Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-nz - Re: [Cc-nz] Peter Jenner says "DRM is dead"

cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "strypey AT riseup.net" <strypey AT riseup.net>
  • To: "Creative Commons Aotearoa (NZ)" <cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] Peter Jenner says "DRM is dead"
  • Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:02:31 +1300

Kia ora

Damian Stewart wrote:
> i'm not sure that's so true, really. i've stopped buying cds because i
> already get enough music online from CC netlabels, and i've never felt like
> quality is suffering. so long as the mp3 is >= 192kbps there's no issues as
> far as i'm concerned; what's more the majority of files on soulseek are
> ripped at >= 192kbps (some up 320kbps).
>

MP3 and Ogg Vorbis are lossy file formats designed to be small and
portable. They sound fine listened to through headphones or tinny
computer speakers but believe me you'll hear the difference if you try
to play your trance MP3s through a grunty sound system at a dance party
or even on a decent home stereo system. There's a reason top DJs still
use vinyl.

> the implication of 'reduced quality' is that if you like it you should then
> pay
> some money to the artist for a 'full quality' physical disc of music, which
> in a world where music has the potential to be entirely non-physical (and
> thus much less resource intensive: one cd + jewel case + shipping == 2kg of
> carbon) makes less sense, i think.
>

There are definitely people who prefer to collect physical records (be
it vinyl, cassette, disc, with colourful art, liner notes etc) of music
they really like and I'd much rather have carbon sequestered in the form
of music CDs than burned in cars (btw plastics can be made of fresh
biomass rather than fossil fuel).

But that aside higher-quality doesn't necessarily mean a physical
medium. There are lossless file formats like Ogg FLAC
(http://flac.sourceforge.net/) which are necessarily bulkier and it
would make more sense to download them through BitTorrent from the
artist for a fee than to chew up bandwidth sharing them on Gnutella,
Kazaa, Soulseek etc Potentially a variation of the .ogg container format
could be used so that you can download a whole album; lossless files of
the songs, high-quality image files of the cover art, .pdfs of the liner
notes etc as a single file. Then the buyer can assemble their own CD at
home with no 'food-miles'!

> this is true, however, bittorrent and shared bandwidth issues aside, the
> musician focussing their efforts on making this kind of thing happen is
> still going to be paying more for the bandwidth than if the focus was on
> getting fans to share it with each other, bypassing the musician's
> propaganda hub.
>

Ok, but the files have got to start life somewhere. Either they are
ripped off CDs or the musician puts them on their site. Many artists now
do this, either on their own sites or through NetLabels
(http://icommons.org/2006/10/27/global-sounds/) or third-party services
like MP3.com.au. In either case whoever is hosting the files might as
well take advantage of the swarming principle (and technologies like
BitTorrent and the Broadcast Machine) to share the bandwidth costs. You
could even promote the release of an 'album' of files by connecting your
hosting to the popular file-sharing networks for a limited time,
'seeding' your files into their pools.

The advantages of encoding your own files:
- you control the file type, bitrate and sound quality and thereby how
your music is being heard by potential fans
- you control what goes in the metatags, making sure information is all
there and is accurate
- you can tag your files with your homepage and license metadata so that
people downloading them can potentially connect with you to find more
music and information

Potentially there is a lot to be gained for musicians by working
constructively with file-sharing client developers. Imagine if your
file-sharing client could show you 'cover art' for any song you have
downloaded by clicking on the song name, then you click on the art to go
to the artist's homepage. In fact imagine if you could click a button to
make a micropayment by PayPal or similar systems directly to the artist,
just like paying a busker on the street! These possibilities are much
more exciting to me that trying to make file-sharing hackers bookkeepers
for the likes of APRA, RIANZ etc.

> this is true. i think artists will need to make money from touring and
> performing rather than from studio work. no longer do you tour to promote a
> cd; rather, these days, you make a cd to promote a tour

Live performances have an authenticity that cannot be file-shared. They
don't even need to involve touring. In theory you could charge for
access to high-quality live streaming of a performance or make paid
appearances in virtual environments like Second Life. Once you start
thinking beyond the industrial thinking that treats music as just
another mass-produced widget to be mass-marketed, all sorts of
fascinating possibilities open up.

RnB
Strypey




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page