![]()
Once upon a time, you had to go to the gig to hear the music. You had
to go to Fred's cave, or the agora, or the synagogue or the concert
hall. Then came the ability to record and reproduce. Suddenly, you could
take the music with you. Play it at will, assuming you had a
turntable and electricity nearby. Hear it on the radio... Many people could
hear music on the radio, it increased demand.
An entire industry was built around recording. And exhibition via the
airwaves. And the live business was affected thereby. Instead of the
tour being the big daddy, the recording generated ticket sales. The
record company was king. And the record company wants to remain king.
Most people don't want to give up what they already have. Hell, the
Republicans have done a good job of making progress by saying that you
should pay fewer taxes. Is this ultimately good for you in the long run?
I don't want to get into economic theory here, I just want you to
contemplate...is it better for society, the greater good, if there's a
pile of money that can be spent for the benefit of all?
The major labels want their money. All they had and more, forever and
ever. Is this good for the public?
No.
What's best for society is if more people have more music. If everyone
has access to music at a fair, low price. If everyone can own all the
Beatle albums and the Stones', along with the right to sample
everything new. This is what the Net affords.
Think of it this way. Twenty years ago, only rich people and traveling
salesmen had mobile phones. The devices cost a grand and calls were a
buck a minute. Furthermore, there was essentially no portability
beyond the car. Now, kids have cell phones and you can literally talk as
much as you want for $100 a month. Hell, most people can talk for free
every night and every weekend for a lot lower buy-in. Furthermore, you
can now get your e-mail on your phone and surf the Web. What is this
doing to the landline business? Decimating it.
Now some of the landline providers are in the cell phone business,
they've hedged their bets. Some of the major labels are trying to survive
in the twenty first century. But that doesn't mean the cell phone
revolution shouldn't have happened to maintain the landline paradigm. The
future happened. There were some losses along the way. Not all the
players in the new world are the same as those in the old. But one
thing's for sure, society at large, the public, has benefit greatly by the
introduction and the commoditization of cell phones.
Although you can buy digital tracks at the iTunes Store, in truth, it's
not much different from the old paradigm. Albums of twelve tracks
used to cost $12. Now you can buy a track for a buck. Bottom line, users
can buy only what they want, but labels are making a hell of a lot
less. But iTunes generates no experimentation. The iTunes model actually
delivers LESS experimentation. At least when you purchased the album
you had a chance of discovering stuff you liked on it other than the
hit. But now you don't buy the album, and you're not exposed to much.
Think about this world. Terrestrial radio has 22 minutes of
commercials per hour. Is heavily formatted. Everyone complains that they can't
get on. If the only way to spread the word was radio and the iTunes
Store, we'd be screwed. But because of the easy availability of tracks
online, which can be acquired P2P, because of the easy ability to rip
CDs and e-mail songs, we're in an era of burgeoning discovery. Albeit of
a vast number of tracks/acts. It's now easier to discover and spread
the word on music that is not controlled by the major label, by the
record company/radio symbiotic game. What money flows...is not always to
the usual suspects.
But, you say... If the labels had been smart, they would have
copy-protected the CD and there could be no transfer, like the movie business
did with the DVD.
I ask you... Would that be good for music? How many times do you
watch the same DVD? Does a DVD go on the road? Is a DVD a closed
enterprise, with a career? I just wrote that I listened to Walt Wilkins'
"Wrapped" ninety times...are you about to watch "Pirates Of The Caribbean"
ninety times? And then be desirous of going to the theatre to see it
again? And again? Like seeing your favorite act live? No.
The more music that's distributed at a low cost, the better it is for
acts in general. Is it as good for major labels, who no longer have a
lock on distribution? No. A new act can go it alone and get paid, the
usual toll taker has been... Let's just say you don't have to take the
old road at all. And the major labels, like Mafia families, don't
like this.
Not that the majors should be ripped off. It's just that they
shouldn't get a free pass, with the ongoing longevity of the old paradigm.
They must figure out how to play in this new world. Chances are, new
players will eclipse them, like Microsoft did with IBM, but it's a level
playing field. If IBM had been smart, it could have purchased MS DOS.
The major labels can compete with the newbies...if they can get their
heads out of the sand and adapt to the new world, which so far, they have
not been eager to do.
Music should not be free. People should pay for acquisition. But how
they acquire music and how much they should pay...that's up for grabs.
Music acquisition should be free and easy. You should be able to get a
lot for a little. As of now, there's no legal solution that fits
these criteria.
As stated above, iTunes is not the answer.
Nor is Rhapsody. It may be cheap, but it's not easy. The interface is
complicated and the hand-held players suck. Furthermore, if you don't
keep paying, you lose everything. A bad system? No. But it's been
proven most people don't want it. And the consumer is king.
People want to own. Maybe not forever, but now. That's a necessity,
it's immutable.
People don't want to pay much. Somewhere between a couple of bucks and
ten a month. That's it.
People want free transferability. They want no hassles utilizing what
they've already paid for and they want to be able to turn others on to
what they like.
This system presently exists. It's called P2P. Although ease of use
could be debated.
But the original P2P, Napster... That was very easy to use. But the
labels killed it. "Blender" says it's the biggest record company
mistake of all time (
http://www.blender.com/articles/default.aspx?key=18696).
Even Hilary Rosen says Napster should have been licensed.
So all that's happened in the last nine years is the major labels'
business has been crippled, and all those in the food chain under them have
been hurt. Performers, writers, managers...even employees.
Let me restate... Going back to the past is a mistake. It can't be
done.
So where are we going in the future?
One solution... As my friend Jim Griffin always says, "monetize the
anarchy". Issue licenses to those who trade P2P. License at the
university level. Collect revenue instead of suing!
Should every broadband customer pay a fee, otherwise described as a
tax? I'd say that's okay. But if most don't agree, sell the
aforementioned license. If you don't get one and trade, then you'll be sued.
Do I have a problem with Universal's Nokia deal?
Not conceptually. I'm all for trying new ideas. But not with the goal
of protecting the usual suspects' monopoly, not with the goal of
limiting consumer usage.
You're right. He who owns property has a right to deal with that
property as he sees fit. The only problem is, the public has moved on, to
deny the free trade of music in today's marketplace is akin to
continuing to fight the Vietnam war, or the Iraq conflict. It's history, you've
got to move on to the new reality, facts have changed.
But essentially none of this change has come from the major labels.
Michael Eisner ignorantly derided Apple's Rip/Mix/Burn campaign, not
knowing that ripping your own CDs was legal. This ignorance is derided by
the common folk, who just don't understand how a generation of fat cats
can be so out of it.
Finally, you must know, there's no change without theft/law-breaking..
MySpace rips off the music, then the labels get into bed with the
service.
Hell, the labels sued to kill the Rio, the predecessor of your beloved
iPod.
If you stop stealing, if everybody stops stealing, we're going to have
a pretty awful world. Where people buy less music at the iTunes Store
and it's hard to hear new stuff.
I have a $167 cable bill. I barely watch TV. Tack on ten bucks a
month for music. I'll pay without blinking. I've said this for almost a
decade. But my plea has fallen on deaf ears.
Only by continuing to download P2P, by everyone acquiring more music,
filling up their iPods, will the labels be forced to capitulate. To
license new distribution schemes that benefit all. I urge you to protest.
Just like we did in the sixties against the Vietnam War. What some
tried to do regarding the Iraq invasion, but were shouted down by those
with a different, ultimately controlling agenda.
More music for more people. Everybody benefits. Even the major
labels. The easier the distribution, the healthier the industry.
Distribute the pot of money a la ASCAP/BMI. Majors will make plenty,
they've got great catalogs. Will they control the future?
We'll see.
If you're arguing against theft, if you're arguing for higher prices,
you're showing your ignorance, you're shilling for the man. Please open
your eyes to the overall game. The distribution lines must be
redrawn, for the benefit of artists and society. Don't let the usual suspects
tell you otherwise. They're just afraid of the future. Which will
benefit them too, if they're willing to hunker down and compete, just
like everybody else.
Mike (Shmoo)
gdZiemann
autodidact
