The "Constitutional problem" copyright seems to create with respect to music is "inability to listen to newly-released songs by favorite musicians without paying for them".
Bandcamp and the iTunes Music Store are not the 2012 equivalent of record labels. Lowery spent a good deal of time trying to dispel exactly that misconception. The record labels financed albums. They provided advance payments to artists. They accepted the lion's share of the downside risk of investing in a music recording: if the music didn't sell, they were left holding the bag. As Lowery is at pains to point out: for most musicians, the labels never made a satisfactory return on their investment. Things only worked out in the aggregate.
iTMS does none of this. iTMS doesn't pay artists to record albums. iTMS accepts albums fully-formed from artists, holds no inventory, is exposed to no downside risk, and collects 30% (and forces musicians to incur 9% fees to "aggregators").
And for the nteenth time: Lowery is not upset about iTMS. He points out that the economics don't make much sense, but he understands how the market works (perhaps better than you do, since he's a musician, a music industry veteran, and a former quant). But iTMS (a) isn't the whole story of the tech industry, and (b) for damned sure isn't replacing record labels.
It's the mentality of this comment --- "Copyright, Constitution, Copyright, Youtube is the Radio, Copyright bad, iTMS is the record label now, it's Copyright's fault" --- that spurred Lowery's rant. The whole point of it is that once you dig deeper into those claims, the whole story falls apart: businesses are getting something for nothing, consumers are getting something for nothing, and artists are getting nothing at all in return for substantial investments of time and actual capital. How can we stand for this? It seems so amoral.
Because, in a single concept, these are nonrival goods. We would want there to be excess value created over what they cost to produce.
All we need to do is cover the costs of sufficient production. But then we should use the produce freely as much as we want. Because that way we all gain.
If musicians (etc.), overall, are unable to afford to produce, so everyone is, in general, short of music, then we need to address the matter somehow. But the article did not seem to prove that problem actually existed.
If musicians (etc.), overall, are unable to afford to produce, so everyone is, in general, short of music, then we need to address the matter somehow. But the article did not seem to prove that problem actually existed.
I fix:
Musicians (etc.), overall, are unable to afford to produce, so everyone will soon be, in general, short of music, so we need to address the matter somehow.
You said:
But the article did not seem to prove that problem actually existed.
The article went into great detail about how:
* Revenue to musicians is down industrywide over 60%
* The economic models that supposedly offset the decline in recording revenues are counterfeit, in that they were present before the drop in revenue, never accounted for the majority of most musician's revenue, and in many cases are equally susceptible to piracy. Specifically: this article states that bands earn less than $200/night for playing concerts.
* The studies that suggest the contrary are misleading, use cherry picked examples, and even in those cases discuss professionals earning less than managers at fast food chains.
* After a very brief period of opportunity for direct sales revenue on the Internet, musicians (not labels, musicians) got squeezed out of the picture by Facebook and Google - specifically: their audience has been captured by Youtube and Facebook and with it their opportunity to build customer relationships and conduct financial transactions with them.
* He knows professional musicians who are living out of their vans and eating out of dumpsters.
I'm trying to figure out how that last sentence of yours could not be willfully obtuse. The only explanation I can come up with is that you think he's baldly lying.
Because whether various people think they are being paid as much as they should, and how much is actually being produced, are different things.
If you are asking for special provisions from the public, prove the public gets a good deal. How much should the public give? Simply as much as you say? No, that does not work. The public cares about the end result: how much is produced (and available). That is the point.
There has been significant -- or to some, rampant -- 'piracy', and huge 'losses', for a decade: that is what we have been told. But where is the devestation to the amount of production? Where is the terrible shortage of new music being made? That does not seem to be happening.
> everyone will soon be, in general, short of music
So, you admit it has not happened, and is not currently happening.
You will forgive people for being cautious about claims from the general direction of the music industry, and instead expecting good evidence. Everyone likes music, but we should not be giving away money simply because someone else says they should get it.
If <<The "Constitutional problem" copyright seems to create with respect to music is "inability to listen to newly-released songs by favorite musicians without paying for them".>> was the idea you got from my writeup, I clearly failed to present my concepts adequately.
Ok, yes, it's true that this can be an issue for some people. But that does not make it a constitutional problem.
The constitutional problems have to do with the purpose of copyright (it is supposed to foster creativity) and its character (it is supposed to last for a limited time). [And, if you are going to try to bring up Eldred v. Ashcroft, note that the facts of that case included no mention of human lifespan and the court does not rule on facts which are not contested. But there are other complications also, and we should be demanding Congress to write better laws... if only we could figure out what those laws would be.]
Anyways, I was commenting on what might be some reasons for widespread adoption of the mentality you are talking about. (And note also that I believe I said nothing in opposition to iTunes Music Store.)
Bandcamp and the iTunes Music Store are not the 2012 equivalent of record labels. Lowery spent a good deal of time trying to dispel exactly that misconception. The record labels financed albums. They provided advance payments to artists. They accepted the lion's share of the downside risk of investing in a music recording: if the music didn't sell, they were left holding the bag. As Lowery is at pains to point out: for most musicians, the labels never made a satisfactory return on their investment. Things only worked out in the aggregate.
iTMS does none of this. iTMS doesn't pay artists to record albums. iTMS accepts albums fully-formed from artists, holds no inventory, is exposed to no downside risk, and collects 30% (and forces musicians to incur 9% fees to "aggregators").
And for the nteenth time: Lowery is not upset about iTMS. He points out that the economics don't make much sense, but he understands how the market works (perhaps better than you do, since he's a musician, a music industry veteran, and a former quant). But iTMS (a) isn't the whole story of the tech industry, and (b) for damned sure isn't replacing record labels.
It's the mentality of this comment --- "Copyright, Constitution, Copyright, Youtube is the Radio, Copyright bad, iTMS is the record label now, it's Copyright's fault" --- that spurred Lowery's rant. The whole point of it is that once you dig deeper into those claims, the whole story falls apart: businesses are getting something for nothing, consumers are getting something for nothing, and artists are getting nothing at all in return for substantial investments of time and actual capital. How can we stand for this? It seems so amoral.