Re: Issa on NPR!

That's right on, David! I love the "good deed" option,
too. 

Stevik in Philly


--- David Rieken <[email protected]> wrote:

> The really cool thing is that Issa is doing this
> clearly with the intention
> of getting her music out to as many people as
> possible.  She does not use
> the word "free" but instead uses "gift" for a
> reason, I suspect and it is
> clear that money is not her focus.  It is a lovely
> thing and the mention of
> possibly adding a "good deed" choice in the payment
> options as mentioned in
> the interview is a terrific Idea.  Again Steven,
> thank you for the link to
> the interview.  It was great.
> 
> David
> 
> On Jan 9, 2008 7:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I don't doubt that the Radiohead experience was
> characterized as a "flop"
> > in
> > the media; I'm sure that's what many have been
> saying.B
> >
> >
> > As for my saying that the "hard reality" is that
> people will often take
> > music
> > for free if given the opportunity, I want to make
> clear that I'm not
> > saying I
> > like this, and I'm not saying it's fair. But to
> me, it's kind of like
> > global
> > warming-- I don't like it, it doesn't sound like a
> great idea, but you
> > have to
> > accept it as a starting point to move forward with
> awareness and
> > intelligence.B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I like your analogy of the sandwich; when you put
> it that way, of course
> > it
> > sounds ridiculous. But this may not be the best
> analogy, because we're
> > dealing
> > with digital replication, and that pretty much
> changes everything. A
> > business
> > giving sandwiches away is literally parting with
> physical resources that
> > cost
> > it money. Once something is available as a digital
> file, it can be
> > replicated
> > endlessly and effortlessly. Yes, at a certain
> level there are bandwidth
> > costs
> > to deal with, but for any one person to replicate
> and distribute any one
> > file,
> > the cost is essentially zero.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This is not to deny the cost of producing the
> music in the first place.
> > This
> > has always in fact been the bugaboo in the music
> industry. It costs a lot!
> > And
> > the industry has always been content to let the
> few huge acts pretty much
> > subsidize everyone else when it comes to
> production costs. This model is
> > in
> > the process of changing but no one knows exactly
> what else to do, it
> > seems.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As for MySpace, I think you may be off a bit in
> that any major web site
> > that
> > streams music *is* in fact paying for it-- they
> pay for it indirectly, the
> > same way radio stations pay, via annual licensing
> fees. Individual artists
> > aren't necessarily compensated this way, but that
> has to do with the
> > exploitative contracts most have had to sign along
> the way. (That said, I
> > am
> > no friend of Murdoch's at all; I dislike MySpace
> and dislike everything
> > the
> > man is associated with.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree about short samples, by the way. I
> never feel comfortable
> > hearing
> > music this way, and will never make a buying
> decision based on snippets.
> > After
> > all, for all these years, have radio stations been
> playing truncated
> > samples?
> > No, they play the whole song. I really want to
> hear a whole song, and
> > maybe
> > more than once or twice.B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The reality of digital distribution of music
> necessitates a lot of changes
> > in
> > the music industry, needless to say.
> Unfortunately, people don't like
> > change,
> > and will often fight against things that really
> can't be fought,
> > ultimately. I
> > would never be suggesting that artists shouldn't
> be paid for their work.
> > But
> > music is a tough tough business, and that was true
> well before the digital
> > age. Very few people can support themselves this
> way, and one of the
> > problems
> > with the digital age is how many many many more
> people now have access to
> > recording and distributing music. Neither the
> number of people who are
> > willing
> > to spend money on music nor the amount they are
> willing to spend has gone
> > up
> > at anything resembling the rate of the number of
> musicians plying their
> > trade
> > publicly over the last 10 to 15 years. One of the
> side effects of that
> > reality
> > is that many more musicians will not be getting
> paid very much. That's not
> > a
> > statement about how "free" or not music "should"
> be, it's just economic
> > reality, as far as I can see.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeremy