Disallowing taping & trading is financial suicide

[Guest]

Most people make livings without owning/selling "ideas", and everyone did a few hundred years ago. 

Yes, and it was the ripping off of ideas by the lazy and unscrupulous is why intellectual property was thunk up.

Or it was thunk up so the lazy and unscrupulous could get checks for the rest of their life and not work.

In reality, I don't think either side has a monopoly on lazy and unscrupulous people anyway.

(Some) drugs, furniture, speakers, amplifiers, books, songs, planes trains automobiles and on & on & on all have intellectual property rights components to them. The difference unlike music it's too damn hard to make a dozen planes with your computer in a couple of hours.

←

That's true, and I think many of those cases are even worse. Take drugs. There's an AIDS crisis in Africa and they know how to make generic drugs affordably to help people suffering with AIDS, but various IP type laws force them not to help AIDS victims because they can't afford to pay a drug company some ridiculously inflated fee for using the "ideas" first. So they have to buy the exorbinant monopoly-priced drugs and can't afford it. This is a case where people are actually killed en masse by IP. With music it's pretty trivial by comparison.

And if planes could be made with a click of the mouse why would that be bad? All the people spending all their time in some factory making planes could spend their time working on something else instead, like making generic drugs to ease the suffering of AIDS victims, or playing music...etc.

If people could do it with food or clothing that would be even better. I don't see any of that happening though.

Edited October 11, 2005 by joshd

[JSngry]

I fear for our future. Looks mighty bleak to me.

←

It's been my experience that people who complain about "ownership" usually have had little or no experience with it.

Same thing with "the universe" - those who think that it's all sunshine and lollipops have only witnessed it from afar.

[JSngry]

Uh, yeah.  I think it's fair for me to assume that I have a certain degree of privacy in my house.  If I was doing the fucking on a stage somewhere open to the public I should expect less privacy.  If I was distributing films and pictures I should expect still less.

←

If you were distributing films and pictures as your livlihood, I doubt that you'd be so cavalier about them being freely exchanged outside of your purview.

[Guest]

Uh, yeah.  I think it's fair for me to assume that I have a certain degree of privacy in my house.  If I was doing the fucking on a stage somewhere open to the public I should expect less privacy.  If I was distributing films and pictures I should expect still less.

←

If you were distributing films and pictures as your livlihood, I doubt that you'd be so cavalier about them being freely exchanged outside of your purview.

←

Yeah, maybe I would prefer to have the cops attack people freely exchanging photos if it would make me an extra buck.

[JSngry]

I fear for our future. Looks mighty bleak to me.

←

Don't worry. In 20 or so years, these guys will have either become the type of pigs they're bitching about now, or else will have become so marginalized as to not be a threat to anybody except themselves. Us old (and older) farts have been down this road before, believe it or not.

Well, there is a third option - they can become like most of the rest of us and do the best they can with what they got when they get a chance to do it. But that's not as exciting a notion as rebuilding humanity from the ground up, is it...

Hey - if Utopia was ever going to exist, it would have already done so. And even if it had, it it really was Utopia, why didn't it last?

[JSngry]

Uh, yeah.  I think it's fair for me to assume that I have a certain degree of privacy in my house.  If I was doing the fucking on a stage somewhere open to the public I should expect less privacy.  If I was distributing films and pictures I should expect still less.

←

If you were distributing films and pictures as your livlihood, I doubt that you'd be so cavalier about them being freely exchanged outside of your purview.

←

Yeah, maybe I would prefer to have the cops attack people freely exchanging photos if it would make me an extra buck.

←

Answering the question by avoiding it is slick, but only to a teenager or a Bushite...

[Guy Berger]

That's true, and I think many of those cases are even worse.  Take drugs.  There's an AIDS crisis in Africa and they know how to make generic drugs affordably to help people suffering with AIDS, but various IP type laws force them not to help AIDS victims because they can't afford to pay a drug company some ridiculously inflated fee for using the "ideas" first.  So they have to buy the exorbinant monopoly-priced drugs and can't afford it.  This is a case where people are actually killed en masse by IP.  With music it's pretty trivial by comparison.

But it's also true that the ability to collect profits is what drives investment in innovation. (Though AIDS in Africa is somewhat tangential to this point -- most ARVs are either donated, or sold at near production costs.)

Guy

[Guest]

That's true, and I think many of those cases are even worse.  Take drugs.  There's an AIDS crisis in Africa and they know how to make generic drugs affordably to help people suffering with AIDS, but various IP type laws force them not to help AIDS victims because they can't afford to pay a drug company some ridiculously inflated fee for using the "ideas" first.  So they have to buy the exorbinant monopoly-priced drugs and can't afford it.  This is a case where people are actually killed en masse by IP.  With music it's pretty trivial by comparison.

But it's also true that the ability to collect profits is what drives investment in innovation.

I don't think it's clear that this is true. It may be in large part a myth that's popular and heavily promoted because it serves to justify the collection of those profits and the mechanisms that make them possible. It sounds like it could be plausible on the surface, but I've seen little in the way of facts and evidence. It's usually offered rhetorically, as if true by assertion. If you have any particular facts on this I'd be happy to look at them.

And IP does not create an ability to collect profits. It only creates certain ways to get what some think are maximum possible profits. And there are many equally plausible arguments that IP in fact stifles innovation. And a lot of the most dramatic innovation and r&d occurs at public expense, in university labs and other places, such as with the internet we're using.

As far as music, I highly doubt that the prospective profits from IP is what drove Coltrane to innovate.

[Guest]

Uh, yeah.  I think it's fair for me to assume that I have a certain degree of privacy in my house.  If I was doing the fucking on a stage somewhere open to the public I should expect less privacy.  If I was distributing films and pictures I should expect still less.

←

If you were distributing films and pictures as your livlihood, I doubt that you'd be so cavalier about them being freely exchanged outside of your purview.

←

Yeah, maybe I would prefer to have the cops attack people freely exchanging photos if it would make me an extra buck.

←

Answering the question by avoiding it is slick, but only to a teenager or a Bushite...

←

What was the question? It looked like a statement.

Also, I'm long past teenager, and I'm most certainly not a Bushite. ...if those were questions.

[JSngry]

Uh, yeah.  I think it's fair for me to assume that I have a certain degree of privacy in my house.  If I was doing the fucking on a stage somewhere open to the public I should expect less privacy.  If I was distributing films and pictures I should expect still less.

←

If you were distributing films and pictures as your livlihood, I doubt that you'd be so cavalier about them being freely exchanged outside of your purview.

←

Yeah, maybe I would prefer to have the cops attack people freely exchanging photos if it would make me an extra buck.

←

Answering the question by avoiding it is slick, but only to a teenager or a Bushite...

←

What was the question? It looked like a statement.

←

Well, at least the obvious does not always elude you!

[Guy Berger]

That's true, and I think many of those cases are even worse.  Take drugs.  There's an AIDS crisis in Africa and they know how to make generic drugs affordably to help people suffering with AIDS, but various IP type laws force them not to help AIDS victims because they can't afford to pay a drug company some ridiculously inflated fee for using the "ideas" first.  So they have to buy the exorbinant monopoly-priced drugs and can't afford it.  This is a case where people are actually killed en masse by IP.  With music it's pretty trivial by comparison.

But it's also true that the ability to collect profits is what drives investment in innovation.

I don't think it's clear that this is true. It may be in large part a myth that's popular and heavily promoted because it serves to justify the collection of those profits and the mechanisms that make them possible. It sounds like it could be plausible on the surface, but I've seen little in the way of facts and evidence. It's usually offered rhetorically, as if true by assertion. If you have any particular facts on this I'd be happy to look at them.

In pharmaceuticals (and intellectual property in general), lack of IP protection means that the product gets priced at marginal cost immediately, ie no economic profits. With most markets that isn't a problem; but in a market like pharmaceuticals, where up-front investment is required before the product goes to market, that's a huge disincentive because a firm that invests upfront in R&D only to sell at marginal cost will make a loss. Hence, some sort of intellectual property protection is necessary.

And IP does not create an ability to collect profits.

Of course it does. Without IP, any competitor can sell at marginal cost, driving the flow of profits to zero. With IP, owners of IP rights can use monopoly power to earn economic profit.

As far as music, I highly doubt that the prospective profits from IP is what drove Coltrane to innovate.

But if Coltrane hadn't been able to earn money from his music, there would have been a lot less of it.

Guy

Edited October 11, 2005 by Guy

[JSngry]

Let me see - Trane was a good businessman, died young and left behind a widow and some kids, and because he took care of his business, his family was taken care of financially after his death.

And that's a bad thing?

[Guest]

That's true, and I think many of those cases are even worse.  Take drugs.  There's an AIDS crisis in Africa and they know how to make generic drugs affordably to help people suffering with AIDS, but various IP type laws force them not to help AIDS victims because they can't afford to pay a drug company some ridiculously inflated fee for using the "ideas" first.  So they have to buy the exorbinant monopoly-priced drugs and can't afford it.  This is a case where people are actually killed en masse by IP.  With music it's pretty trivial by comparison.

But it's also true that the ability to collect profits is what drives investment in innovation.

I don't think it's clear that this is true. It may be in large part a myth that's popular and heavily promoted because it serves to justify the collection of those profits and the mechanisms that make them possible. It sounds like it could be plausible on the surface, but I've seen little in the way of facts and evidence. It's usually offered rhetorically, as if true by assertion. If you have any particular facts on this I'd be happy to look at them.

In pharmaceuticals (and intellectual property in general), lack of IP protection means that the product gets priced at marginal cost immediately, ie no economic profits. With most markets that isn't a problem;

such as music it would seem. Also, software has apparently gone the other way, with open source being more innovative and IP-heavy firms being less. Some researchers have also found such things as:

"the software industry in the United States was subjected to a revealing natural experiment in the 1980’s. Through a sequence of court decisions, patent protection for computer programs was significantly strengthened. We will show that, far from unleashing a flurry of new innovative activity, these stronger property rights ushered in a period of stagnant, if not declining, R&D among those industries and firms that patented most."

http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf

How would your theory account for these things?

but in a market like pharmaceuticals, where up-front investment is required before the product goes to market, that's a huge disincentive because a firm that invests upfront in R&D only to sell at marginal cost will make a loss.  Hence, some sort of intellectual property protection is necessary.

And IP does not create an ability to collect profits.

Of course it does. Without IP, any competitor can sell at marginal cost, driving the flow of profits to zero. With IP, owners of IP rights can use monopoly power to earn economic profit.

There are some arguments to the contrary. Such as:

http://www.owen.org/musings/ip/

This argues that knowledge is a public good (as I have) and therefore are against IP in principle. But it acknowledges like you that without IP (or other forms of corrective intervention in the market) there can be market failure in some areas, in the sense that there can be less incentive to create knowledge and therefore may be less innovation than we'd like. IP can be one way to address this, but it's a bad way which has social costs and distorts the incentive in certain undesirable directions. It's also very expensive to enforce and administer, large costs which incidentally could be used to directly fund the r&d these laws are purporting to indirectly spur. So even if we assume there is market failure in some industry without IP, it's not clear that you need some form of IP to correct it.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/intellectual.pdf

This one is by some economists who believe in IP in principle (they accept the notion that ideas are private property) but favor a very limited form of it where IP creators would only have a monopoly right of first sale. And they address your argument about marginal cost and argue that while it sounds plausible in theory, their research shows it mostly does not pan out that way.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...6-8-2005_pg5_12

This is one from economist Joe Stiglitz, who seems to believe in limited IP and argues that it's current form tends to stifle innovation.

As far as music, I highly doubt that the prospective profits from IP is what drove Coltrane to innovate.

But if Coltrane hadn't been able to earn money from his music, there would have been a lot less of it.

Guy

←

But IP did not create his ability to earn money from music. He earned money from music in all kinds of ways outside IP. IP just creates another way. And it must be acknowledged that what was really driving him to create was not simply profit-motive, even if that had some contribution. People create new ideas (just as everyone did before IP laws, and even in cases where there is little liklihood of reaping financial rewards) because they're inquisitive and creative beings that want to find out new things about the world that will be good for themselves and others around them. This is why Einstein thought up relativity theory and it's why Coltrane thought up Love Supreme.

That anyone still plays jazz should be a testament that profit-motive is not the main, or necessarily even any, driving force behind creative endeavor.

[relyles]

Does it make a difference to anyone if instead we are talking about the circulation of copies recordings made of radio or television broadcasts? Presumably, at a minimum the artist consented to the performance being broadcasted initially. I also believe that any reasonable person would expect some people who hear or see the broadcast to record it for their own personal use. Does this alter the analysis or opinions at all?

[RDK]

Does it make a difference to anyone if instead we are talking about the circulation of copies recordings made of radio or television broadcasts?  Presumably, at a minimum the artist consented to the performance being broadcasted initially.  I also believe that any reasonable person would expect some people who hear or see the broadcast to record it for their own personal use.  Does this alter the analysis or opinions at all?

←

Does for me, but perhaps not for any "logical" reason. The "archiving" and "sharing" of broadcasts doesn't seem as ethically "wrong" to me, but I agree it's a slippery slope.

This thread is frustrating, though, for its mix of assinine and astute comments regarding the subject at hand. Once again, the thread-starter overstates to an absurd degree, which undermines his otherwise valid argument that internet-driven trading of live performances could be a legitimate way for artists to promote their work, especially for relatively unknown or non-mainstream acts - such as many jazz musicians.

There will always be artists who object to their performances being recording; there will always be those who record said performances anyway. There are archival/historical rationalizations for why said performances should be preserved, and there are the issue of artists' rights that need to be considered as well.

What worries me - like Chuck, Jim, and several others here - is the willingness of some to completely disregard the IP issue and embrace some absurd "everything belongs to the universe anyway" philosophy. Like Mike F., I occassionally drive too fast, but at least I'm aware that I'm doing so and refuse to blame everyone else for not driving fast enough (or some muddled metaphor like that).

[Guy Berger]

This thread is frustrating, though, for its mix of assinine and astute comments regarding the subject at hand.  Once again, the thread-starter overstates to an absurd degree, which undermines his otherwise valid argument that internet-driven trading of live performances could be a legitimate way for artists to promote their work, especially for relatively unknown or non-mainstream acts - such as many jazz musicians. 

There will always be artists who object to their performances being recording; there will always be those who record said performances anyway.  There are archival/historical rationalizations for why said performances should be preserved, and there are the issue of artists' rights that need to be considered as well. 

What worries me - like Chuck, Jim, and several others here - is the willingness of some to completely disregard the IP issue and embrace some absurd "everything belongs to the universe anyway" philosophy.  Like Mike F., I occassionally drive too fast, but at least I'm aware that I'm doing so and refuse to blame everyone else for not driving fast enough (or some muddled metaphor like that).

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, but more succinctly!

Guy

[Tjazz]

I think you are overestimating the number of fans who will ever be interested in collecting large numbers of live recordings.

        Guy

←

Doesn't have to be someone with a large collection of live recordings.

The best example is I want to hip someone I know to an artist's music but they aren't convinced enough to buy a CD. I have five choices:

(a) hang out with them and play the CD. This is not realistic because of distance, schedules, other things to do when you see someone, desire to listen alone, etc.

(b) go to a live show. That's kind of pushing the person because it's expensive. Plus all the reasons above.

© buy them an official CD. Costs me $. Only in certain relationships is gift-giving appropriate, etc.

(d) burn them a copy of an official CD , but then I'm breaking the law.

(e) give them a copy of an unofficial taped live show of the artist that the artist is cool with. Costs me next to nothing. Easy to do. There's no time obligation on my friend's part: if they don't like it they can just turn it off and say nothing to me. Nobody feels like their time or money got wasted.

Another example: I learn about an artist and based on other people's opinions, they seem right up my alley, but I don't want to shell out any money without hearing a least 30 mins of their music. I can either download or seek out an unofficial tape of a live show , or I can get my hands on a bootleg of an official CD.

I don't want to break the law or go against an artist's wishes (if they're still alive). So it's way more likely I become a fan of this artist if there are free easily-obtainable tapes available. Then once I'm a fan, I start spending money on their music on some kind of regular basis. They gained a long-term fan.

←

You can also tell your 'friend' to borrow the CD from the library.

[Claude]

On the drug patents issue:

Although it is easy to blame patents for the problems in fighting AIDS, it is very doubtful if patents are really an obstacle in providing drugs to poor countries:

- Of the WHO essential drugs list, only 10% are patented

- India did not protect drugs by patents until this year and India is the world's biggest generic drugs producer. However only 1% of India's HIV patients are being treated with appropriate drugs

- The same is true for all the least developed countries. They are not obliged to protect drug patents according to WTO/TRIPs. But even cheap generics are much too expensive for the population.

Since 1999, the problem of drug patents and access to medicines has been debated in the WTO, and a solution allowing generics companies to export cheap copies of nw drugs to poor cointries has been found. But so far this has had few results.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_...armpatent_e.htm

The problem here is not intellectual property, it is money and knowledge.

Edited October 11, 2005 by Claude

[Chuck Nessa]

Most of the problem is a series of laws giving "property rights" more power than "intellectual rights", and a segment of the population sees this as a "window of opportunity" to take what they want.*

There are creeps in every crowd, I just hope the crowd doesn't continue to grow as it has in the last 15 years.

* the root of the property vs intellectual struggle is it's the property guys with the bulk of the bucks, thus political power. This exists everywhere.

[GregN]

Preventing taping and trading is all going to be proven to be nonsense in the long run.

You can't stop audience members from making reasonably high-quality recordings of live shows. The devices are small enough to be hidden anywhere and the fidelity is becoming amazing.

Live shows are frequently much better than the studio sessions which originate the tour.

People are going to trade the recordings for many many different reasons: philosophical, mercantilism, efforts to spread the word, etc.  People are always going to figure out how to do it no matter what crap the recording industry and technology providers come up with to stop it.

No one can shut it down. 

Any artist who tries to shut down taping and trading of their live shows alienates potential fans whose numbers are many times that of their established fan-bases.

Jazz musicians must be on the vanguard of the movement against corporate control of music as a finite commodity.  Jazz musicians must alter their approach to making a living at music.  They can not view music as a commodity and fans as consumers of that commodity. 

Instead they must view their fans as partners in their music, and approach the financial question differently : how to gain the trust of as many "fan-partners" as possible ?

In the long-run, those jazz musicians who make efforts in this direction will prosper.  Those who do not (except for highly-publicized and marketed "icons" of labels) will suffer economically.

I have almost everything John Scofield ever did officially.  I also have dozens of bootleg recordings, many of which are just plain better than the official stuff.

Why did I and why do I continue to buy every new official piece of Sco music at full price from a channel he promotes (Amazon) and never trade for it or download it from a pirate site ?  Because I view myself and other fans as partners in what he is doing for the world, and Sco has financial needs just like the rest of us, and so if I benefit from his music then its my obligation to financially support what he is doing.

Why do I trade for unofficially recorded live shows?  Because it's music I want to listen to and there's no other way to get it and I believe that my total purchases of official CDs & tickets to concerts adds up to a fair financial contribution to what Sco is doing.  How many $ is a personal decision every fan must make on their own.

So, paradoxically, those artists that just give a thumbs-up to the floodgates of taping and trading will ultimately do much better than those who don't. 

Why?  Because they greatly expand their fan-partner bases and probability theory says the more people who interested in what you're doing, over the long-run the more shows you will play, the more money you will make at each show, and the more official recordings all of your fan-partners are going to buy.

The best example I can think of is Charlie Hunter.  Hunter knows there are literally hundreds of bootlegs of him and his various jazz units, and him with various jam bands such as GAT, being traded all over the internet and mail and in person.  He doesn't try to stop it. 

But he does have an elaborate website with a huge variety of merchandise.  Fans like me are more motivated to buy various interesting stuff directly from CH because we know the $ are probably going to those people who actually created something, and not those who are disinterested providers of capital to finance ventures and distribute the product.  Some of those providers are great human beings, but some of them are not.  I'd rather get my money more directly to the artist.

I don't buy a particular piece of Sco or CH music because I want to "own" that music.  I buy it because both of them almost always create something very worth listening to.  And so I financially contribute to their endeavors.

←

I actually tend to agree with most, if not all, of what John is saying here. Moreover, the taping of shows helps balance against the injustices and lack of ethics in modern day radio programming. (Not that it was ever perfect)

Where the radio no longer presents itself as a viable avenue for fanbase development, tape trading takes over. It also has taken on a strong subcultural vibe as a serious hobby.

Dave Matthew's has capitalized greatly on this. Metheny has come over.

See below, the list IS long. It is a marketing strategy that allows many bands to profit in markets otherwise difficult to develop and maintain.

At any rate, an artist'(s)' shared performance can inspire folks to attend future shows. The whole culture of tape trading also takes on a fervor of "fishing" for the best shows. Or attending every possible show in order to get the very best tapes.

I was totally against the concept when I first heard of it, and I can understand the resistance to it, however, it certainly has its merits. Thousands of bands now embrace it, and for good reason. It works. Does it work for everyone at this point? I can only speak for myself, if you were to give me a live performance of a band I previously never heard, and I really dig it, I will buy their studio release or releases. Most of the tape traders to whom I have spoken, say the same thing. I can only believe them.

My friends, when I was young, used to tape songs off of the radio. The ones they really got into, they went to the store to buy the album. The taping was a hobby that encourage their general love of music, it encouraged a greater participation of the general consumption of music. Many kids don't care for music. A hobby that encourages concert going and music loving, can't be all bad.

Finally, it is not stealing if the artists condone it.

Just A Few Bands Who Have Embraced Taping

[Guest]

On the drug patents issue:

Although it is easy to blame patents for the problems in fighting AIDS, it is very doubtful if patents are really an obstacle in providing drugs to poor countries:

I think this is a pretty silly statement. The whole point of IP is to put up obstacles to cheaper alternatives.

- Of the WHO essential drugs list, only 10% are patented

- India did not protect drugs by patents until this year and India is the world's biggest generic drugs producer. However only 1% of India's HIV patients are being treated with appropriate drugs

- The same is true for all the least developed countries. They are not obliged to protect drug patents according to WTO/TRIPs. But even cheap generics are much too expensive for the population.

Since 1999, the problem of drug patents and access to medicines has been debated in the WTO, and a solution allowing generics companies to export cheap copies of nw drugs to poor cointries has been found. But so far this has had few results.

It's quite probable that the 'solution' has had exactly the results it was intended to have.

To quote more from Joe Stiglitz, who used to be cheif economist for the World Bank:

"Stiglitz says the WTO operates like the British Empire in the Opium Wars, when Britain forced China at gunpoint to "open its markets" to British narcotics. The new drug wars are over the WTO's intellectual property treaty. Until this month, British and American drug companies used WTO rules to prevent AIDS victims in South Africa getting cheap medicine.

STIGLITZ:

South Africa said, "We want to produce that drug and sell it at a cost the people can afford." The drug companies said, "If you do that, you are violating intellectual property rights." We don't care if people die, intellectual property rights are really supreme." People heard about this and they were outraged. And the protesters put such pressure that today, the drug companies have backed down."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1312942.stm

or from the link I posted earlier:

"I suspect that most of those who signed the agreement did not fully

understand what they were doing. If they had, would they have willingly

condemned thousands of AIDS sufferers to death because they might no longer

be able to get affordable generic drugs? Had the question been posed in

this way to parliaments around the world, I believe that TRIPs would have

been soundly rejected."

The problem here is not intellectual property, it is money and knowledge.

←

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean exactly, but IP is a problem in this area. It is not "the" problem of course, and it's probably not even the biggest problem. There are plenty of others, but the whole point of IP is to force people to pay a higher price for the stuff that is protected. Naturally this hurts the people least able to pay.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

First of all, that "Bands That Allow Taping" list is real funny. There's a lot of bands listed (1367 to be exact) and some of them do NOT allow taping (like Mose Allison), so I think that knocks it down to 1318 and then if you only show active bands it's down to 1289.

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

Next - "It is not stealing if the artists condone it"

I have serious reservations about that statement. The artists may be all free and easy about things, but what about their label? what about their management? what about the club/hall? etc. etc. Also - what about the composers of the tunes? and the publishing companies? Certainly SOME artists might be in a position to present an unequivocal legal position on this, but I would say a LARGE number would not.

Mike

[JSngry]

This thread is frustrating, though, for its mix of assinine and astute comments regarding the subject at hand.  Once again, the thread-starter overstates to an absurd degree, which undermines his otherwise valid argument that internet-driven trading of live performances could be a legitimate way for artists to promote their work, especially for relatively unknown or non-mainstream acts - such as many jazz musicians.  

There will always be artists who object to their performances being recording; there will always be those who record said performances anyway.  There are archival/historical rationalizations for why said performances should be preserved, and there are the issue of artists' rights that need to be considered as well. 

What worries me - like Chuck, Jim, and several others here - is the willingness of some to completely disregard the IP issue and embrace some absurd "everything belongs to the universe anyway" philosophy.  Like Mike F., I occassionally drive too fast, but at least I'm aware that I'm doing so and refuse to blame everyone else for not driving fast enough (or some muddled metaphor like that).

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, but more succinctly!

Guy

←

Mine too.

Having once been an idealogue myself, I know quite well the comfort and self-empowerment that comes from not allowing ambiguity, nuance, and non-absolute ideas a place in my thought process. But I eventually came to the realization that dogma as a lifestyle pretty much sucks.

[marcello]

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

Mike

←

Mike, I'm alarmed that you have not heard the sonic pleasures that are offered by that famous organization called: ANAL CUNT.

[JSngry]

Bands who want to encourage taping and trading as a means to expand their audience base/bond closer with their fans/whatever should be free to do so. Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea at all, and have never said no when asked by an audience memeber if they could tape and exchange a show. So it's certainly not the concept that I have a problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the attitude that anybody/everybody who doesn't "play along" is an enemy of the people or some such. That's bullshit, as is the attitude that the very notion of IP rights is malevolent. You can certainly make arguments against (and for) certain implementations of the laws as they currently exist, but to say that the concept itself has no merit is just plain nonsense.

What such absolutist thinking promotes is the destruction of balance - balance of power, balance of rights, balance of compensation, every kind of balance, including, perhaps most importantly the balance of mutual respect.

Those who want to take part in a mutual attempt to redefine that balance are doing a beautiful thing, I think. On the other hand, those who seek to impose it across the board come hell or high water can go fuck themselves. Tyranny is tyranny, period.

There ain't no "one size fits all". Ever.