![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
So how much are you willing to pay for Radiohead's new album?
The recap for those who've been living under a rock:
Radiohead is releasing their new album IN RAINBOWS exclusively through their website, having elected not to sign with a label. You can order what they're calling a discbox for 40 pounds, to be shipped by Dec 3, or you can download a copy, which will have none of the nifty extras that the discbox will.
The catch?
You pay what you want.
You can choose to pay 80 bucks or nothing at all.
Radiohead's fanbase is a loyal and freaky one, so I have no doubt they'll not only recoup recording costs on this album, but make a pretty penny. From what I've seen, people are paying anywhere from $30 to, of course, nothing, but I think that most people WILL pay (though not much). In fact, I think the numbers will go down something like those of museums or performances where donations are requested, but no fee posted. I think that most people actually want to a) do the 'right thing'; and b) show their tremendous appreciation for the work artists share with us. No, really.
But let's look at those other fuckers.
Revisiting the (il)logic of illegal downloads circa Napster, many people argued that the record industry was so bloated and corrupt that they didn't deserve 'our' money. That if artists and the industry were more honest with us about costs, and charged a fair price that we'd be happy to pay. (This was an awesome way to justify theft that I used myself on occasion, but an incredibly ridiculous argument when put into real world terms. i.e. It's totally cool to walk out of Coach with an armful of bags because THE MAN is overcharging for them newayz).
So here's a group of artists who are being upfront with you, saying hey, we know CDs are overpriced and we don't want to take advantage of you. We want to give you this amazing gift and in return, we're asking for donations to the cause.
If ANY ONE of those Napster-justifying digital thieves decides not to pay for this album, they're guilty of incredibly base hypocrisy. Because dude, they're doing exactly what you asked for. Of course there's another argument used to justify illegal downloads that they can move on to, if the first one fails. (It's way more interesting than the first).
The other argument for illegal downloads is that 'information' should be free, and digitized media is just information. Most of the really good articles on this subject are academic. One of my favourites is "How the Internet's Spirit of Sharing Must Be Broken". If you read past the jargon and academic cool, it's this awesome pro-Capitalist, pro-intellectual property rights, wacky rant, about how digital downloads will bring about Ragnarok. Which, hey, in some ways illegal downloading does have the potential to change society as we know it (dun dun dun) - ask any IP/copyright/trademark lawyer how important it all is to the functioning of the world economy. It also uses a lot of really scary Foucoult-derived language and concepts about the importance of 'breaking' and 'disciplining' online criminals.
In any case, it does something that I think is really important. It looks the phrase, "information wants to be free," in the eye and spits on it. Why?
1. Information doesn't want anything. It's a concept and concepts don't have needs and desires. People, however do. (Some) people want information to be free. And they want it not just because they're cheap, but because they've embraced an ideology of free and total access to information. Saying "information wants to be free" is way to hide all of this behind a 'law' of 'information.'
2. Information as a category is so broad that it's kind of a useless. Seriously, what the fuck are we talking about? No seriously -- the argument is that we need to remove 'information' from economic and power relations. So there's no longer an information economy, no longer a system of patents, no longer the possibility of being paid for your intellectual labours. But let's take this further -- no state secrets, no differentiation between public and private spheres, no privacy full stop. And it goes further still (but I don't have time for that because I'm running out the door in five).
3. Including music in the category of information and arguing that it therefore also wants to be/should be free is really a sneaky way of saying that art should not be tied to commercial projects. The implication is that free art is BETTER. That art is corrupted from its true purpose when it is done for pay, and that TRUE artists would continue to produce art, regardless of the paycheque. Which is true in a sense - art will find a way (hello fandom), but ignores the very basic fact that paying artists is how we ensure they are capable of continuing their practice, in the manner that we and they have become accustomed to. Artists need to eat, and in our capitalist-democratic society, government funding is hard to come by, patrons even harder. Demanding that music be free makes it that much harder for economically disadvantaged musicians to share their work with you. Where would hip-hop be without the money that Big Music has invested in it? Certainly it would be a different genre, but would it be a genre you (everybody you) has heard of?
Information wants to be free is really a techno-libertarian call for massive societal change. Which is fine. *g* But it's been adopted by people who, I think, are less libertarian than they are criminal.
So how much are you willing to pay for Radiohead's new album? If the answer is nothing (and you're actually going to listen to it *g*), I want you to really think about why that's your answer. Total overthrow of the capitalist economy, or simple greed? Yes, those are the only two options. ;-)
Aaaand I need to run. Thus concludes a poorly thought out rant.
***
Just a sidenote: Radiohead is of course not the first act to go this route, but they're the biggest and the one that's going to have the most impact within the industry. This post talks about their motivations:
"We were having endless debates, spending entire afternoons talking about, 'Well, if we do something, how do we put it out?' ... It just became this endless and pointless discussion. Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry."
...
How smelly of a stink bomb is Radiohead's move, record industry-wise? The band is a powerhouse; though they're the most adventurous rock group working today, Radiohead manages to keep a supremely loyal fanbase, and their albums consistently sell well. Any label would have swooned for it -- though, as ever, only on terms unfair to the artists.
Come on everybody, let's all dig into our wallets and be fair to artists by throwing wads of cash at them!
The recap for those who've been living under a rock:
Radiohead is releasing their new album IN RAINBOWS exclusively through their website, having elected not to sign with a label. You can order what they're calling a discbox for 40 pounds, to be shipped by Dec 3, or you can download a copy, which will have none of the nifty extras that the discbox will.
The catch?
You pay what you want.
You can choose to pay 80 bucks or nothing at all.
Radiohead's fanbase is a loyal and freaky one, so I have no doubt they'll not only recoup recording costs on this album, but make a pretty penny. From what I've seen, people are paying anywhere from $30 to, of course, nothing, but I think that most people WILL pay (though not much). In fact, I think the numbers will go down something like those of museums or performances where donations are requested, but no fee posted. I think that most people actually want to a) do the 'right thing'; and b) show their tremendous appreciation for the work artists share with us. No, really.
But let's look at those other fuckers.
Revisiting the (il)logic of illegal downloads circa Napster, many people argued that the record industry was so bloated and corrupt that they didn't deserve 'our' money. That if artists and the industry were more honest with us about costs, and charged a fair price that we'd be happy to pay. (This was an awesome way to justify theft that I used myself on occasion, but an incredibly ridiculous argument when put into real world terms. i.e. It's totally cool to walk out of Coach with an armful of bags because THE MAN is overcharging for them newayz).
So here's a group of artists who are being upfront with you, saying hey, we know CDs are overpriced and we don't want to take advantage of you. We want to give you this amazing gift and in return, we're asking for donations to the cause.
If ANY ONE of those Napster-justifying digital thieves decides not to pay for this album, they're guilty of incredibly base hypocrisy. Because dude, they're doing exactly what you asked for. Of course there's another argument used to justify illegal downloads that they can move on to, if the first one fails. (It's way more interesting than the first).
The other argument for illegal downloads is that 'information' should be free, and digitized media is just information. Most of the really good articles on this subject are academic. One of my favourites is "How the Internet's Spirit of Sharing Must Be Broken". If you read past the jargon and academic cool, it's this awesome pro-Capitalist, pro-intellectual property rights, wacky rant, about how digital downloads will bring about Ragnarok. Which, hey, in some ways illegal downloading does have the potential to change society as we know it (dun dun dun) - ask any IP/copyright/trademark lawyer how important it all is to the functioning of the world economy. It also uses a lot of really scary Foucoult-derived language and concepts about the importance of 'breaking' and 'disciplining' online criminals.
In any case, it does something that I think is really important. It looks the phrase, "information wants to be free," in the eye and spits on it. Why?
1. Information doesn't want anything. It's a concept and concepts don't have needs and desires. People, however do. (Some) people want information to be free. And they want it not just because they're cheap, but because they've embraced an ideology of free and total access to information. Saying "information wants to be free" is way to hide all of this behind a 'law' of 'information.'
2. Information as a category is so broad that it's kind of a useless. Seriously, what the fuck are we talking about? No seriously -- the argument is that we need to remove 'information' from economic and power relations. So there's no longer an information economy, no longer a system of patents, no longer the possibility of being paid for your intellectual labours. But let's take this further -- no state secrets, no differentiation between public and private spheres, no privacy full stop. And it goes further still (but I don't have time for that because I'm running out the door in five).
3. Including music in the category of information and arguing that it therefore also wants to be/should be free is really a sneaky way of saying that art should not be tied to commercial projects. The implication is that free art is BETTER. That art is corrupted from its true purpose when it is done for pay, and that TRUE artists would continue to produce art, regardless of the paycheque. Which is true in a sense - art will find a way (hello fandom), but ignores the very basic fact that paying artists is how we ensure they are capable of continuing their practice, in the manner that we and they have become accustomed to. Artists need to eat, and in our capitalist-democratic society, government funding is hard to come by, patrons even harder. Demanding that music be free makes it that much harder for economically disadvantaged musicians to share their work with you. Where would hip-hop be without the money that Big Music has invested in it? Certainly it would be a different genre, but would it be a genre you (everybody you) has heard of?
Information wants to be free is really a techno-libertarian call for massive societal change. Which is fine. *g* But it's been adopted by people who, I think, are less libertarian than they are criminal.
So how much are you willing to pay for Radiohead's new album? If the answer is nothing (and you're actually going to listen to it *g*), I want you to really think about why that's your answer. Total overthrow of the capitalist economy, or simple greed? Yes, those are the only two options. ;-)
Aaaand I need to run. Thus concludes a poorly thought out rant.
***
Just a sidenote: Radiohead is of course not the first act to go this route, but they're the biggest and the one that's going to have the most impact within the industry. This post talks about their motivations:
"We were having endless debates, spending entire afternoons talking about, 'Well, if we do something, how do we put it out?' ... It just became this endless and pointless discussion. Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry."
...
How smelly of a stink bomb is Radiohead's move, record industry-wise? The band is a powerhouse; though they're the most adventurous rock group working today, Radiohead manages to keep a supremely loyal fanbase, and their albums consistently sell well. Any label would have swooned for it -- though, as ever, only on terms unfair to the artists.
Come on everybody, let's all dig into our wallets and be fair to artists by throwing wads of cash at them!
no subject
I'd talk more, but I kinda have articles to annotate so yeah, just adding my two cents:)
no subject
I'm really happy that the industry has refocused and produces singles (both in cd form and as downloads). I was often in the same boat you were - who wants to buy the whole album for just one song? I'd still like more emphasis to be placed on back catalogs and rareties.
And once again you have a pretty icon.
no subject
Thanks:) I made that one:)
no subject
*Did* you find the Fraggle Rock song in Hebrew?
no subject
Yes, yes I did. It's pretty good, though the sound qualities a bit low:)
no subject
cornrice. :-)no subject
It was an outright failure, with hardly anybody paying. King pulled the project, upset at the true greed and lack of respect for media forms.
True, Radiohead fans can be a bit freaky/weird, but so are Stephen King fans.
no subject
I tend to think that the market for digitized books and digitized music is quite different. For one thing, there's no really comfortable way for the average person to read a Stephen King book on their desktop/laptop, whereas they can load their Radiohead album onto their iPod and take it anywhere. That make people less willing to pay. The technology is really kind of crap, right now, whereas the technology supporting digital music is pretty good.
Also, people aren't as accustomed to paying for digital books, on the whole. It's still sort of bizarre, whereas digital music has become commonplace - there's no iTunes or Pure Tracks of the digital book market.
Anyway, maybe I'm just optimistic. ;-)