Slashdot Mirror
Future of Music Summit
DotcomScoop writes: "We were provided with a copy of the letter sent by Congressman Rick Boucher to RIAA head Hilary Rosen and IFPI head Jay Berman questioning the legality of copy-protecting CDs. 'I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA),' Boucher writes. We've summarized the letter in a story and CNET also has coverage. Monday is the kick-off of the two-day Future Of Music Policy Summit, which includes keynotes or panels from Boucher, Rosen, Napster CEO Konrad Hilbers, Nirvana's Krist Novoselic, Fugazi's Ian MacKaye and the National Writer Union's Jonathan Tasini, among others." We already posted a story about the Boucher letter, but it can't hurt to mention it again.
So we all known the score. The established position is that any "information" product you buy, like a book, video, magazine, LP, CD or whatever, is sold to you on the condition that you do not reproduce it in any way. This wasn't so bad, because reproduction was expensive anyway. Time for a ramble through my thoughts...
If I buy a book, I know what I'm getting; a physical object which I can read (in one place at a time). I can re-read it any number of times without paying any extra money to the author/publisher. I can give it away to someone else, and they can read it too. The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.
So if it's possible to make money on print media in that environment, why is it so hard for those selling music? After all, they have extra revenue channels which have no equivalent in the print world, such as live performances. And that's before you consider the merchandising opportunities, which are just as possible for authors (J.K. Rowling, anyone?), musicians, artists...
More reflections - original works of art are traditionally extremely expensive because a "copy" or reprint is inferior to the master. Studio production of music is very different; the artist can slave for months over one recorded track until it's finally ready... but the perfect copies cost nothing.
Are people used to "getting stuff for free"? Sure they are, they listen to the radio. Who cares what deals happen behind the scenes to ensure airplay? The music is free! In what way is recording something off the radio and listening to it again "offline" any different from re-reading a book, or for that matter, Napster?
So say the music industry collapsed in the face of widespread "piracy", or sharing, or whatever you want to call it. What happens to the creative impulses which were responsible for the great music in the first place? Do they just die off in the absence of money? Hell no. Music and art have existed long before the RIAA, Disney, the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism or even currency.
If all musicians were just in it for the money, then the charts would be full of lowest-common-denominator bland whiney teenage well-groomed all-style-no-substance pap.
Ah.
These sigs are more interesting tha
Every clockwork has its limit, just put it in some sand...
By encouraging Free Art models (such as the EFF proposed model or GNUArt) we may achieve a parallel distribution model which will de facto have to cohabit with the existing industrial model.
For example, GNUArt agrees that, for example, Free Music songs may appear on commercial compilations ("Best Of"), provided there is a notification of its GPL'ed status.
That's why the way to avoid such industrialization of entertainment would be to
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Which is a noble sentiment, but I'm still seeing a lot of artists choosing (with eyes open) to sign organ-grinder-monkey-contracts and do work-for-hire for the big labels. When I sign a contract that gives me money and security in return for signing away all ownership rights (as I do when creating bespoke software for an employer), I don't expect to be able to turn around months or years down the line and whine "But I created it, I deserve direct royalties!"
I suggest that what the FoM and others should work towards is encouraging some big names to jump ship from big labels and go solo. Mariah Carey has just been given $35 by Virgin to buy them out of their side of a multi-album contract. Every time we hear about a struggling artist, let's think about that, and what it says about the amount of money in this industry. That's $35 million dollars for doing nothing. Now, if Mariah really believes that she can make it, she's got the perfect opportunity to spend that money making, promoting and distributing her own music, under her own control.
Will she do it? Will she hell. She'll go and whore herself to another big label, because it's safer and easier.
And that's the problem. It's not with the labels, it's with the artists. If I hear another sob story about a struggling artist who acknowledges that they've signed a stupid contract, but are going to tough it out anyway, I think I'll blow a fuse. Why should we feel sympathy for people who are dumb and cowardly and greedy?
No, when I see artists leaving the big labels faster than new ones can be created and promoted, then I'll feel sympathy for them. Until then, I'll pay my money to the labels, and not get confused about who's doing the work, producing the creativity, and taking the risks in this business.
My god. I actually find myself feeling sympathy for the RIAA. Now see what you've done! ;-)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Before entering the much more stable world of software engineering, I was a member of a band that had attained some local renown. In fact, we were told that there was some industry attention directed our way. We headlined at a gig one night in New York where A&R personnel from Maverick came to see us play.
One of my former band's members thought much the same as you did, as did I--we should shun any major-label deals and keep playing gigs and promoting ourselves through mailings, on-line and selling CDs/T-shirts/etc. at each show. We knew that signing a major-label deal would be, in essence, selling our solus to the devil and that we might never see the rights to our songs (on which we all took co-writer credits) ever again. And this was scary enough to persuade us, after careful consideration, not to sign any deals.
But the stress of promoting ourselves, without major backing or assistance from a label, ended up taking away from the sheer joy that we got making our music, and ended up in the long run causing us to give up the band. If we had sold our souls, we'd have had a lot more support in directing and marketing our music and probably could have concentrated on the songwriting and performance aspects. But despite everything we did--we had a newsletter, Web site, MP3 downloads of sample songs, fans who were willing to sell our merchandise at shows, it just ended up being a lot of work. We had to hustle for our own radio interviews, club dates, write-ups in the paper, etc. It really is frustrating and does take up a lot of time (kinda like the management vs. programming aspect of my job now).
In conclusion, while it may be easy to say 'do it all yourself--shun the labels and promote and market yourselves', it really isn't as easy as all that. I wish it had been.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)