Thirty years ago it required significant Time to duplicate a cassette and pass it along to friends. Today it requires almost no Time and the distribution passes along a globally connected network. Forget the rhetoric and instead acknowledge that there is, in fact, a legitimate cause for concern by rights holders regarding the *current* technology. 16V is a rights holder and if I were in Eric Powell’s position I’d be extraordinarily hesitant to place my faith in the masses; they’ve certainly not shown themselves to be especially trustworthy.

Bottom line, if your not a musician or some other creator whose work is subject to unauthorized distribution and your livelihood is threatened as a result, then you can’t fully understand their situation. It’s easy to be on the outside when your profession and means of making a living aren’t threatened. Try to put imagine being in their shoes while reminding yourself there is still no proven business model for musicians operating in this environment.

As for defending business model, you’ll have to point out to me where I’m defending it, or appear to be defending it in your eyes.

-

It could be argued Gepetto gave Pinocchio a form of DRM: the same rights all “real” people enjoy. So, are you suggesting that when Pinocchio became a “real boy” his reproductive code was suddenly opened to the masses and thus raping him to spread his seed was acceptable? Sure sounds that way.

And yet today, the same music licensing companies are arguing that people saving degraded MP3 recordings of degraded internet radio are going to shut down all legitimate music sales. *sigh*

As you point out, the we’re awash in democratized but mostly mediocre music. And that is not going to change. The tools for creating and distributing music, once only available to well-funded companies, are now in the range of cheap to free. So unless someone (you?) manage to convince everyone in the world to please stop making music unless they happen to be really great at it, that’s the way it is. Which means the really tricky thing for a musician today is not getting a contract so pay for the massive expense of recording and distributing, but the difficulty in being found and appreciated in a vast sea of free culture.

Let me clarify that I don’t say this with certainty. But I do suspect that this is why bands like 16volt would have a still have a publicist — a job that actually becomes more important — while the jobs of jewel case maker or long box printer or typesetter or piano roll puncher are somewhat less central to the music business these days.

I deeply (and personally) sympathize your defense of creative people who want to be paid for their labor. But I think where your defense of musicians bleeds into a defense of an obsolete business model, it needs to be more closely examined.

As to cassettes, I’d call that a poor example, as you surely are aware that the technology inherently degrades the recording quality and thus severely limits the impact of illegal distribution by casual listeners.

I also recorded music to cassette 30 years ago to give to a small circle of real life friends, but the impact was negligible. Digital distribution of perfect copies among thousands of unacquainted people connected via a Network is not. Both are theft, and I’m certainly guilty, but upon recognizing the negative impact on my own listening pleasure, I’ve ceased such activity. I’m too selfish to take only the short-term perspective.

“Labels aren’t innovating in ways to make money off free distribution because those methods completely eliminate the labels” – you say this with certainty. I’m not so sure. The core advantage a label has, afaic, is distribution control, not merely the price. A label could give music away for free and use it as a means to sell other product; license the music for film or commercials, among other things. There’s no reason in my mind why the business model for labels can’t change with the times. In the end, however, Control could still be theirs.

“If musicians can distribute their own work and fans can pay them directly, what the hell is a label good for? The labels know this. So do more and more musicians.” – Again, you seem certain of your understanding. I’d venture you haven’t read or haven’t considered that some musicians want to make music, not become business managers/marketers/lawyers/publicists/etc. Musicians personally handling their own business affairs are musicians not making music. It’s called the “music industry” because it *is* an industry; it employs people from a wide variety of professions and those activities do not all go away when a band goes straight to the masses. Even 16Volt has a publicist. And in a world increasingly awash in democratized but mostly mediocre music, I suspect it’ll be more and more difficult for genuinely talented musicians to be found in the noise.

Also worth noting, at no time did Gepetto digitize Pinocchio and upload the plans to people with CNC machines in their living rooms. There is only one Pinocchio because tangibility is an effective form of DRM. For now.

Thirty years ago, I was killing music by making mix tapes with my dual cassette deck. The music labels said real musicians would never make music if anyone could just copy it. Personally, I have more faith in musicians.

Labels aren’t innovating in ways to make money off free distribution because those methods completely eliminate the labels. If musicians can distribute their own work and fans can pay them directly, what the hell is a label good for? The labels know this. So do more and more musicians.

I’m not defending breaking the laws of this land (heaven forfend) or going against the wishes of musicians clinging to a sinking business model. I’m just saying, your eloquent rant could just as well be referring to dual cassette decks.

Maybe also worth noting, Gepetto made Pinocchio for free.