's assumed, taped not for commercial release - often (but not exclusively) by audience members - sometimes with artist consent, sometimes without.
Many people feel that sharing and trading this sort of material is perfectly OK: - entire communities exist to exchange live recordings. Some - like the well known Dimeadozen Bittorrent site - will not allow any material that artists have requested not be made available - or have a ban policy for any music that is commercially available in any form.
It's worth noting in passing that the 'ROIO' label is frequently fairly disingenuous as the 'origin' [the O in ROIO] of many recordings is extremely precisely known [ie. it was my buddy Johann, with 2 Telefunken U47s strapped to his the ends of his crutches, 4 rows back, at the Bohemia Palace on 26th June 1996. I then mixed it in Goldwave and uploaded it from a Macbook Pro with a Core Duo CPU with sticky tape on the lid].
"Indeterminate Origin" indeed ...
Deleted recordings - Just because the record label has deleted / discontinued a recording (and this can be tricky to verify sometimes) - doesn't mean that it is out of copyright.
Many feel however that in this circumstance, it's OK to swap and share these recordings that are commercially unavailable. After all, how else would anyone get a chance to hear any deleted recording? A reissue from the original label or some other may - or may not - be forthcoming in a usually unknown amount of time..
In-Print Recordings - These are commercially available - perhaps from local shops, perhaps from small outlets online, usually - but not always - on the mega shop sites like Amazon.com.
You can buy them - but many prefer not to spend that money - when there are others prepared to offer them for free. Someone buys a copy originally - but that one copy can be disseminated to hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of people extremely easily.
This is the stuff that has brought (what used to be called) The Record Industry to its knees.
For every 10 cents somewhere like the iTunes store pulls in, untabulated hundreds or thousands of theoretical dollars (euros, pounds, rupees, roubles) flow away in the form of 'illegal downloads' - of many stripes and sizes.
There are arguably other categories - such as unreleased studio material, recordings that are in shops but discontinued by the label, or issues that are 'out of stock' but not advised as deleted.
But - keeping it simple - the above 3 categories I would suggest are the main three.
And whilst many will have no interest in this delineation and will download whatever the hell they feel like of any of the 3 kinds of material mentioned - other people will have differing responses to the 3 different areas I've outlined above - and will respond differently.
With their views of the ethics involved, and with their wallets I'd suggest.
Mmmmmm, I'm in danger of concluding that Devils eat their Consciences for Lunch!
ReplyDelete(Just kidding ... )
Haha - not sure what the prandial metaphor implies glmlr ! Obsessiveness? Disingenuousness ? Never mind - don't answer that!
ReplyDeleteJust for the record - my attempt here so far has been by way of setting a few basic assumptions, definitions & propositions - as a background for The Real Arguments - those yet to get underway.
All moving at the speed of the tectonic plates of course.
I tend to agree with your three-fold classification. Of course, the ROIOs are anything but indeterminate. On Dime and similar sites, there's more dicussion on the so-called lineage and exact dating of the recording than on the musical merits of the actual set. This appeals to the fanboy syndrome (males do seem to dominate) in which there can never be too much of anything. One might think that the musicians might be more discerning and that there might be good reasons why not all live recordings are not made commercially available. The musicians may choose only what they are most satisfied with from a range of recordings and the restrictions of the medium might set an upper limit to what can be made available, though cd technology is better in this respect than the old lp format.
ReplyDeleteThe second category is the tricky one, the one in the grey zone. The bloggers can't claim any right to make these recordings available. The argument in favour is that blogging can generate an interest and potentially a market for the artist(s) in question and the argument against is that blogging cuts into the future market for rereleases. Having downloaded an OOP recording, you may not want to purchase a rerelease as you already have a copy of the original. Even an OOP item is still copyrighted and normally one does not seek permission for blogging it publicly. I know about this from book editing and publishing. Permission has to be sought for reprinting items previously published, sometimes given for free and other times for a fee.
The third category is the serious one. I object to the accusation that this is stealing. It is rather a case of illegal dissemination of an item that has been legally purchased. However, what's missing from the first posting, I think, is the whole subject of streaming services. These are entirely legal, but there are frequent complaints from both labels and artists that the revenue from streaming does not in any way compensate from the loss of revenue from sales. This has led several minor labels to retract new recordings and sometimes the entire catalogue from these streaming services. For the majors, it is less of a problem as they have a huge back catalogue to draw on, but for minor/indie labels it may very well be an issue. This may be as big an issue for the minors as illegal downlogging.
Some further thoughts on that?
Ah, that's a new word. I meant to say downloading.
ReplyDeleteA couple of more observations while I'm blowing, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteOn category two: One option, which is the new policy at Mutant Sounds, is to seek permission from artists/labels prior to posting. This is feasible if you have a network wide enough to get hold of those concerned and to get their permissions, but it might be less feasible for older recordings and for those who cannot be easily reached.
Another option is to do as Destination Out does, to cooperate with copyright holders to make OOPs available again in digital format at a reasonable price, but this would take blogging into commercial operations, even at a small scale.
On the third category: A new promising trend is the one of online fundraising to finance new recordings or rereleases of old ones. I was one of the patrons to finance the rerelease of The Conet Project, recording of shortwave number stations, originally out in 1997. These were stations communicating to spooks in foreign countries using code language. I think this is a way to go for the future, particularly for smaller projects and should be supported by us, depending on our particular tastes and finacial capabilities.
Sotise made an interesting point that all of this digital stuff encourages a hoarding mentality and I think many of us are in the situation that we have more than we can reasonably digest and absorb. At least, that's how I see it, but still, we go on, eh?
Still we go on indeed. Many thanks for your comment ("Someone cares, someone cares!!" [weeps uncontrollably into small lace handkerchief].
ReplyDeleteCan I respond in reverse order?
The crowdfunding trend shocked me when I first saw it in action - because it seemed so much like begging. The only place I had previously seen appeals for funds accompanied by a red line that slowly inched its way toward a target amount, was outside charities, or in front of churches that needed a new spire and were appealing for donations. Now - much later - I see that there is a lot of merit in the crowdfunding model, although I still see it as a reaction to straightened circumstances rather than any genuine 'new paradigm'. It doesn't address the fundamental problems in other words. But it's grass roots, it lets some musicians make recordings - and both of those are good things. Actually I think there's a whole discussion to be had around this (I'm writing it on my list for later..)
The Conet Project is - while not directly related to music - quite fascinating. There's another whole set of issues involved in say Irdial Discs charging Wilco of copyright infringement. (I'm writing that on my list [further down though, because it's unusual and exceptional])
The Mutant Sounds policy is an admirable but difficult one - contacting artists for permission to post their music. Many of us could think of musicians that we (as bloggers) have been in touch with who have consented or encouraged some of their music to be posted for free. But these would be very much the exception rather than the rule. Many , if not most musicians would be uncontactable. Especially so after having died. Perhaps though, this is the only truly ethical way to proceed?
It's probably true that you and I, with the blogs we're respectively involved with, would have to shut up shop pretty much immediately if this became our new house rule.
My understanding is that Destination Out have a contract or agreement with Jost Gebers(of the FMP label) - just for the FMP material in their Bandcamp shop. Clearly, a commercial arrangement. I think it's brilliant though. And unlike crowdfunding (which is problematic in some ways for me) - I think this model is part of the future, a "solution" that's both ethical and fair. More on this later? (Pulls out tattered list and scribbles something..)
I don't think Destination Out bother getting any clearances or permission from any of the artists they feature in their articles / blog posts - which often highlight the work of one artist. They seem to post nothing longer than one side of an LP, in MP3 only, and for a limited time. As I see it, this is their self-imposed take on 'what is ethical'. It's hard to imagine many artists objecting to these sort of strictures on the exposure of their material. Notwithstanding that opinion, in the legal sense though - they are infringing copyright. Perhaps they would claim the old "for educational purposes" loophole to argue the case ..
Agree with your observations re Dime - that male obsessional thing - whether it be about microphones or matrix numbers, I sort of understand, but ultimately find tiresome and futile. Mostly because inevitably the obsession takes the obsessed further and further away from the thing they originally loved. Ironically, as they themselves think they are getting closer and closer. [Oh God, should I get out the notebook for another entry on the list?..]
ReplyDeleteThere's arguably a fairly fine line between the "stealing" and "illegal dissemination" you mention. I won't push the issue - I'd really prefer to avoid the polarising words ('stealing' etc) that have been appropriated by the RIAA corporate side of the discussion. I confess to not knowing a lot about streaming services - you mean like Spotify I guess. Who recently spent 400,000 in a single day's advertising on Youtube. Who's mission is to "Soundtrack Your Life" Uggg !. No, I don't think they will be rewarding labels & musicians too handsomely. To me they represent the corporate, globalised approach to selling music - that is part of the problem, not a solution. It's just record companies reinvented. The idea is to capture chunks of global market share and generate profits. "There's many more musicians out there these day, so you can pay 'em less. It's supply and demand."
Lastly - 'The Second Category' - making available out of print recordings. I think both arguments you mention have some truth to them. The "stimulates interest in the artist" argument is also used by some of course for In print releases, where I am much more sceptical about its validity.
I think you're right though, and simply expressing something about human nature - we dont want to go out and buy something we already have. Sure, sometimes we will - for the expected improved sound, or liner notes or whatever. But those are exceptions, not the rule.
Mostly - we dont want to, and we dont.
As bloggers, we hope we're behaving ethically I think - and we believe we're doing no harm. But maybe that's complacent?
Consider a musician who approached a former record label in order to buy the rights to an album he made 35 odd years before. He negotiates a price and hands over cash and signs a contract: - he now owns the rights to the album that always has borne his name on the cover. Although the album has been previously issued on CD, it's now discontinued and the musician plans his own CD reissue - where the sonics and packaging can be presented to his preferences and where he, and his fellow musicians on the album can receive direct recompense. Then what happens is that the same album is posted on a well known music blog. Hundreds of anonymous downloads ensue. After some considerable time, the musician comes across the blog and leaves an angry comment, asking the blogger to desist, calling the dissemination theft and asking for his creative rights to be respected. The blogger complies.
3 years later, the artist's CD remains unissued. A Google search for the artist and album name returns - as its first result - the original 'offending' music blog and the original post.
Some interesting issues raised, or a blind alley ?
There is also the reality that downloading a file is sometimes the easiest way to hear it, with few blogs incorporating embedded players.
ReplyDelete