 |
Music Democracy or Anarchy: Whose Side are You On? |
 |
Is music undergoing democratization, or anarchization? I've argued before that P2P sites are a populist movement in the music industry, to the dismay of the major music labels. But I was taken to task recently by a friend who compares the use of P2P against recording labels to the use of technological weapons by the Bush administration. I like the analogy of the music industry to a government, but is BitTorrent really comparable to a Smart Bomb? Are P2P sites really akin to the Bush/Cheney White House?
A reader and friend responded to a previous post of mine about the “democratization” of the recording industry. In particular he objected to technology advocates who support P2P sites' attack on music labels. You can read his full comments, and my original article. Here are some excerpts that I find representative:
"Technology provided new consumer outlets, but never provided Label services like some would inappropriately claim. I knew the technology sites would one day have to pay to become "retail stores," just as Napster was advocating at the time. But they were never trying to become "Record Labels." Labels are banks who give artists money to record, tour, buy equipment, advertise, publicize, sell, distribute, hire attorneys, accountants, assistants and more, all of which are still needed, even with Internet "retail stores" like iTunes…"
"The notion of "democratization" as used by technologists toward music seems as absurd as when used by the Bush regime, and I find them similar. We live in a world, for better or worse, driven by "capitalization" which technologists seem hellbent to overthrow when practiced by the music industry. Yet, if the technologists do not 'capitalize" their own companies and VC funding dries up, there is no "democratizing" technologists employed there any longer.
"I personally find P2P users bombing the legal music industry to be no different than Bush bombing with technology in illegal wars and using illegal wiretaps that overthrow even more rights guaranteed by the American Constitution. Those same "democratizing" technologists provide the wiretaps, provide the smart bombs, and agree with right-wing politics most of the time, as suggested in an article about Facebook published by The Guardian in which the author refers to those technologists as "neo-conservative libertarians." Maybe you are one too? The last 8-years of all this bombing by Bush and his technology friends may have done more to overthrow Democratic Rights than to provide the "democratization" of anything."
–David Bean, Digital Music Professional
As anyone who ever befriended a struggling artist, I’m sympathetic to the plight of musicians. I’m sympathetic with those trying to get recording contracts; and I’m sympathetic to those who have recording contracts and find their careers going nowhere.
But I have less sympathy for major record labels. First, I believe generally they are in the business of generating “stars” rather than promoting artists. To this end, they spend a huge amount of capital on “artist development” and then maximize their investments by focusing on highly-profitable performers while allowing the bulk of their portfolio to go unsupported. The result is homogenization and a dead-end career for many very talented artists.
But mostly, I believe major labels have become so entrenched in their money-making system that they are unable to accept and take advantage of the changing technology landscape to benefit their clients. Make no mistake, even if albums disappeared and the price of a song fell to 25¢, there are still profitable business models for artists and labels – but rather than adopt to these models, major labels find it easier to abuse their customers and their clients in order to squeeze out every penny. In this, major labels are serving shareholders rather than artists or consumers.
It’s also worth noting that the major benefits provided by labels (recording, booking, advertising, publicizing, selling, distributing) can all be done inexpensively with digital technology. And if labels didn’t reduce prices based on this technical windfall, they would be guilty of price gouging.
A recent article in Billboard Magazine spotlights Major Label’s attitude on the subject. Even though labels are exploring alternate business models, their support often comes at a hefty price for partners. Firms can be forced to pay higher upfront fees for licensing music, or in some cases (like that of MySpace Music) they must give up an equity stake in their companies. Would-be free music service SpiralFrog paid more than $3 million in upfront fees to UMG before even launching its service. Imeem paid up to $20 million in advance fees in addition to granting the labels equity. These draconian fees have been responsible for the death of innovative music services.
As for my friend’s claim that “technologists” are responsible for P2P copyright infringement, smart bombs and wiretaps, I find this unsupportable. For every smart bomb, there are 10 new antibiotics and vaccines; but somehow Pharmaceutical companies are seldom thought of as humanitarian. Likewise, agro-conglomerates breed superior crops that feed billions but have questionable business policies.
It seems there’s a disparity between a technology and it’s application. I would go so far as to say that technology is never moral or immoral, and that “technologists” are likewise morally indifferent. Morality is the purview of the user, and if P2P downloaders are cheating labels, then also labels are cheating music fans. Both have their respective consciences to deal with.
But at least it can be claimed that P2P downloaders did not start this fight. Downloaders use P2P because the cost of music has become prohibitively high. Most studies show that fans would gladly pay a fair price for a song in exchange for security, quality and convenience. But instead of trying to find an acceptable price-point, major labels squeeze their customers and make music even more expensive and inconvenient. Labels need to look to the future, and let cheaper track sales drive other revenues, including sales of merchandise, concert tickets, ringtones and free streaming video and audio supported by advertising.
Democracy is not the same as anarchy. It’s not individuals doing whatever they please – stealing whatever they can. In this case, Democracy is the popular enforcement of a just and equitable business model that treats artists and consumers fairly. And there are just and equitable music business models.
Democratization demands a heavy price. In the case of governments, it often subjects the minority to the will of the majority (or the apathetic to the determined). In the case of music, it’s a populist revolution. The business landscape has changed, and if the controlling regime won’t relinquish their old ways, it’s democracy’s right to overthrow the old regime in favor of the new. That’s what we’re seeing now.
Labels may not be the friendliest businesses, but that doesn't give the right to steal their products. To their credit, they find and develop "stars" as you say. Why not give them the right to make some money on their investment. Remember it's individuals like you and me that own shares in media companies.
You have to consider the artist's rights to earn money for their work. A compromise to cheating through P2P downloading is to pay for a streaming music service like Rhapsody, Napster or Yahoo Music Engine — so there's some royalties that go to artists they need to earn money making music –,then capture the streaming audio into MP3 files with software like "Replay Music" or other audio capturing software.
Or just go ahead and buy music directly from Itunes after hearing them on streaming music services like Pandora or Slacker. Rationalizing that the money goes to big evil corporate labels doesn't take away from the fact that not paying anything at all for music you hear is cheating the artists who make that music.
I've used Pandora and Live365, but lets be clear about one thing%u2026 there's a big diference between "free music" and free on-demand radio. I doubt that online radio has a future because it lacks the go-anywhere ability of FM/AM.
Plus, music needs to be both portable and collectable. Everyone I have ever known has a music collection. Music is an intrinsic component of each individual%u2019s personality. Streamed tracks can't fill this basic quality, and streamed music can never comprise a fulfilling music service.
For more on my thoughts on various music services, check out my posts at The Seminal or The Brooding Savage.
I would argue the comparison is not applicable. Technology in general has little to do with left or right politics. Technology that concentrates power at the top is more right leaning. Technology that spreads it among the people is left leaning. But technology itself is neutral.
As you point out, the music industry is losing power. That power if flowing to the artists and the fans. The fact that this has been caused by technology is incidental. It is a populist movement, somewhat at odds with capitalist business (as many populist movements are).