Slashdot Mirror
Music Labels Screwed, DRM Is Dead
An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jenner, former manager of bands like Pink Floyd, T.Rex and the Clash, states in an interview with the Register that music label executives have lost faith in DRM and dollar-per-track online music selling isn't working too well as a model. He predicts that in two to three years time, many countries will have moved to a blanket licensing regime." The article goes on at some length, talking about the value of digital music, patterns in the music industry, and some business at the end about 'the tyranny of the playlist' that I'm not hep enough to follow. I'm not sure this rant has any connection whatsoever with reality, but it is something to think about.
I went to school with somebody who later became the MD of Sony Music UK. I met him at a mutual friend's new year's party a couple of years ago and we got talking about how he signed Travis, and bout new bands, and the rise of this Internet thing.
I have a great deal of interest in the copyfight, and earlier that year had attended one of RMS's talks, was reading Laurence Lessig, et. al. Naturally, I wanted to know what he thought of all that stuff. As head of one of the most powerful A&R operations on earth, I assumed he would definitely have an opinion.
But he seemed either completely ignorant of the issues, or completely unconcerned. He said something about how their lawyers are "doing something about it" but other than that had no interest. What about copying music? "Oh, we'll sort that out I'm sure." What about the role of the publisher as gatekeeper to new talent? "Er, what about it? We put a lot of investment into choosing acts that will do well. And they do do well."
Something about rabbits and headlights came to mind, so I asked him about where he went on holiday that year (France, it was really nice, you really *must* visit the Dordogne...)
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
The entire entertainment industry is run by people who are so consumed with greed that they are unable to think clearly and rationally. Although the record companies will ocassionaly pay lip service to "you're ripping of the artitis when you download music from the internet", the truth is, over the past 50 years, nobody has screwed and cheated musicians more than the record companies. A record company is simply a group of people, with no talent or creative ability, who exist for the sole purpose of getting rich by stealing money from people who DO have talent.
And that's why they are so in love with DRM. The entire entertainment industry is so consumed with greed that they are absolutely convinced that there is only one way to do busines: they must maintain absolute, iron-fisted, totalitarian control over they precious "content".
The idea of "an open, collaborative culture" is impossible for them to comprehend. The idea that you can eliminate all the DRM crap and just sell a good product at a fair price, is impossible for them to comprehend.
Cheap legal downloads with no DRM, MP3 files with VBR: emusic.com, bleep.com. There's a lot more, you search for them.
The thing I don't understand is why doesn't a big name artist say fuck you to their studio and go out on their own. U2, Madonna, Britney, etc could all do it. Start your own site selling non DRM lossless songs, do individual deals for CD distribution, run a few commercials.
Artists that big basically ARE the recording industry. Many of them are either producing albums for others, managing newer acts, or own their own studios. So while new acts may well benefit from a change in the status quo, these are the few who managed to win and win big from the way things are right now. These are the ones who DIDN'T get the short end of what Steve Albini and Courtney Love are trying to tell the young turks.
So no. Practically no one who is "big" in the current system is going to turn on it. What is needed now is for others to get "big" outside the studio system. This will be arduous and may take years yet. Once it happens though, the writing is on wall for the system as it stands.
The biggest established artist that I've ever heard speak and act against it is Prince. And I really think it is because they turned on him first. And anyway, someone like Prince is a transitional form. He got his name recognition from the studio system but having that declares he no longer needs them. What we are looking for is stardom created entirely outside the patronage of the big labels.
Actually, I think there is a scheme which can leverage basic human psychology to get a workable system. It would go as follows:
Watermark the digital content, with information specific to the person who purchased it. i.e. brand it "owned by John Smith, 123 Fake Street, ... ". This info would be encrypted, and the seller (music label or
artist) would hold the decryption keys exclusively (though it wouldn't
really matter if one got out).
There would be no restrictions whatsoever on where the watermarked copy could be copied, how many times, etc. No hardware or software will have any special recognition of the watermark, other than to keep it from interfering with quality of music playback, etc.
Also the prices would have to be reasonable.
The labels or artists' associations will have bots scanning the file-sharing networks, looking for items known to be produced by the given artist/label, but which either (a) have no watermarking, or (b) each have a watermark bearing ID info that doesn't match the info of the person sharing the file.
Bring in the lawyers -- but don't pick a few people to sue for their life savings ("going nuclear" like that only serves to discredit the lablel/artist); rather, pick thousands to send nasty-grams to. In each, describe the copyright violation for just one or a few songs, and demand remittance of $25 or $50 or whatever.
Most people will likely just fork over the cash, change their behavior, and tell their friends how they got "dinged." That's where the human psychology comes in -- (a) most people will feel that those getting dinged did deserve it in some way, and (b) will take steps to play fair, as they would agree that the system is fair, and after all they want to support the artists.
It's when someone ignores repeated demands for payment that the real lawsuit starts.
It will be relatively few who casually take on the risks of getting the nasty-grams sent to them, or who try to play games by ignoring them. Enough will get hit with real lawsuits that most people will say "I don't want to take that risk," keeping the number of scofflaws low enough (say, 20% of the population or less) that this system should be plenty profitable for the artists.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
And who will pay for recording in a studio? I *do* want my music recorded in a studio, as opposed to a live recording. The artists? Why? They're not getting paid for it, they only get paid for live performances.