I watched the Virtual Revolution on BBC earlier and was struck by something someone from Metalica said about music piracy.
To paraphrase, his argument was that stealing his music was akin to him calling out a plumber at anytime and demanding they work for free.
This to me is the core fallacy at the heart of the music industry at present. They don't actually sell anything, they don't even sell their services like a plumber. Instead, they offer very limited licenses which isn't even for the music but is for the music provided in a very particular way for a very particular set of uses.
In fact, recording musicians work just like other people, but instead of being paid a fair wage for their work, they gamble on not being paid but instead asking for a share of this limited licence revenue.
The problem is, that model only really worked when the distribution channel and physical media (and retail store overheads) added most of the costs of music to the consumer.
With digital media, the costs for transport and retail are both minimal, and the model is increasingly anacroniatic.
Using the earlier analogy, if musicans adopted a wage instead, music piracy is akin to someone using a tap to get a fresh drink of water. The plumber who fitted the tap was paid long ago and is in no way disadvantaged by anyone using their work later. The plumber recieved a reasonable working wage for their effort and the result of their work is available then 'for free' (until things mechanically fail which I suppose would be akin to someone losing their files without a backup and needing someone to re-record the music which isn't a good fit, but then digital media is really akin to the plumber making perfect indistrictable taps that will never fail)
Now, of course, this would mean the end of the "rock and roll lifestyle" enjoyed by the few successful musicians who's work is enjoyed by many, it would also mean the end of huge proffit for the few people who benefit most from the current media conglomorates, but everyone in the business (which would be many fewer people) could make a 'fair wage' if they had a deal for the initial distribution of the music onto a service which then allowed free dristribution. That service would only be supporting the fair wage for the artists themselves plus their own overheads, so could probably make more than adequate returns from a simple advertising model. Sure, the file would be shared on other sites too, but by having first release rights only and becoming THE site to go to, they should get adequate return to cover the modest overheads.
It would probably mean musicians would need other jobs for when not actively creating or recording new music, but then they wouldn't have the huge incomes to need the free time to enjoy spending it all anyway.
This could have a benefit for the quality of music too as it's often said that succesful musicians lose touch with reality by their 3rd albumn - this way, they'd keep their feet on the ground and society could enjoy more good music from them.
Society would also be richer by avoiding all the wasted effort attempting to police and prosecute file sharing - human effort that could be redirected then to something more productive, like solving the meaning of life.
The musicians would also avoid the temptations of excess and live happier lives as it's been shown empirically that there's a negative relationship globably between affluance and happiness.
It should also allow many more musicians who currently can't get signed to make big buck to still make a good living wage and we'd all benefit from the richer tapestry of music then available widely.
Seems like win win for everyone except the greedy money skimming people currently inflating the music costs, and they don't add anything the rest of us would miss so that's a big win too.
So as Metallics asked us to, let's make musicians more like plumbers so we can all enjoy the fruit of their labour for free once they've been paid once for their time, just like the rest of us.
;)
-- Posted from my phone
I am going to politely disagree. Music one composes is akin to writing, it should not be plagerized, nor given away for a pence. It should be enjoyed, and if the enjoyment means payment, then so be it. The plumber has not made the tap, he used his talent for plumbing to make the tap work. Music is from the soul, not from a piece of hardware. If one is performing music composed by someone else, then they should receive a salary, but when it's someone's own work, it needs to be recognized even 200 years later.
ReplyDeleteI should probably have made it more obvious that I was being deliberately tongue in cheek, and there are lots of things the music industry does which supports selling music for the artists, and there's definately a case that great artists deserve a comensurate reward for the value they add to the world - points I'll possibly write a follow up post on eventually on "the meme industustry".
ReplyDelete...but for now, keeping tongue in cheek and seeing how far I can stretch the analogy:
Ok, true, a plumber doesn't make the tap, but then very few musicians make their own instruments either, and even fewer make the radios, TVs and Internet infrastructure which their work now relies on as a distribution media.
The plumber creates the tap as a working system though and that process involves a degree of creativity. There are choices and the plumbing can be done with flair and elan or bodged, just as music can be created well or badly.
So for music, should the architects and other creative people behind the servers and switches not get some share of things then if we're rewarding creativity with some special protection? Surely the makers of the instruments at least should be getting some share of the big money possible for the musicians because of their work? Wasn't stradivarius an artist in his own right by making the very best violins, at least as much as the players who use his work or the composers who use the players still to this day?
What is it that is unique about composing music and the other other arts like film making that means it should be rewarded financially in perpetuity rather than the efforts needed to create it being paid for just once like a physical object or other abstract creations?
Now, I would separate financial reward from recognition, which I would liken to the key stones in buildings marking the work of the architects and/tradesmen who build something - so in other works, people do get recognition for their creativity, but they don't get paid each time someone looks at their building and enjoys it.
Sure, we should recognize and celebrate the great artistic works and remember the names and lives of people who add value to the lives of so many, but we don't still pay Brunnel's family to use the many bridges he built, which were just as creative and well crafted as any symphony. For engineers and trades people, their creativity is only rewarded financially with a wage or payment, and the truely great works it can still be recognized and appreciated long after.
So what makes composing music, writing a novel, taking a photograph, making a film etc different?
Imagine back in days of yore when travelling minstrals filled the roll of the radio/Internet in spreading music through a population. They were the composers, perfomers and their own distribution network, and were probably paid for each performance...but not each time someone sang their songs to themselves long after the minstrals had moved on to the next town.
The only difference with copying music today is that analogue and now digital copies of performances increase the fidelity with which the performance is reproduced compared to singing it to ourselves. So, rather than just being one's memory of a transitory event, we can hear a rendition of that performance again acurately any time we choose.
We wouldn't dream of musicians charging people for each time someone remembered their tunes or hummed them to themselves, but if they use a technological device to "remember" the song, they have to pay the artist for the privilage, even though the artist doesn't have to even know about it and it certainly doesn't impact the artist in any negative way - that just seems strange.
hmm, interesting tongue in cheek points :) We do pay road tolls, does that mean we like the rudamentary roads that are built in the usa, or is it simply another tax we are forced to pay, because the government does not build quality roads and they fall apart in less than 5 years, when in Europe they built quality roads that last 20 years. I should travel to Europe and pay a toll, just to let the road builders know I appreciate quality and workmanship. Though I hear there are a lot of pot holes in one country, so not sure what happened to those road builders, maybe they were not paid as much, so were less motivated to create a good road.
ReplyDeleteEm said: If one is performing music composed by someone else, then they should receive a salary, but when it's someone's own work, it needs to be recognized even 200 years later.
ReplyDeleteTo look at this from another perspective. 200, 100, 50, or even just 5 years after a musician dies it seems 'right' to attribute the music to the creator. It seems very wrong to demand payment for that music to put money in the pocket of someone who did not create it.
But why even that long? Creativity should be rewarded so society can benefit, but rewards can be too big. If a musician can't earn enough money from 1 song in 10 years to never work again, then perhaps they ought to put a bit more work in!
In fact society benefits if the musician is encouraged to make more music, rather than to rest on their laurels. Copyrights were created to encourage creativity, but it is a fine balance. Too short a copyright term and no one will 'create'. Too long a copyright term and additional 'creations' are not encouraged.
I worked really hard last year, I got paid, but I have to keep working to keep getting paid - why are 'they' better than me?