Dependent Records head Stefan Herwig is tired of hearing that the CD is dead, record companies are evil, and of how "cool" the file-sharing community is.Tired of all the talk about how "dead the CD is, how evil record companies are, (and) how cool the filesharing community is," Dependent Records head Stefan Herwig has challenged proponents of P2P to debate him face to face "... and without net or safety belt." Herwig wants for some of the "'file-sharing is cool' folks" out there to hook up with him while he's traveling the US on a current Seabound/Iris US tour as tour manager and light Engineer, and to "...sit down in a hotel lobby, restaurant or hotel room, and discuss the 'fors and againsts' of file sharing" with him in person, "Face to face and without net or safety belt." He wants to record of all these impromptu file-sharing debates and discussions and make them available as an unedited podcast or downloadable MP3 at the end of the tour. From the sounds of it Herwig is serious about the offer and goes so far as to ask aloud whether anyone out there has "...the guts to step up in real life and argue with someone face to face about this touchy subject?" So much for cordiality. I must admit that I considered taking up the gauntlet myself on this one and to accept his debate, but a look at the tour schedule glaringly omits San Diego and I'm quite allergic to Los Angeles(Those who've seen the city from atop the Grapevine know what I'm talking about). So hopefully someone reading this is able to take up the cause for us "file-sharing is cool" folks and debate Mr Herwig. for us. I think he's delusional if he thinks for a second that the CD's time isn't all but over, and that most record companies really aren't as evil as people make them out to be. With music going digital and with the clunky silicon discs known as CDs more than 28 years old, how can anyone argue that the two characteristics that made them previously desirable - portability and sound - are now what make them obsolete? As for record companies, the so-called "Big 4" at least, it's no secret that they've literally been ripping off artists for years. From basically stealing rights to the master recordings of oftentimes poor, black, artists in recorded music's earliest days, to giving artists literally pennies on the dollar for work made on their backs for decades, music labels have aptly subjugated them to the term "content creators" as they are known as today. Music labels have devolved the art of music to a system of consumer goods that has no interest in sound, but rather in sales. They have been allowed to be the gatekeepers for music for only one reason - distribution. Nobody has a CD or record pressing plant in their backyard and so they've been a necessary evil. What good are they today I ask, when the Internet gives each artist a digital music pressing plant of its own? The record labels are littler more than marketing and financing mechanisms and should be treated as such at long last and give back music its art form. Too bad Herwig can't meet me on my own turf. Here's his post in its entirety:
Are any of you one of the so-called "file-sharing is cool folks?" Here's a list of the dates and places where he'll be if anybody's willing AND able to take up the challenge. 12.03.2008 Philadelphia Shampoo |
|
members that voted for this story
|
The response for me has always been, 'yeah, well, that's all well and true, but your still stealing our music.' I counter that I am simply redistributing my own music and the counterargument has generally been, 'yeah, but who downloads YOUR music anyway? Everyone is stealing OUR music illegally instead.' I counter, of course, that a 6 figure number has downloaded my music myself and I get a 'that's just anomolous and not normal. The reality is that people arn't downloading your music.'
It's funny how I have proof that it's not about downloading copyrighted music in all cases, yet the counterargument is to deny the solid evidence and general avoidance of my claim simply due to the fact that there really isn't a counterargument against what I'm personally doing. Course, I got a good amount of practice to keep a straight face at this point in time, but on the inside, I'm going 'LOL!'.
My personal defense to filesharing is that you can't blame the consumer for your shortcomings. No one would of flocked to P2P if the old system wasn't flawed. It proved that when control is given to the consumer many would rather not pay for music. But instead of trying to working around this reality, maybe lowering prices or giving people incentive to buy music, they chose to keep with the model that revolved around control. Thankfully for consumers, sadly for record labels the internet isn't easy to censor. So instead of the overpriced cd's of the past consumers are getting the free music. One could even go so far as to defend that before recording apparatus, music was a performance art and that was how individuals were compensated. There is no reason why it cannot travel back to those roots. I mean you have artist like Celine Dion and Kanye West charging over 100$ a ticket for their shows, if you look at the capacity of most arenas that's allot of money. Also considering the way computers have simplified recording and removed much of the cost associated to music production their is no reason to charge the amounts, or any amount for music anymore. There have even been studies done on the limitations of music and how the craft itself is simply the inspirational use of music we have already heard. So in essence music copies music, so how does protecting that make sense? Part of me wonders just how much redundancy we have in music today. Because in the end music isn't every possible sound imaginable, its restricted to a climatically structure, one that has a limit.
What about the whole concept of shutting down a service because it could circumvent DRM? The DVD Jukebox which, only up until recently was not allowed to exist without costing an arm and a leg in royalty costs? Even if you are all for stopping bootleggers in third world countries, I'm sure there is recognition for some that the control to innovate should be limited at worst. Right now, that control is obsene and unecessary.
What about the Sony Rootkit fiasco? The actual whistleblower was technically breaking the anti-circumvention laws just to point out that the DRM would destabilize your computer and open yourself wide to hackers.
...just to name three more...
Good idea.. :)
Give me a break! Some of us actually have REAL JOBS where we have to go to work, not act like a teenager and roam all over the country because we're too immature to grow up and get an actual career.
This is bullshit. If the guy wants a debate, then do it on neutral grounds, not a convenient location for him.
Edit: Another point: the lawsuit campaign. Why has it shifted suddenly to college students once people fought back? Is this an admission that these lawsuits are frivolous and that they want an unfair advantage? Why legally pursue people who can't defend themselves on the financial front if they think that their lawsuits are just? If they have nothing to fear, go after the more wealthier people who can defend themselves so they can set a precedent as opposed to forcing the less fortunate to settle out of court.