I don't know how much of a backlog you have, but is it going to be harder to find stuff to write about now that Oink is gone? I'd imagine it'll be considerably more difficult to discover interesting new music now that the internet's primary source for it is no more. Obviously there are no shortage of other P2P things, but nothing even comes close to Oink's catalogue of just about anything ever recorded. The shutdown seems like it'll certainly have a significant and lasting effect throughout the MP3 blogging community, with bloggers no longer able to be tastemakers, at least to the extent that they have been for a few years.
j. | 10.24.07 - 11:51 am | #

No, not at all because guess what everybody: I NEVER USED OINK, ever.

Anyone who think Oink was the primary source of anything is delusional. Anyone who thinks Oink had "just about anything ever" is delusional.

Also, how could there be a "lasting effect"? Do you seriously believe that there's not a hundred other ways to get stuff online, or that all the people who built up Oink aren't just going to materialize someplace else within a few hours/days/weeks/months?
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 12:50 pm | #

It seems a hell of a lot more delusional to assert that you know more about a community that you weren't a member of than those that were.

Oink had a shockingly large selection, and was clearly created through a labor of love. Its not irreplaceable, but it will take a lot of a time and effort to build another community with that much respect and dedication to quality music. It wasn't something to scoff at, it was something to be in awe of. If you're too jaded or whatever to see the beauty in it, that's your loss.

Oh, and your blog blows, I stopped coming here over a year ago because the type of music you post is so narrow and repetitive and the color scheme is just nauseating. I just came back to see if there was anything said about Oink.
matt | 10.24.07 - 1:02 pm | #

HA! I was an OiNKer too, but it's so hilarious to see these people treating it like some kind of revered music nirvana. It's gone, big deal.
Paul | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 1:21 pm | #

Matt, there was a reason I didn't use Oink -- I was given a membership and looked around and I had no use for it that wasn't being met in other ways.

Anyway, I'm glad to not have you reading the site.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 1:30 pm | #

Thats the easy way to look at it. Or you could actually think about what it was and why it was stopped and how thats setting a precedent for the future. The internet demands that we start to look at information and products as different objects that need to be used and considered in different ways. We need to be conscious of the fact that information is being turned into a product that needs to be regulated and packaged instead of disseminated freely. Do we really want that? Should that be how things are forever? Should the amount of money you have determine what kind of information you can expose yourself to, regardless of how the internet changes the possibilities for information dissemination?

It may be naive or idealistic to look at it that way, but I think a lot of new ideas and social changes seem naive or ridiculous at first, thats why these cultural transitions are so messy and painful and slow.

Call me a douchebag, but at least I actually care to think and care about what happens in the future in regards to the way information is handled on the internet. Its easy to just support what is accepted and what seems like the obvious "right" thing to do without considering the possible implications for the future.

I only dissed your blog because I've been reading your comments on this issue elsewhere and you have a sense of authority due to your blog that gives your comments what i feel is undeserved credence.
m | 10.24.07 - 1:31 pm | #

I just don't think its necessarily a bad idea to take things like this seriously. It represents something bigger than just Oink, to me.
m | 10.24.07 - 1:34 pm | #

What you care about is what YOU get, and not how human beings who make the things you want are compensated. We are NOT entitled to getting everything we want for free because it's "information" available for the taking if you happen to have a computer with a good connection and free time. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to this, or that I haven't been taking advantage of it, or that you shouldn't, but we can't go around acting like we're all heroes for pillaging, or that these actions do not have serious consequences for anyone involved in making the things you think you are obligated to have free of charge. And that includes people who run labels, market them, or sell them. Everyone wants to demonize those people, and it's really just so that they can feel good about doing something that at best falls into an area of gray morality, and at worst is just outright gluttonous freeloading.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 1:39 pm | #

Hey Matt, long time fan here. Just read your comments at Rawkblog and was really disappointed.

"if these companies all dry up, there are some serious consequences."

Such as? You realize nobody in the world would know your name if not for this "stolen" material you post. I'm sure some of it has been approved, but certainly not all of it.
danish | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 1:40 pm | #

You're just wrong M.P. You're making assumptions about me to support your argument that I'm not making about you. Yeah, I don't care about the people working the record industry because I don't know them, they don't create anything through which I might get to know them. If I knew someone working in the record industry of course I would feel sad for them, knowing they are working in a dying industry.

But do not say I don't care about the artist, I support the artists I appreciate by going to shows, talking them up to friends, making mixes with their tracks on it and giving them to people I think would like it, and playing their music at parties, posting about them on a blog. I probably do as much promotion for artists as the people who are actually paid to do it.

I just don't believe that it is viable to expect tons of money just for the information that used to be confined to a cd, especially since so much of the money doesn't go to the artist. If more artists had a way for me to donate, order merch, or otherwise compensate them, I would.
m | 10.24.07 - 1:48 pm | #

But that doesn't even get to the heart of the issue, I just don't think that the motivation for releasing music and letting people hear it should be monetary gain. Its as simple as that. Of course everyone needs to make a living, but people have to change with the times, we can't just keep things the way they are with tons of laws that are impossible to enforce.
m | 10.24.07 - 1:51 pm | #

(this is a response to Danish)

Well, yeah, I do kinda realize that. That's not the issue though! The issue is how everyone keeps deluding themselves into thinking something very morally dubious is in fact virtuous, and how the entire culture is trending towards the assertion that art and the people who make it are WORTHLESS.

People who are anti-label are very short-sighted. They don't understand what labels do, or that it takes money to make and market records, and that not every record is going to cost the same amount of money to make and market. People need a budget, and not everyone comes from a background where they can do it on their own, and not everyone has the skill or inclination to market themselves. We really need to stop pretending that the exceptions are the rules.

And let's not even get into the "well, artists make their money off touring now." Not everyone can make all their money off of touring, and a LOT of people will lose money if they do, especially given that the touring market is rather soft at the moment. Many people can't afford to tour without a label's support. Many people can't tour because they have jobs and families, or they are ill, or they make music that doesn't lend itself to touring profitably.

My big issue here is how people have forced themselves to believe the worst about the entertainment industry in order to support their gluttonous freeloading and an anti-intellectual contempt for art that is ingrained by society over years and years. There's zero nuance in how people view the entertainment industry now, a total absence of understanding the realities of the business, and a total lack of empathy. People act like "oh, they just want money money money" when they obviously care about their own money not to spend it!
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 1:57 pm | #

"If I knew someone working in the record industry of course I would feel sad for them, knowing they are working in a dying industry."

Oh fuck off. It's only a 'dying industry' because people like you are trying to kill it for your gain, and the delusional narcissistic thrill of thinking you're some revolutionary because you're confusing your own feelings of entitlement with the "public good." The demand for music is there, but a generation of sociopaths have no desire to support it, and everyone has developed a blinkered notion of what the industry does because it suits them and lets them feel like they are doing the right thing.

Of COURSE you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for music. It's so convenient, you know? As long as YOU'RE happy, who cares how many people suffer financially in order to bring you pleasure?

Let me clarify -- we're all guilty in this. But we can look at this as a road to Damascus moment, or we can just delude ourselves some more.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:06 pm | #

"generation of sociopaths"

Who's deluded? I didn't know that posting mp3s and writing concert reviews made you a moral authority.
danish | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:08 pm | #

There is zero nuance to the way people view the entertainment industry because there is zero nuance to how the entertainment industry treats customers. There is a place for people who just want to consume music and leave it at that, people who only listen to a dozen new albums a year, for them the record industry is fine the way it is. And they can afford to pay $20 a CD or pay for some subscription service. I think this kind of interaction with music devalues the art far more than a community of music lovers does, it reduces art to a commodity.

But file-sharing encourages a different kind of interaction with music and with the musician. People who love music should care about what they listen to enough to not want to just accept whatever is marketed to them or whatever is on the shelves. And people who love music should connect their love of music to the artist who made it, and they should take a more active role than just the role of a consumer.

Sure, a lot of people are just lazy and careless and they just want to hoard a ton of music and never give anything back or try to do anything for the artist, but I can't help but feel those people are the minority, I really do think that most people care. I think most people are willing to put in effort to support the artists they love. I think that's why Radiohead was willing to do what they did and it worked out for them. Of course not every band is as popular as Radiohead, but I think it could work out so that people who love more obscure artists might feel more inclined to contribute more.

Also, I just don't think money is the only thing that people have to offer, and the current model asserts that that is the case.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:10 pm | #

(response to Danish)

Oh come on, that is sooooo not what I'm saying. You're not even listening.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:10 pm | #

It is a dying industry because the internet killed the data disc. Information isn't inextricably tied to a physical object anymore, it can be replicated infinitely. I'm not killing the industry because I was never gonna spend all my money that I don't have on a bunch of fucking discs. If the internet didn't exist I wouldn't have had to means to invest my time in music the way I have and I wouldn't have read anything about music and I just wouldn't be the same person.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:17 pm | #

Poor Dragonette, making really fun, quality music and being shat on at every possible opportunity. It seems only fitting that a blog post on them would be derailed into a discussion of OiNK.
Keane | 10.24.07 - 2:19 pm | #

M, so you really think that just LOVING MUSIC, MAN is license enough to just get whatever you want?

Community is nice, and interactivity can be productive, but what you're saying is that artists and the people who bring their art into the world should not be compensated at all because....it suits you? Do you expect to get food and shelter and books and movies and clothes for free too?

Caring and sharing is one thing, but insisting on (voraciously!) consuming only in a way that gives NO MONEY AT ALL back to the artists is really problematic when it becomes the dominant paradigm. What do you REALLY expect to happen when the money dries up?

And please, let's be real about Radiohead --- they did what they did mostly because a) they actually wanted to get paid whatever they could get from an audience who all seem to believe they are owed everything free and immediately and b) because they wanted to confront people with a decision that made them contemplate exactly how much the music was worth to them in monetary terms.

Also, PLEASE, there's loads of way to purchase mp3s if you're adamantly opposed to cd and vinyl, but you'd just rather get shit for free. And don't even start on the "oh, I want high bitrate" audiophile nonsense -- Bleep.com has all kinds of awesome stuff for sale as FLAC and 320 mp3s, and they aren't doing that hot, certainly not pulling the numbers of people who just download that stuff from Oink or slsk et al. This "oh the industry needs to make a legal version of Oink" is just another bullshit excuse because a legal version would be expensive for one thing, and everyone wouldn't want to pay a penny for anything.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:21 pm | #

Oh sweet Jesus Christ. Won't you Oinkers go away? Who cares about your self-absorbed travails? I came here to talk about the awesomeness of Dragonette and Midnight Juggernauts. I mean, talk about fucking irony.
pageblank | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:23 pm | #

I already said I'll compensate artists in the ways that I can, I don't expect it for free.

I expect to be able to read books for free, yes, on the internet, I don't expect to own the physical object for free. And no, not food or shelter, because those cost resources and can't be replicated infinitely. As for movies, I pay to go to the movies because I'm paying for that environment and the experience. I don't really know about owning movies, I'm not sure how that should work, I haven't thought about it much. Netflix is a good thing, though.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:25 pm | #

I don't feel bad derailing this discussion, I've played Dragonette for people at parties and they went over really well. A lot more people know about Dragonette because of me and so a lot more people will be more likely to pay for their shows, merchandise, etc.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:26 pm | #

But you shouldn't have to pay for it? Why, cause you are so special? I used to work in the book industry, and you know what? World-famous authors pay for their own books and buy books from struggling authors. They don't get comped and they take pleasure in supporting young and unknown artists. If you like shit, introducing people to it ain't enough. PAYING FOR IT IS.
pageblank | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:31 pm | #

WOW WHAT A HERO YOU ARE!!!!!!! Those people at those parties SURE ARE LUCKY!

Okay so basically your point is that PHYSICAL OBJECTS ARE BAD, and as long as you don't get involved with them, you're in the clear on an ethical ground because...uh...you are entitled to "information"? (You do realize how dehumanizing you are when you reduce art and expression to "information," right? Maybe that's your whole problem.)

So the "experience" of being in a movie theatre >>>>>> the experience of listening to a record over and over again? I don't get your logic. Why does that one thing have value, and the other thing does not? Is this your way of saying that all art has no value to you, but sitting in a room does?
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:35 pm | #

It cost something to maintain a theatre, it cost something to put on a show, so they need money to keep that going. It doesn't cost anything the replicate the info on a cd.

It is not "dehumanizing" to talk about information as separate from a physical object.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:38 pm | #

I never claimed I was a fucking hero, quit painting me as something I'm not claiming to be. The only thing I'm proud of that I'm doing is provoking thought and discussion.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:39 pm | #

I really can't believe how immature you are Perpetua. I guess there's no point in continuing this since you're just going to simplify everything I say down to babytalk and ignore the thought behind it.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:41 pm | #

:"It cost something to maintain a theatre, it cost something to put on a show, so they need money to keep that going. It doesn't cost anything the replicate the info on a cd."

Yes, but it costs money to MAKE THE "INFORMATON" ON THE CD OR VINYL OR TAPE OR MP3 OR DVD. How the hell do you think people break even on that if everyone refuses to buy physical objects OR the "information" as data?

It's kinda rich to be accused of immaturity when I'm arguing against a load of people feeling that an entire industry should collapse because all they can think of is themselves and their own gain.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 2:43 pm | #

Dude, come on. You totally tried to potray yourself as some kind of a super effective one man street team. What are the chances that your "Killer Party Mix '07" directly lead to a band getting one cent of added revenue or prestige or anything that will tangibly let them keep pursuing a career in the arts? You can't put forth a laughable justification, and then act bewildered when the room cracks up.
Jeff K | 10.24.07 - 2:53 pm | #

Why would people refuse to buy physical objects? I didn't say I never buy them. I also didn't say I never pay for shows or merch, either. I also didn't say I wouldn't donate if given the option. I'm just not going to pay for jewel cases and advertisements.

If gaining more fans doesn't "tangibly let them continue their career in the arts" I don't know what does. Fans pay for shows, merch, and vinyl and cds if they want them, especially if the artist makes these things appealing.
m | 10.24.07 - 2:57 pm | #

My main point was, what proof do you have that any of the people you hipped to all these new bands actaully went out and supported these artists by buying their wares? You didn't, apparently. If they play some of their songs at their next party are they off the hook too?
Jeff K | 10.24.07 - 3:08 pm | #

Jeff is on the right track. And it's something everyone -- me, you, everyone else who participates in this notion that hype is enough to float people financially -- have to seriously consider right now. Look around. There's loads of people who have plenty of hype, but it doesn't quite translate into them being compensated fairly. You can say "oh, the model is changing," but it's only because we're collectively saying "eh, we'll give you money if it suits us" and holding our hands out for MORE MORE MORE.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 3:15 pm | #

Well, when Dragonette came through town a bunch of my friends when to see them. If you put one moments thought into it you'd realize what I was doing was just as good, if not better, than what paid street teams do. You don't have a point Jeff K, so why don't you just stick your nose up Perpetua's ass and be done with it?
m | 10.24.07 - 3:15 pm | #

I'm not holding my hands out, I am giving back. I am creating things through what I find in music, I'm putting on parties where there were none, I'm giving kids something to do, creating a scene where there was none. That is a hell of a lot more than buying a fucking CD.
m | 10.24.07 - 3:17 pm | #

Listen, it's great that you're active and doing stuff but let's not pretend that not paying for recordings is a totally great thing for artists, alright? If their records don't sell, it's harder for them to tour or make more records. They can fall into debt, they can get into all kinds of financial troubles. Maybe they'll make money in other ways, but it's no reason to act as though losing money on the most important thing they do -- record music -- is anything like a good thing even if it's convenient for you.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 3:32 pm | #

since the destruction of oink i've been giving a lot of thought to how i've been consuming music. i don't think i'm going to be looking for another oink. i really do feel that the way i listen to music has been cheapened by its existence. it just made it all so easy and never forced me to actually pay attention to the records i got. my ratio had been falling lately so i'd already been going back and listening to stuff that i had given half a listen to before and blown off and been completely enamored with some of it.

i still don't exactly take an issue with music piracy in general and i'm sure i'll continue doing it to some extent, but i think oink was ultimately more poisonous to music than napster/audiogalaxy by requiring full-length albums of cd-quality material.

maybe i'll be listening to less music now, but i think i'll actually be enjoying more of it.
kevin | 10.24.07 - 3:53 pm | #

this whole discussion is so exhausting and depressing that i don't even know what to say. enough with justifications for not buying music ever, okay? stop deluding yourselves.
Ray | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 4:58 pm | #

I'm so sick of you telling me that I hold the opinions that I do for selfish reasons, because that is just not true. I put a lot of thought into my opinions and I hold them because I believe the internet can change people and society for the better. Don't tell me how I feel, I tell you how I feel, that's how conversations work.

I never said it is purely a GOOD thing that artists aren't making money off of record sales like they used to, all I'm saying is that new technology is rendering old ways of doing business obsolete, and this is giving rise to a lot of beautiful things that never happened before. Just sitting around feeling privately guilty and calling it a "moral grey area" and leaving it at that is just lazy.

So many more artists are being heard than ever before, soooooo many artists matter to people that would never have mattered to many people before the internet made it so easy to be heard. Yes, the music "industry" will have to change, and yeah, people might suffer for that, but I think it will force people to be more creative, force people to find new ways of distributing music, and will ultimately invigorate the world of music a lot more than it hurts it. There is going to be a growing divide between giant commercial releases that depend on the old business model, and smaller releases that embrace their internet popularity and are able to find ways to capitalize on it. Which one of these methods do you think will ultimately win out?

Thats all I'm gonna say about this because I know you're sick of talking about it.
m | 10.24.07 - 5:14 pm | #

M,

"The internet demands that we start to look at information and products as different objects that need to be used and considered in different ways. We need to be conscious of the fact that information is being turned into a product that needs to be regulated and packaged instead of disseminated freely. Do we really want that? Should that be how things are forever? Should the amount of money you have determine what kind of information you can expose yourself to, regardless of how the internet changes the possibilities for information dissemination?"

In regards to your final post, I see little regard for the "information" providers from this earlier statement. You're a nice writer and you have thought about music online, but compensating musicians/songwriters for their recorded product seems lowest among your priorities, if a priority at all.
dhs | 10.24.07 - 6:49 pm | #

It's funny how m justifies not buying music by claiming to promote artists. Under this logic, Matthew shouldn't have to buy another cd for the rest of his life.
Tristan | 10.24.07 - 8:02 pm | #

Matthew murked m with this: "Is this your way of saying that all art has no value to you, but sitting in a room does?"

I can sympathize with the angle that m is coming from but you're stupid if you think you're entitled to an artist's work for free. I consider the design of a Mercedes Benz to be a beautiful work of art. So would I be justified in stealing one? No! Some German worked his ass off with a T-square and compass making that shit. I do find it sad that a lot of people feel entitled to something that someone put their heart and soul into. Even with something major like the recent 50 and Kanye feud. Most dudes I knew was rooting for Kanye but when I asked them if they was gonna cop Ye's CD their response was always something like "Naw, son, I got Limewire." Yeah, God forbid you should actually pay for something that you like, right? Especially if you want Kanye to win a SALES competition. The record industry is in a freefall right now, but a business that has a 90% failure rate was bound to fail at some point. I wouldn't really mind if the industry died, if there was a viable alternative, but there ain't one. If every artist adopted Radiohead's model the internet would be overcrowded with music that no one would have the chance to listen to. Yeah, the labels do treat us like we're stupid because most people are. If Jive didn't sell mad copies of Britney Spears they wouldn't have money for the Clipse. In order to cater to us they have to appease the zombies who follow the radio. I know a lot of people argue that if they promoted more underground artists then there would be some balance on the radio. No, there wouldn't. I know how fickle you people are. If Radiohead was on a repetitive loop on Clear Channel stations instead of Nickelback, you motherfuckers would ditch Radiohead for being "popular" and then complain about how a another underground artist isn't being put on. As for dude attacking Fluxblog, I'll admit this: most of the music on here is hit or miss, but I still download it everyday. What I like most about Fluxblog is not Matthew's taste in music but his writing ability. I may not like every song he posts on here but he always explains in one or more paragraphs why he loves it and what he thinks about it, and I admire him for being able to articulate feelings about a song that I would never be able to. One.

One Verse Could Start Jihad coming soon!
riyadh | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 8:24 pm | #

Matthew,

I've been following this discussion, as well as your comments on other blogs, and I just want to say THANK YOU. I couldn't agree with your point of view more. The thing people aren't getting is that you aren't against file-sharing; you just want people to think for two seconds about the consequences of their actions and drop the ridiculous sense of moral justice that everybody seems to feel they possess.

I'm in a moderately successful, nationally-known, if not exactly househouse-name type band. We've done national tours, we've opened for very large bands, Pitchfork occasionally throws us a bone, etc. I just wanted to drop a bit of how things work from my POV:

1. Making an album isn't free. Unless you're a laptop artist or a bedroom folkie, you're going to need to spend several days to several weeks in a recording studio. Let's say this part costs $2000.00 to $4000.00 on the cheap end of things. Let's throw in another 1.5 K for mixing and mastering, not to mention the time everybody took off of work during this whole process.

Once that's all done, once you have your finished fucking masterpiece in your hands, what are you going to do with it? Who is going to get your music out there? Hmm, fuck those record labels, let's self-release it like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah? Let's add in another 2 to 3K for cd duplication and artwork. Wait, cds are so, I dunno, MATERIAL.

Going the digital route sure makes sense without a label. Bloggers and music media just love getting their inboxes clogged with unsolicited bands' shitty MP3s and they make sure to listen to every single one of them. Hmm, maybe a record label wasn't such a bad idea. Maybe you should have hired a publicist - oh wait, publicists make their money from a cut of the sales, which don't exist anymore...

This is getting rambly. I'd just like to point out that the path from an artists' brain to your iPod is perhaps a bit more windy than you are aware of.

2. That whole "I make up for it because I go and support them at shows" is BULLSHIT. Trust me, unless you are on the level of the Shins you are hardly making a living on the road. A small band will almost always lose its ass on the road. A band on a US tour spends close to 100 bucks per day on gas, 100-200 bucks per night on lodging (unless you're lucky enough to have a friend with a shitty floor in every city), not to mention food, the time everybody took off work, the cost of renting/buying a van, wondering if you have a job to come back home to, etc. As for the huge profit gained each night from your valuable show attendance, the venue takes 25-40% of it right off the bat, then the booking agent, and so on. The tours I have been on have BARELY broken even (and don't even come close to making up the lost wages from not working), and yeah, we're not selling out the Hammerstein but we're not playing to a field of corn either.

3. I am not anti-file sharing.
Dave | 10.24.07 - 9:17 pm | #

(continued)

3. I am not anti-file sharing. I do it myself, but I buy a lot of music, and when I do download stuff, I don't convince myself that I am doing anything other than stealing from the artist who made it.

4. As for the "people shouldn't make music for the purpose of making money" wisdom, anybody who makes music for the purpose of getting rich is not only doing it for the wrong reasons; he/she is stupid as well.
Dave | 10.24.07 - 9:18 pm | #

^^^Is this Dave Matthews?^^^
riyadh | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 9:34 pm | #

Hello,
Not enough people who go to blogs like this show the appreciation they deserve. I find them quite fantastic because I can hear a song or two from a band and decide if I like what they have to offer. Which is a lot better than some of the other websites that play 29 second clips of songs, that have me wondering whether I like it or not . So when I go and buy the questionable cd and it's the worst thing ever, I feel slightly violated and am forced to protest by wearing paper bag hats saying, "-random band name here- violated me with their atrocious cd!" So for the sake of everyone else I end up buying CDs that I enjoy and there is less hostility. So thank you MP3 blogger people far and wide for sharing music with us even though occasionally we think some of the songs are awful, It's the thought that counts! Yes, I am done with my rambling now. Have a nice day!
Sincerely,
Me.

Also it's a bit odd though that Matt( m.)person thinks the site completely"blows" and stopped coming a year ago, but managed to find his merry way back. Hmm.
Asia | 10.24.07 - 9:45 pm | #

"consider the design of a Mercedes Benz to be a beautiful work of art. So would I be justified in stealing one? No! Some German worked his ass off with a T-square and compass making that shit."

The stealing music is like stealing a car is a bad argument by analogy. When steal a car, some guy is missing his car. When you steal music, you make a copy of it, and you increase it's "cultural capital" so to speak.
Tristan | 10.24.07 - 10:06 pm | #

M - I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about the mechanics of actually BEING an artist. So far, you've only talked about your point of view as a consumer, and how your non-payment (for 'digital information') is OK, because you're exposing/disseminating etc, but surely you can see that if your POV is indicative of the wider consumer, there's going to be trouble.

If you're an artist of any kind - creating a physical product or a digital one - there's rent to pay, food, utilities, insurance: all the trappings of an actual existence. The hours in the day it takes to create are hours you don't work for a wage, and all the people in the world exposing/disseminating your art without payment won't help pay those bills or compensate for the hours you're not earning a wage. And we're not even getting into the subject of what art in itself is worth, as ideas, as a creation.

I'm an author; I make my living from the assumption people will pay for the stories I create. You say you expect to read books for free, on the internet, but you'd pay for the physical product. But if you think about it, the physical product is the only thing that belongs to the publisher/corporation. Those words you want for free on the internet, those are my creation in the purest form. How do you expect me to spend 6+ hours a day, every day, working to create that novel if I'm not getting compensated for my time, skills and vision?

At the end of the day, you're free-riding on a system that (rightly, if not totally fairly) compensates artists for their creations. Your 'principles' may be fine for you in practise right now, but don't try and justify it as a noble norm.
Abby | Homepage | 10.24.07 - 10:13 pm | #

The OiNK defenders out there remind me of a song called "Artist's Lament" (I think) on a Fish Karma album in the early 90s...

"They shut off my electricity because I wouldn't pay my bill...BASTARDS!!!"
wendy | 10.24.07 - 10:43 pm | #

I love Dragonette too but this remix has been on the blogs for a while now. I really love this site and read it regularly but is it possible for you to get the scoop on new remixes from the band?

As for that fuck up who said you were working in a dying industry? Go onto Perezhilton and wack off with the rest of the mindless goops if you are looking for free cheap thrills. the music industry is not only needed more than ever now but it needs our support. It sustains intelligence in popular culture and it actually does something that no tabloidic enterprise can ever penetrate. It inspires.

Keep up the good work. -J
John | 10.25.07 - 8:12 am | #

John, I actually hadn't heard this song until very recently, my friend had played it and my ears perked up. I really don't read a lot of the other mp3 blogs unless they are very heavy on writing -- I'm deluged with enough songs as it is. I'm sorry if I wasn't first at bat with this one, but my rule is that I do this for me, and just hope that some people in the audience are getting something out it. It's pretty hopeless at this point to try to always be FIRST. In fact, in some cases you may be noticing that I'm deliberately holding off on writing about some things for one reason or another. Similarly, I've been meaning to write about that Lil Wayne song from the previous day for months, and finally figured out what I wanted to say, so I went with it.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 10.25.07 - 8:36 am | #

Everyone here is smart enough to read the Supreme Court's Grokster decision. Please do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct.../04- 480.ZO.html

OiNK was different than Grokster, but probably not enough to be materially distinguished.

Point being (though I don't know what law the OiNK guy is being charged under), all the fancy protorevolutionary rhetoric about new paradigms and whatnot is kind of irrelevant in the United States. File sharing copyrighted work is illegal. Making a program to help people share copyrighted work is mostly illegal. If you don't like it, contact your legislators.
jj | 10.25.07 - 11:06 am | #

Oh my god, how did I manage to survive for 36 years without ever having heard of oink before now? I suppose I am now doomed to having to actually have friends who will share the music they love with me.

One point that hasn't been brought up, which I first heard John Darnielle make and which I think is relevant, is presentation. As an artist, why shouldn't you have some control over the way your work is presented? Some musicians may consider mp3s floating around on file sharing sites to be an ideal presentation, which others put considerable effort into their art design, track order, sound quality, and all the other elements that go into the experience of recorded music. Why should people be able to substantially alter it and pass it around with an artist's name on it?

I don't think analogies to other forms of theft or vandalism are particularly useful for thinking about file-sharing. So, artists want to get paid and be able to control the presentation of their work, people in the industry want to be recompensed for their labor, resources, and the economic risk they take, and fans want to be able to hear a lot of music and not have to pay almost $20 for a mini version of what some of us still remember being a nice big piece of art you could frame, and no bullshit about telling me I can't put the music I bought on cd onto my iPod or whatever. Aren't there business geniuses out there who can come up with an acceptable model that will work more or less well for everyone, including when the artists are not as well-known and adored as Radiohead?
holzfallen | 10.25.07 - 11:21 am | #

I'm sorry to anyone who didn't want to hear from me again.

Abby: First of all, don't put quotes around "principles" like I used that word, I used the word "opinions." I'm not convinced that what I'm doing is noble or "right," there aren't a whole lot of things that I know are noble or right. However, I am convinced that the way the internet changes things could change society for the better. I believe what I try to encourage with my behavior is a moral approach that can give artists a more active, dedicated fanbase, in which fans would take on a role that is more than just consumer. I'm not saying this is how everyone should act, I think everyone needs to modify their behavior according to their means, habits, the way they want to live their life, and the way they want to interact with other people. I just don't think people need as many laws clogging up their life as other people seem to think. I admit I may be wrong, I can't peer into the heart of human nature, and the way you guys see the current situation, I can see why you would feel that way. Perhaps this all just stems from my opinion that capitalism doesn't always encourage the best in us, and the laws that defend certain aspects of it, making sure it keeps functioning exactly the way we expect it to, are just going to build up and weigh us down until we need to start all over again.

Second of all, you couldn't be more wrong when you suggest that I've only considered this issue from a consumer's POV, because believe it or not, I do consider myself an artist. I'm an artist who has already gotten to that place where you realize there really is nothing that will ultimately satisfy you in life, there is no perfect-sized paycheck, no perfect mate, there is no perfect house or perfect place to live, all their is is your love for the world and the people in it and what you can make of it. Hmm, so with that in mind, should I put all my energy into making myself some money, or should I put all my energy into making something I believe the world could use, something that highlights the parts of life I think are valuable and shows people something they haven't before considered, possibly have some effect on the world besides moving some money around? I'm not sure what life is like for you as a working novelist, but if its anything like my artistic aspirations, you have a freaking day job, that's how you pay the bills. If I wanted to read your book, I would look for it at the library, I don't know how anyone could read a novel on the computer screen, awful on the eyes and its just an unpleasant place to read a novel (tho I guess I've read at least a few dozen novel's worth of words on the net.) If it wasn't at the library, I probably wouldn't read it because I would assume I wasn't willing to spend the money (a struggling artist and all), but if I still really wanted to read your book I would probably buy it, but I only buy a few books a year, ones that
m | 10.25.07 - 11:33 am | #

(con't) I can't find in the library and just can't stop thinking about. It's not even like this is a good analogy, though, its not like you have any other source of revenue other than selling the physical copy of your book. I guess you could allow people to download e-copies off a website for donations, I've seen some people doing that who seemed to think it was working well. But really, its not like you're gonna go on tour or release some other merchandise and I can support you there, its just not the same situation at all. Also, a music artist is a lot "luckier" if I buy their actual album because there are so many more musicians in my range of interest than authors, a lot more alive anyway, and so I have to be a lot more selective of where I put my money.

But anyway, file-sharing from an artists POV: if I ever had an album that was starting to take off, I would encourage everyone you can imagine to download it for free, I would be thrilled to be so lucky as to have so many people interested in my art, I might try to make a website where I give certain things away like vinyl, artwork, or Tshirts for certain sized donations. Maybe I'd set up some sort of forum or poll to see in which cities I'm the most popular so I'd know where it'd be profitable and satisfying to tour. I'm not sure how much money I'd make, but I would just be thrilled to be heard.

As an artist, personally, I can't see how you couldn't predict that response. Oh, and if you are in the novel-writing business cause you hope to pay your bills, you're in the wrong racket, but good luck to you, if you have something to say, I'm sure people will listen--or at least I hope so, for both our sakes.


ps: everyone else, I didn't respond to what you said because every other comment addressed something I felt I'd already dealt with, or they just misconstrued or misinterpreted what I said.

pps: jj, that's the pragmatic answer to the issue, but people break laws they don't like all the time, and the more people that do it and the more people that are okay with it, the less it should be a law (of course if this happened with rape, murder, or pillaging, we'd need to rethink things.)

ppps: holzfallen, presentation is something to consider, but i still think most artists would just be happy to have their ideas out there. plus a ton of our most beloved art is by dead people who can't control presentation anyway.
m | 10.25.07 - 11:38 am | #

i'm coming to this argument quite late and i never heard of oink until this morning but i just wanna go on record here and say this hope about the internet changing society for the better is misguided at best. the internet is not gonna fucking change shit. we've all been hearing that kind of thing for years and years and open a goddamn newspaper sometime and tell me what the fuck has changed. all this time i've spent online reading blogs and still George Bush got elected twice and the so-called wars on terror are gonna cost around a trillion dollars. "change society for the better"? good fucking luck. "change" ain't gonna happen while we sit in our rooms thumbing our trackpads listening to whatever bullshit indie band we're gonna be sick of next week.

all i know is this: i wrote a novel. i worked on it for three years. it was a lot of heartache and grind but still, in the end, fun. a publisher bought it. the money they gave me for all that work, those three years, well, it's best not to do the math on that. let's just say i probably would've made more washing dishes for three years. but of course i didn't do it for the money, didn't write it for the money. i knew the odds were against me hitting a big payday and having a huge bestseller that would set me up nicely and allow me to make money doing the thing that i loved. i knew all that. i was just happy my book was coming out, incredibly happy, ecstatic. and here's where i get to the point: if somehow my book had suddenly "leaked" all over the fucking internet and people were reading it for free and i thought this would in any way detract from possible sales (which of course it would) well, then i'd be going fucking apeshit. i'd be like a d-list literary Lars Ulrich. i know it's books and not music and the analogy isn't perfect but the principle is the same. i write this as someone who doesn't own an ipod or download music. the internet is not gonna change us for the better and it's not gonna save us and all you have to do is live through a single day with your eyes open to see that this is true.
bryan charles | 10.25.07 - 2:32 pm | #

Hi - just wanted to put my 2 cents in, as I'm directly effected by this thread.

I manage dragonette. Part of my living comes from people paying for what they do. My kids eat better if people pay for their music. I can afford to pay for health insurance for them if people pay for their music. If nobody pays for it, I have to find another line of work (as does the band). It's that simple.

So if you like the band and don't support them monetarily in some way or another likely you'll have no more music by them. Everyone has to survive. If "information is free" then there is no incentive for anyone to take the time to create it on a full-time basis, unless they are independantly wealthy, or have another means of support.

Most of the people I know in the music business (on the artistic side or the business side) aren't in it for the money.They are in it because they love it. I have been lucky enough to make a pretty decent living from my work, but if I didn't get paid then it would have to be simply a part-time hobby, because my family needs to eat.

I by no means think that file sharing or blogs are a bad thing. i send music to matthew and others on a regular basis, in the hope that he'll like it and write about it. I think that blogs and file-sharing are no different than magazines or radio.

But I'm old enough to put have a habit of putting a monetary worth on music. If I heard or read about or loved something, I bought it. Still do. I have shedloads of mp3s I didn't pay for on my computer (mainly stuff I can't find anywhere else), but I also spend more money on music than on anything else except my family's well-being.

I have no problem with this old system really. If you think something's of value, pay for it if you have the opportunity to. If you don't love it, toss it into the trash on your hard drive. I have given up meals to buy records. That's life.

If you don't pay for music, there will be less good stuff by the artists you like, most of whom are just barely holding on financially. Bands break up constantly for the sole reason that they can't support themselves making music.

I don't come to any of your places of work expecting the things that you work so hard on for free. Why should you come to mine and expect it? that's really the bottom line.

be well,

nh
neil h | 10.25.07 - 3:20 pm | #

I wonder how you all feel about sharing the music of deceased artists. Do the same arguments apply or are deceased artists, which no longer will see any direct benefit of records sales themselves, somehow different?
Sindre | 10.25.07 - 8:51 pm | #

Once the artist is dead it's fair game. Fuck the wife and kids. Let them make their own records.
36? Wow, thats old. | 10.26.07 - 12:23 am | #

why are you assuming the artist is a male?
you've revealed a lot about yourself with your comments...
Anonymous | 10.26.07 - 1:25 am | #

Matthew Perpetua is a self-righteous twat.
Akina | Homepage | 10.26.07 - 3:32 am | #

is the fuse lit yet? this discussion in general has done nothing but make me absurdly confused about my own feelings, and i think it's because i'm having a hard time finding an enemy. not that being confused about my feelings isn't a great step towards informed considerations on the subject, but i think i'm feeling the need for someone to remind that maybe the win-win here can only be found in analyzing the whys of our own behavior and not in the supposition of someone else's motivation. unnecessary? don't worry, i know.
PMG | 10.26.07 - 1:31 pm | #

People like m make me glad that I'll be dead soon. They're no different than the shitty hippies who stormed the gates of Grateful Dead concerts in the late 60's demanding to see the band for free. You can spin it however you want, but you're grabbing something that doesn't belong to you because you can get away with it.

I can't wait to hear how bad music's gonna get once bands can't afford things like studio time. You can say goodbye to the days of people putting microphones in front of amplifiers and recording vocals in places that aren't bathrooms and say hello to a lot of baaaaad laptop rock.

Keep breaking hot new bands at your parties, m. You're the real hero!

Tom.
Tom | 10.27.07 - 4:14 am | #

lol, old people are obsolete. just die.
zzzz | 10.27.07 - 12:49 pm | #

"why are you assuming the artist is a male?
you've revealed a lot about yourself with your comments..."

This is a moronic objection.
Tristan | 10.27.07 - 9:05 pm | #

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/20...k-birth- of.html
zzzz | 10.28.07 - 12:26 pm | #

I'm so glad I made into my 30s (barely) before ALL joy was sucked out of music by file sharing. I don't mean to wax nostalgic because I love technology as much as anyone, but leaked albums and file sharing has sucked the joy out of music.

Music is not valued anymore, it doesn't mean anything anymore, everyone has (barely) digested an album and moved on to the next thing before the said album is actually even released.

And Matt, I enjoy your writing and respect your opinion but I don't think you realize how condensending your opinion on this matter comes across, considering (I'm assuming) you get pretty much all of your music for free from publicists or whoever. I'm not saying you aren't right, it's just how your tone comes across. And even though you didn't use Oink, you use some service, right? I believe you admitted so once, in regards to buying Volta since it wasn't leaked early enough.

Face it: this is a situation where there is absolutely no "good guys," and I think it would be best if literally everyone on both sides of the debate looked in the mirror and said "I'm part of the problem." I know I have.
Bob | 10.31.07 - 9:06 pm | #

"And Matt, I enjoy your writing and respect your opinion but I don't think you realize how condensending your opinion on this matter comes across..."

"I'm so glad I made into my 30s (barely) before ALL joy was sucked out of music by file sharing. I don't mean to wax nostalgic because I love technology as much as anyone, but leaked albums and file sharing has sucked the joy out of music."

Hey look who is being presumptuous and condescending.

Dumbass logic:
(1) Free music sucks the joy out of music, and that is a problem.
(2) Promotional music is free.
(3) Assume Matthew gets promotional music.
(4) Therefore, Matthew's promotional music sucks the joy out of music.
Anonymous | 11.01.07 - 12:24 am | #

Oh, I definitely get loads of promotional music, and it's usually a fairly neutral experience for me.

But Bob, I think I made a point in this whole comments thread of implicating myself as much as anyone else. Maybe that didn't come across well enough.
Matthew Perpetua | Homepage | 11.03.07 - 6:14 pm | #

http://www.oil21.org/
knowa | 11.11.07 - 11:28 am | #

Fuck Matthew,

I never visit this blog and the one time I do I find that you argue with your readers...and so viruently! I'm aghast. Sort it out.
Regards,

Paul
Paul | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 3:35 pm | #

Look here to Buy sell wow gold, 奥特莱斯,家纺招商
KKL;
JZY | 09.16.08 - 11:03 pm | #

十一结束，开始工作:皮带秤, google排名,电子皮带秤。U
JZY | 10.06.08 - 11:12 pm | #

十一结束，开始工作:徐州网站建设, 徐州网站建设,入党申请书。fwegtwrtewteterXFGJFJ
JZY | 10.21.08 - 9:57 pm | #

FX初心者　入門
ゴールドカード 比較
錦糸眼科 イントラレーシック
錦糸眼మ | 11.04.08 - 11:37 pm | #