The Musician's Perspective
standard contract clauses
I think it's important to consider the issues of copyright and music over the internet not only in terms of the public and the conglomerates who supply/control/brainwash it, but in terms of those in the middle of all this. When Mommy and Daddy can't get along, it's always the kids who suffer. In this case the "kids" are the artists who everyone says they love and want to protect and nurture.
The labels are suing, screaming and lobbying to protect the artists, that is their position. The consumers say, no, you don't love them, you screw them over, WE love them. We're the ones who cough up the dough, go to the concerts, buy their records & T-shirts, listen to them.... we're the ones who really care. Well now let's take a look at how those kids are really doing and how they really feel, because we need these artists to remind us what life and love and music and freedom are all about... before we forget.
Moreover, there are many players and interests in this game and even within the ranks of musicians, and other groups, there is vast difference of opinion. We have the legislatures, Federal & states, particularly CA & NY which have been active in this area. Recording contracts and RIAA's practices have increasingly come under their scrutiny as musicians have organized. The courts have been burdened with sorting out this mess, giving rise to a huge economy of lawyers who have interests of their own. We have tech companies, many of whom, from Intel to Snocap have been individually and collectively interested in this as IP is a huge area of risk and growth for companies, particularly as start-ups, which brings in the $18B VC interests, a primary growth engine of the US.
We have the artists, in every medium, who have to live in fear and poverty, without career trajectories, being raped from every angle, with no public support, which brings us to the public, the 6B folks in every corner of the world who've been exposed to American entertainment. A quick look at the various parties who've filed amicus briefs in Grokster give you an idea of the many competing interests (3/1/05 post).
What I'd like to focus on here is the perspective of the musicians, who are, in many ways, at the center of all this. My basic take is that the musicians are divided, as they are in any Capitalistic system, on the basis of whether they perceive themselves as owners; primarily, as owners of copyrights. On the one hand we have musicians like Don Henley and Sheryl Crow, both of whom own the rights to many compositions. They formed RAC, not a link on the right, because I only choose links that represent what I guess I'll now refer to as the workers... musicians out there looking for a career in music but who have no valuable copyrights.
RAC has an impressive list of supporters, most of the major names in popular music. Now, in many ways, these are the good guys. They are successfully educating and advocating for start-up level acts vis a vis the labels. The link on this post exposes the seedy truth of what happens to those "getting their big break", the opportunity to sign with a major label. RAC is advocating for changes and has been able to get some progress, but they still accept the current model of distribution unquestioningly, completely discounting the internet as a potential avenue of growth. They call the idea of selling music over the internet a fantasy and they are as rabid about downloading as the labels.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the increasingly long list of sites where unsigned artists DO sell music over the internet, and give it away. In the middle are a number of groups such as the Future of Music Coalition which represents musicians at a variety of levels and shows the breadth of opinion and choice. One thing is clear to me. Artists who ignore the internet do so at their peril. It is an incredible medium for promoting and purchasing music.
Copyright owners see the internet as a leaky boat, with their property interests spreading uncontrollably into the world. It's like the overprotective parent who needs to retain dominion and control long after the child grows up. Henly has contributed some great songs and wants to keep reaping their benefits as long as possible, so do the many RAC supporters. They take the desirability of their product as a given, they are not interested in promotion. But, 99.9% of all musicians DO depend on promotion, just like any company.
I think the path for most bands is to build audience through performing and internet exposure with the goal of grooming themselves toward a label. There are a number of groups geared to helping acts make that transition, such as Taxi. Once they sign, the label will look at what's been built and advance accordingly, and at that point, it's usually the end of building an audience. By the time the record comes out, the group has probably already lost it's focus and now is trying to produce a commercial sound, which may or may not be the sound and feel that nurtured the love of their fans. They also soon realize that there is virtually no hope of ever seeing any more money from the label, and they become just another one of the 99.9% who stop right there.
Of course the labels go on to say, "see why we deserve that VC dough... we take all the risk, it's one in a million that sells". True VCs with that hit rate would go down right away. But, that's because VC's lose their shirts on the losers. Not the labels, they make money off everyone because the acts make the risky investment themselves - it's all deducted against their side of the profits, not the label's. The labels advance what they know they can make from the band's carefully analyzed fan base, so they know they'll clear their outlay. The windfalls are just free gravy on top of that.
Labels exploit market factors, the huge amount of people who would love to make a living in the arts, and, who have talent, and, their exclusive monopoly on the means of distribution.
I think it's important to consider the issues of copyright and music over the internet not only in terms of the public and the conglomerates who supply/control/brainwash it, but in terms of those in the middle of all this. When Mommy and Daddy can't get along, it's always the kids who suffer. In this case the "kids" are the artists who everyone says they love and want to protect and nurture.
The labels are suing, screaming and lobbying to protect the artists, that is their position. The consumers say, no, you don't love them, you screw them over, WE love them. We're the ones who cough up the dough, go to the concerts, buy their records & T-shirts, listen to them.... we're the ones who really care. Well now let's take a look at how those kids are really doing and how they really feel, because we need these artists to remind us what life and love and music and freedom are all about... before we forget.
Moreover, there are many players and interests in this game and even within the ranks of musicians, and other groups, there is vast difference of opinion. We have the legislatures, Federal & states, particularly CA & NY which have been active in this area. Recording contracts and RIAA's practices have increasingly come under their scrutiny as musicians have organized. The courts have been burdened with sorting out this mess, giving rise to a huge economy of lawyers who have interests of their own. We have tech companies, many of whom, from Intel to Snocap have been individually and collectively interested in this as IP is a huge area of risk and growth for companies, particularly as start-ups, which brings in the $18B VC interests, a primary growth engine of the US.
We have the artists, in every medium, who have to live in fear and poverty, without career trajectories, being raped from every angle, with no public support, which brings us to the public, the 6B folks in every corner of the world who've been exposed to American entertainment. A quick look at the various parties who've filed amicus briefs in Grokster give you an idea of the many competing interests (3/1/05 post).
What I'd like to focus on here is the perspective of the musicians, who are, in many ways, at the center of all this. My basic take is that the musicians are divided, as they are in any Capitalistic system, on the basis of whether they perceive themselves as owners; primarily, as owners of copyrights. On the one hand we have musicians like Don Henley and Sheryl Crow, both of whom own the rights to many compositions. They formed RAC, not a link on the right, because I only choose links that represent what I guess I'll now refer to as the workers... musicians out there looking for a career in music but who have no valuable copyrights.
RAC has an impressive list of supporters, most of the major names in popular music. Now, in many ways, these are the good guys. They are successfully educating and advocating for start-up level acts vis a vis the labels. The link on this post exposes the seedy truth of what happens to those "getting their big break", the opportunity to sign with a major label. RAC is advocating for changes and has been able to get some progress, but they still accept the current model of distribution unquestioningly, completely discounting the internet as a potential avenue of growth. They call the idea of selling music over the internet a fantasy and they are as rabid about downloading as the labels.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the increasingly long list of sites where unsigned artists DO sell music over the internet, and give it away. In the middle are a number of groups such as the Future of Music Coalition which represents musicians at a variety of levels and shows the breadth of opinion and choice. One thing is clear to me. Artists who ignore the internet do so at their peril. It is an incredible medium for promoting and purchasing music.
Copyright owners see the internet as a leaky boat, with their property interests spreading uncontrollably into the world. It's like the overprotective parent who needs to retain dominion and control long after the child grows up. Henly has contributed some great songs and wants to keep reaping their benefits as long as possible, so do the many RAC supporters. They take the desirability of their product as a given, they are not interested in promotion. But, 99.9% of all musicians DO depend on promotion, just like any company.
I think the path for most bands is to build audience through performing and internet exposure with the goal of grooming themselves toward a label. There are a number of groups geared to helping acts make that transition, such as Taxi. Once they sign, the label will look at what's been built and advance accordingly, and at that point, it's usually the end of building an audience. By the time the record comes out, the group has probably already lost it's focus and now is trying to produce a commercial sound, which may or may not be the sound and feel that nurtured the love of their fans. They also soon realize that there is virtually no hope of ever seeing any more money from the label, and they become just another one of the 99.9% who stop right there.
Of course the labels go on to say, "see why we deserve that VC dough... we take all the risk, it's one in a million that sells". True VCs with that hit rate would go down right away. But, that's because VC's lose their shirts on the losers. Not the labels, they make money off everyone because the acts make the risky investment themselves - it's all deducted against their side of the profits, not the label's. The labels advance what they know they can make from the band's carefully analyzed fan base, so they know they'll clear their outlay. The windfalls are just free gravy on top of that.
Labels exploit market factors, the huge amount of people who would love to make a living in the arts, and, who have talent, and, their exclusive monopoly on the means of distribution.
posted by Intervision at 9:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home