backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by vol7ron.. on Dec 7 at 4:30 PM


Pete Townshend  (Source: marshallofrock.com)

  (Source: Spill)
Townshend said iTunes profits from music without giving back to the artists that work to create it

Remember when Metallica launched a legal battle against Napster back in 2000, then criticized the iTunes Music Store a few years later for destroying the album format and refused to allow their songs to be sold individually in the online store? Well, Metallica may have gotten over its spat with iTunes by releasing its songs in the store in 2006, but that doesn't mean iTunes now holds a loving relationship with all of its artists.

Pete Townshend, the guitarist and songwriter for rock band The Who, called Apple's iTunes a "digital vampire" while delivering the first John Peel Lecture, which was named in honor of the late British radio broadcaster.

Townshend said iTunes profits from music without giving back to the artists that work to create it. He offered some suggestions for iTunes, such as offering artists services that music publishers and record labels once provided since the Internet has eliminated many copyright protections. Some services Townshend mentioned were space for bands to stream music, employing talent scouts, and paying smaller artists directly without the use of a third party.

Townshend said iTunes bleeds artists like a digital vampire, and offering these services is the least it could do.

"It would be better if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping, rather than only when it suited them," said Townshend. "Why can't music lovers just pay for music rather than steal it?"

Back in May of this year, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) scored $105 million in a lawsuit against Limewire, which was a free peer-to-peer file sharing program similar to Napster, and was accused of giving none of the money to artists. It was later discovered that the RIAA planned to set an unknown amount aside for artists.

Source: MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: confused much?
By wordsworm on 11/1/2011 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Picasso did as well in his life time as any of the Beetles. Damien Hurst is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and he's enjoying the lifestyle that kind of money affords, I'm sure. There's a kid in Britain, Kieron Williamson, who's making more money than most of us here from selling his paintings. Fortunately for painters, the original copy is the most valuable copy. You can't entirely replicate that original copy. You can get an image of Van Gogh's paintings easily enough, but those images are known for failing to capture the power and three dimensionality of the original. I don't know the world of photography very well, so you might be right about them.

It's dumb to say that artists aren't in it for the money. There is certainly the love there for the art as well. That would be like saying that doctors are in the profession to heal people, not to make money. Or engineers are in it for the fun of making bridges, not money. But, you know what? It's true for many people, doctors do want to help people. But they also want to make a living. Bridges do look like fun to make, but engineers want money. The problem with music is that it's so easy to copy and distribute.

In any case, bands like The Who are dinosaurs. No one that I know of makes a real album, and there hasn't been one for decades that could make a cohesive album. They've never been plentiful anyhow. We have Pink Floyd's The Wall and The Who's Tommy. Real rock operas are a rarity and always have been.


RE: confused much?
By vol7ron on 11/1/2011 6:27:09 PM , Rating: 3
Side Note: I thought Picasso, one of the most well known of the recent painters, was a pauper throughout most of his life, like most painters - and like most artists, his work didn't gain the appreciation (stylistic and monetary) until post mortem.

Honestly, you can pick apart what I said and find special cases even for programmers, but visual arts are harder to make an argument for because there are less customers. I don't deny that you could debate that a programmer is an artist, but you can't deny there are many useful works that are created that are often open-sourced, or undervalued. Combine that with the fact that you may reuse the same application/script over and over amplifying its use, but not the programmers profits.

There are many artists that are/were about the art and not the business side of it, but I don't think those artists are the ones that have financial/drug problems. Don't confuse what I'm saying with my own feelings/beliefs, as if I were a talented musician, I would very much like to make as much money as possible. But it's the point that I publicly say that, "We're not getting enough", or, "we used to be making more", that I'd accept I wasn't just a musician anymore.


RE: confused much?
By MrBlastman on 11/1/2011 11:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
But the true "artistic" programmers do make a lot of money. Look at Richard Garriot... he was able to blow 20 million on going into space. John Carmack is privately funding his own space exploration program. Then there is Sid Meier who has done extremely well. I could go on.

The thing is, most programmers aren't "artists" at all in the sense they work as part of a team to program a segment of a larger application. The programmers that are artists possess a talent far and beyond that of a regular programmer--they have an imagination and creativity that allow them to design something amazing full of story and life that people want to play in droves.

Note, I used PC games as an example but you get the idea.


RE: confused much?
By Steve1981 on 11/2/2011 3:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In any case, bands like The Who are dinosaurs. No one that I know of makes a real album, and there hasn't been one for decades that could make a cohesive album.


In the pop/rock scene, I'd certainly agree that singles are the name of the game vs albums.

On the other hand, there are still some reasonably popular, yet fairly cohesive albums in other music scenes. Songs From An Old Blue Chair by Kenny Chesney comes to mind as being a very cohesive album in country music.

If you broaden your musical horizons a little further and get into more orchestral music, you can also find some well composed and cohesive work. Some reasonably popular and modern examples would be many of the movie soundtracks composed by the likes of Hans Zimmer or Alan Silvestri.


RE: confused much?
By vol7ron on 12/7/2011 4:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
I would say if you enjoy Rock/Indie, listen to Brand New - The Devil and Jesus are Raging Inside Me

Today's great bands are overlooked by "pop" bands.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki