We've been having an interesting discussion about the above topic here at Craig Anderton's forum at Harmony Central. I was interested in putting the question to fellow musicians how they feel about the brave new world of music in the intertube life, and the results have been surprising. I thought I would be mostly preaching to the choir, because Harmony Central is a musician's web site, but the responses have been all over the map.
Somehow, I cant help feeling that everything is fucked. The future is youtube, myspace, and all the mediocrity therein. It's depressing to me, but to others, it's the democratization of music. I weep for our culture. Devo was right.
3 comments:
I find this issue fascinating.
Consider: how did musicians make money, say, 200 years ago? There are basically two answers: (1) by having a wealthy patron or two; (2) by performing live music.
With the advent of recorded music, suddenly, a musician could record the music 'once' (I realize this isn't literally true) and, at a fairly low marginal cost, reproduce it thousands or millions of times. As a result, some (!) musicians made huge heaps of money.
Now we have a situation where _anyone_ can make a faithful copy of said reproduction at a marginal cost near zero.
I'm not convinced that the 'proper' situation is the one that prevailed throughout much of the 20th century (where at least some musicians made huge amounts of money). After all, we're basically talking about one century out of about 50 centuries of recorded human history where it was possible to reap these returns.
Before you dismiss me as another "music should be free" nutcase, allow me to say: (a) I'm a software designer by profession and therefore in much the same boat as musicians, and (b) I think musicians (and software designers!) should be compensated fairly for their work.
What to do? I honestly don't think we can prevent the copying and sharing of information, copyrighted or not. The genie's out of the bottle, and attempts to restrict reproduction will at best fail and at worst result in horribly oppressive legislation or technologies that simply drive the 'customers' away.
One idea I've had is similar to the Radiohead model in some ways. It involves an 'escrow' website where the customers PREPAY for the product (music, software, etc.). Basically, the 'artist' (producer of the intellectual property) sets a 'dollar bar' indicating at which point he/she will release the product. Potential customers put REAL MONEY into the escrow account; when the total reaches the 'bar', the money is transferred into the artist's account and the product is released into the wild.
Yes, this means at that point that anyone can copy the product. But the artist has made what he/she wanted to make.
If at some point it becomes clear that the total amount in the escrow account won't reach the 'bar', the artist can decide to 'lower the bar' or simply scrap the project.
And a 'client' can at any point (before the 'bar' is reached, at least) decide to remove his/her contribution from the escrow account. I can imagine trend lines and 'hot' products and such.
Artists could release 'teasers' (songs, hamstrung software, etc.) on the site as 'proof of concept'. As a fan of band XYZ, I might actually pony up $25 or more to 'push towards' the bar if it's close. ("C'mon fans, let's get this OUT!")
If you think about it, this isn't wildly different from the status quo c. 1975: I hear a song on the radio I like, and maybe another by the same band, and I buy the CD (er, album). I have no real idea whether the rest of the CD is crap or not.
I'm not sure if this would work or not, but it does seem to have some advantages over a system where businesses sue their customers. It does mean that most artists won't hit the 'jackpot', but as I pointed out earlier, that model was really only in effect for about 75 years and most artists don't hit the jackpot anyway; most are just looking for a decent return on investment.
-- Matt
fud (at) arcturus-software.com
Your escrow plan is an interesting concept, but I don't really see it working in the real world. It's a bit complex, and who's going to put money in an escrow site for an unknown artist? Where will the new generation of artists come from?
But to me, the biggest problem with the concept is that it keeps everyone too focused on money. I see so many resentful comments about wealthy artists. Consumers seem to think that everyone that makes a record is cued up to be on MTV's Cribs show, buying Bentleys and gold chains. The reality is that artists, songwriters and producers get paid pennies for each recording sold (or for airplay, in the case of songwriters). It's a tiny amount. If they should be so lucky as to have a hit, they make the big bucks, but that's because millions of people loved the song, and the pennies added up. What's wrong with that? There are no guarantees, and if you wind up having something that everybody loves, you win. If not, you may lose all of the money you or your label invested, and tough luck. You took a shot, and it didn't work out.
But now, that's all turned upside down, and the system is completely broken. As you said, and I totally agree, the genie is out of the bottle; Pandora's box is open, and there's no going back to the old days.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that you have created something that people hopefully want, and if they do, why shouldn't you be compensated for it, whether it's intellectual property or a fresh baked banana muffin?
And how do you decide in advance how much you want to make on a project? It's the public that decides whether it's a hit or not, not the artist. It's worth pennies. If the pennies add up because millions want it, you've got a hit.
It is a fascinating issue, no doubt. And I don't see any solutions right now.
It takes two things to make civilization: Moral recognition of individual rights, and structures to back up those moral precepts. Neither are likely to exist as absolutes - it is a matter of degree.
Before digital music, people purchased the physical media - there is a common recognition of immorality of shoplifting and the structures are in place to support that (laws against shoplifting, courts, cameras in the stores, alarms at the store entrance, etc.) The combination of morality and the structures kept the losses from theft very low.
But now, with digital music, the recognition of the immoratility of stealing a digital copy of a song is not there - not in sufficient force, and the structures to back it up are also missing. No culture is likely to build and maintain structures that aren't sufficiently supported morally.
We know it is wrong to go into someone's house or into a business and steal things - but despite the overwhelming agreement on this, everyone still has locks on their doors. And they aren't for the hard-core professional thieves, because they aren't stopped by locks. Locks are for those who are not professional thieves, but are light on morality - keeping them from giving in to temptation, and to remind them that it would be stealing. Locks are also a line drawn in the dirt - if someone breaks a lock, they are declaring themselves a thief.
Technically it would be fairly easy to put 'locks' on digital property. In just a few weeks, the manufacturers of computers and recording devices could agree on firmware to prevent a consumer from making a copy of a file that had the agreed upon digital lock in it. And, clearly, it would be possible to pass and enforce laws that made it a criminal offense to post an unauthorized copy of a song to a server or to host it there. And against the law to manufacture or sell equipment that violates a lock. But without that moral recognition too many people would break the locks with pirate equipment, and nothing would be done about the servers hosting pirate copies.
It isn't the locks on our doors that keep thieves out, it is the common understanding that violating the lock is wrong. We learn right from wrong as children and the lessons are fleshed out in school. As a culture, we haven't learned about intellectual property rights - and in many colleges, the professors teach that there are no such things. We live in an era of "Entitlement." And our political system is broken, which means we are unlikely to see leadership in moral awareness from that sector, as well as no efforts to pass needed laws. I don't see any solutions right now either.
-- Steve
Post a Comment