Recently my cousin Patrick (@patrickjpr for tweeters) introduced me to a friend/colleague of his Dean Bubley. After being introduced and being told what I do for a living (making records) he soon laid into me (in the nicest way and quite welcome) about the music industry and how it should stop whinging. I wish I had recorded the conversation as it was a far better argument than his blog here but have a read and you get the general idea. The following essay (sorry guys but this is the abridged version) is my reply to his blog after careful consideration.
I might just add that I have not had a response from Dean after this. Does this mean I have converted him? Thoughts please.
I do not wish to over regulate or censor. The Internet should govern itself to a large degree. However, only up and until it infringes on the current law. Change the subject to pedophilia and there is no question about regulation. The law currently governs both.
The music industry is the ringleader, loud and arguably over dramatic, but does that invalidate the argument? Does being the first to shout, mean being the only one? If they were, would we be having this debate? This problem affects intellectual copyrights.
Should all creatives accept this as inevitable? Should Hawking have to give away 'A Brief History Of Time' to make money from teaching? Or Trevor Baylis his windup radio patent?
A housing developer buys land, employs architects, builders, an estate agent, and creates show-homes (free content). They manage to sell one; the others have been taken over by perfectly wealthy people because;
“We want to live there but it wouldn't be possible to buy all the houses we want to live in. We'll buy the next one. Think of it as marketing. Well tell our friends to buy from you. You make money from lecturing about town planning anyway".
- Joe Public BA (hons)
Why is that not right even though shelter is a greater necessity than the luxury of owning music. I'm sure the homeless would prefer a free home. The law notices the similarities, so why, does the Internet, change that? Can I steal your home over the Internet, just because I wanted it but don’t want to pay for it?
Bob Geldof has proven this usefulness but it isn't a music industry phenomenon. Thomas Clarkson used his contacts with William Wilberforce to abolish slavery. Geldof or Sharkey's work is not to be regarded as highly as Clarkson and Wilberforce's, but Sharkey doesn’t wish to abolish the Internet, just enforce current law. Racial or sexual exploitation is as abhorrent whether on the Internet or in a shop.
You know some particularly well-informed musicians then. I'm a record producer and work with lots of musicians. Most believe they are destined to earn millions and that because I’m in music I must be super wealthy. They confuse the glitter with shiny coins. When they find out the harsh reality they are surprised at what they can actually earned... if they get paid at all.
This problem has been around since the music industry began, but is unrelated to copyright infringement. Most of these musicians probably download illegally but that shouldn't justify the act. If a victim of racism reciprocated, they would be just as guilty as their attacker. Should both accept the prejudice and, as you say, 'stop whingeing'?
The rise in musical instrument sales is also another erroneous issue adding to the confusion. One of market competition and reduced manufacture and distribution costs. Another blog perhaps.
File sharing adds a new problem. It can be done on scale far greater than pirate radio, bootleg tapes or CD combined… with absolutely no degradation of quality.
Surely the price of a work should be the decision of the owner, digital or not. Whether people pay that price is a different matter determined by demand on a free market. Recorded music may, due to variety of entertainment forms, be reduced to the gig-marketing budget, but let a free market decide, not a black market.
We shouldn’t restrict them; it's a great service that should be encouraged, but nor should allow them to deny responsibility the part they play. Why should they profit from content while the creators don't?
You might say it’s huge undertaking to track all illegal downloads but the MCPS, PRS, PPL and BPI have been doing this for years. The problem isn't manpower,; it’s the lack of authority to claim what is legally theirs. Radio stations are responsible for a DJ playing a song, both profiting from selling advertising aimed at the listeners of those songs. What’s the difference?
Radio listeners don't even own the final product. Regulation hasn't reduced radio stations, or the quality and variety of content. There are more radio stations with more content than when the BBC was allowed to tax the purchase of radio equipment.
Music free to the consumer, regulation of broadcast and distribution, free markets and ‘freebies aren’t new concepts. The only thing new here is the technology, yet that is still only the broadcast of electromagnetic waves.
We need to uphold our rights and responsibilities that have taken hundreds of years to refine. Let’s not stop now. Rather than waste time and energy telling the industry to turn it down, help focus the real issue. Encourage good moral grounding. Maybe it will affect you someday… maybe it won't. Slavery didn't adversely affect the people who abolished it though.
Anyway, maybe it will sift out some of the shit that is swamping the markets (wink). God forbid 'shit' be determined by anything other than popularity... or lack thereof.
I might just add that I have not had a response from Dean after this. Does this mean I have converted him? Thoughts please.
All Hail The Internet.
The Internet, iTunes and social networking are of great benefit to the music industry. Large record companies are trying to maintain "business paradigms", but this shouldn't be confused with upholding current law.I do not wish to over regulate or censor. The Internet should govern itself to a large degree. However, only up and until it infringes on the current law. Change the subject to pedophilia and there is no question about regulation. The law currently governs both.
Progression not Regression.
From your blog I assume you agree The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is valid. So what is the problem with upholding it, whether or not you are directly affected by it?The music industry is the ringleader, loud and arguably over dramatic, but does that invalidate the argument? Does being the first to shout, mean being the only one? If they were, would we be having this debate? This problem affects intellectual copyrights.
Should all creatives accept this as inevitable? Should Hawking have to give away 'A Brief History Of Time' to make money from teaching? Or Trevor Baylis his windup radio patent?
Ignorance Is No Excuse For Crime.
People find it difficult to compare physical and intellectual property due to intangibility (I mean songs not CDs, stories not books). It’s argued copying doesn’t deprive anyone of the intellectual property, but that does deprive potential revenue. If we replace an album with a house the issue is a viewed differently. The sums of money involved can be equated.A housing developer buys land, employs architects, builders, an estate agent, and creates show-homes (free content). They manage to sell one; the others have been taken over by perfectly wealthy people because;
“We want to live there but it wouldn't be possible to buy all the houses we want to live in. We'll buy the next one. Think of it as marketing. Well tell our friends to buy from you. You make money from lecturing about town planning anyway".
- Joe Public BA (hons)
Why is that not right even though shelter is a greater necessity than the luxury of owning music. I'm sure the homeless would prefer a free home. The law notices the similarities, so why, does the Internet, change that? Can I steal your home over the Internet, just because I wanted it but don’t want to pay for it?
It’s Not What You Know.
You say the music industry is making a disproportionately loud noise in relation to the importance of music (debatable, "without music, life would be a mistake" - Nietzsche). Is it disproportionate to the importance of intellectual property however? Music has a unique relationship with all humans, but what is the problem with using this for the greater good? is the argument less valid? I can only attribute a wish that one's own industry had a similar appeal.Bob Geldof has proven this usefulness but it isn't a music industry phenomenon. Thomas Clarkson used his contacts with William Wilberforce to abolish slavery. Geldof or Sharkey's work is not to be regarded as highly as Clarkson and Wilberforce's, but Sharkey doesn’t wish to abolish the Internet, just enforce current law. Racial or sexual exploitation is as abhorrent whether on the Internet or in a shop.
The Starry Lights.
"I cannot believe that anyone entering the music industry in the last 10 years has done so expecting to make $$$ from record sales. All the musicians I know are well-aware of the score."You know some particularly well-informed musicians then. I'm a record producer and work with lots of musicians. Most believe they are destined to earn millions and that because I’m in music I must be super wealthy. They confuse the glitter with shiny coins. When they find out the harsh reality they are surprised at what they can actually earned... if they get paid at all.
This problem has been around since the music industry began, but is unrelated to copyright infringement. Most of these musicians probably download illegally but that shouldn't justify the act. If a victim of racism reciprocated, they would be just as guilty as their attacker. Should both accept the prejudice and, as you say, 'stop whingeing'?
The rise in musical instrument sales is also another erroneous issue adding to the confusion. One of market competition and reduced manufacture and distribution costs. Another blog perhaps.
Giveaway or Takeaway?
The music industry is not interested in a pseudo-communist market where only certain people can sell music and at a set price. No one denies that freebies and some illegal copying are great marketing tools. Metallica owe some of their success to bootleg tapes. It's been happening it since the industry began in newspapers and on Corn Flake packets. Mr Sharkey himself gave a free copy of his music to a certain Mr Peel. Lily Allen gave out music on Myspace, but this shouldn’t mean all music should be free.File sharing adds a new problem. It can be done on scale far greater than pirate radio, bootleg tapes or CD combined… with absolutely no degradation of quality.
Surely the price of a work should be the decision of the owner, digital or not. Whether people pay that price is a different matter determined by demand on a free market. Recorded music may, due to variety of entertainment forms, be reduced to the gig-marketing budget, but let a free market decide, not a black market.
A Question of Responsibility.
Consumers have some responsibility, but individual persecutions would be like herding cats (sharers on a large scale should be prosecuted though). The creative industries have a responsibility to educate the public about the problems but the onus should be placed on those allowing and profiting from the popularity of P2P: The P2P/ service providers.We shouldn’t restrict them; it's a great service that should be encouraged, but nor should allow them to deny responsibility the part they play. Why should they profit from content while the creators don't?
You might say it’s huge undertaking to track all illegal downloads but the MCPS, PRS, PPL and BPI have been doing this for years. The problem isn't manpower,; it’s the lack of authority to claim what is legally theirs. Radio stations are responsible for a DJ playing a song, both profiting from selling advertising aimed at the listeners of those songs. What’s the difference?
Radio listeners don't even own the final product. Regulation hasn't reduced radio stations, or the quality and variety of content. There are more radio stations with more content than when the BBC was allowed to tax the purchase of radio equipment.
Music free to the consumer, regulation of broadcast and distribution, free markets and ‘freebies aren’t new concepts. The only thing new here is the technology, yet that is still only the broadcast of electromagnetic waves.
The Wrong Conclusion From The Right Results.
The issues and consequences surrounding copyright infringement have been muddled up with market competition, censorship and paradigm maintenance. The web is here to stay and is only getting bigger. We should embrace the change, but not to the detriment of our values, ethics and laws. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".We need to uphold our rights and responsibilities that have taken hundreds of years to refine. Let’s not stop now. Rather than waste time and energy telling the industry to turn it down, help focus the real issue. Encourage good moral grounding. Maybe it will affect you someday… maybe it won't. Slavery didn't adversely affect the people who abolished it though.
Anyway, maybe it will sift out some of the shit that is swamping the markets (wink). God forbid 'shit' be determined by anything other than popularity... or lack thereof.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment