[sarcasm]
Let’s see how many comments this controversial post generates. So exciting. 
[/sarcasm]
After burning out on he-said-she-said politics last year, I started blogging about digital technology, digital music technology, to be exact. I’m not a music or tech blogger, but it was an oddly satisfying distraction. A reporter quoted from one of my tech posts, and I picked up a few readers genuinely interested in the new stuff.
But I returned to political blogging because…hmmm.
Anyway, I blogged about the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) case against a man who illegally shared music files, Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell. The RIAA is a trade organization that represents major record labels. For those who care about the outcome of the case, here’s an update:
The RIAA won, sort of. (Source)
Then: Jeffrey Howell was accused of copyright infringement for sharing files over a peer-to-peer file sharing network called Kazaa. After various claims were made back and forth, the judge sided with Howell. Making files available for illegal downloading didn’t constitute distribution, he said; therefore, the recording company had not proved that Howell infringed copyright, or some such.
Now: Last week, the judge ruled that Howell “willfully and intentionally destroyed evidence” after he learned the RIAA was suing him. He was fined $40,500.
As you may recall, the RIAA is under the gun for going after individuals, especially college students, for downloading music files without paying. Colleges and universities are rebelling against the RIAA for “cutting into their faculty’s work day” by requiring them to look for and turn in students illegally downloading files. (Source)
It’s a tough situation. Artists should be paid for their work, but the music industry model is broken. Suing fans is bad form.
[sarcasm]
I know this is controversial stuff, so please be civil in the comment section!
[/sarcasm]
Previous posts:
Wow! It looks like I might get a first comment this time. Interestingly enough, I am a little bit of a music geek, and so this thing appeals to me as much as the political/religious blogging you do.
As you say, the music industry model is broken. Unfortunately, so is our civil culture. I don’t oppose illegal copying because I like the RIAA (or Microsoft, for that matter). I oppose it because it is wrong. Too many in our society have a completely pragmatic morality that allows them to justify almost anything based upon how many people they think it will hurt, or how badly they want something. When this occurs, there is great difficulty in finding a remedy. When civil religious life fails, we turn to the courts, and we are finding that they are a poor substitute.
A contrasting example might be offered: Robert Heinlein said that an armed society is a polite society. This is broadly true, and it is a fact that the “Old West” was more polite than the “Old East”, and less violent. However, modern Pakistan is a heavily armed society and it is increasingly violent. This is because of a serious schism in Pakistani culture between the modernizers and the muslim hardliners. It is these societal schisms that cause serious cultural breakdown.
Back to music and the RIAA. When a trade organization can think of no way of encouraging its customers to buy their products, and instead goes to the courts to create fear, it is a symptom of a schism between the organization and the customers. The organization wants to increase its profits at the expense of the customers. The customers want what the organization provides, but balks at the price. Neither has a moral orientation to guide them in resolving the conflict, and so it is war. Not a violent war, as in Pakistan, but a war nonetheless, with all the moral relativism, post-hoc justification and so on that goes with war.
Comment by toubabou — 09.02.08 @ 12:58 pm
I do feel for both parties here. Artists and distributors and all the others involved in the production and dissemination of entertaining intellectual property should be fairly compensated for their work. And the customers have a right to dictate the forces that drive the market. It is certainly the result of failing in the method of the former and the ethics of the latter that has led to litigation.
I can certainly HOPE for some sort of resolution to both aspects of the problem. But my faith in the revival of Judeo-Christian ethics as the basis of Western society has been waning for years now. It would seem, then, the only hope for a solution would have to come from the industry. Here’s hoping they figure it out soon.
Comment by Gabe — 09.02.08 @ 1:54 pm
In 1968, Garrett Hardin wrote an important essay called “The Tragedy of the Commons.” It is a fundamentally important essay for anyone interested in economics, socialism, the environment, and philosophy in general. (It can be read on line.) Here is a key point in the preamble of essay:
Copying a person’s music has been made as easy as breathing. Therefore, copyright music is like free air. How does the artist survive? Does composing and performance become a purely altruistic endeavor?
Part of the answer is that music has been returned to the concert venue where you have to pay to participate. In the arena of classical orchestras, it only survives at the cost of enormous fund raising and subsidies.
Years ago, young writers got their break in magazines. Television killed general interest magazines along with the main way new writers got recognized.
The ipod has space for more music than anyone can listen to. Getting the music onto the ipod does not require skill or the purchase of anything.
The “commons” in Garrett Hardin’s terms is what is readily available at no cost to consumers. The “tragedy” is that overuse will kill the commons. You can only steal music that is there to steal. The music entrepreneur will protect his financial interest or he will wither away.
This is classic economics: supply and demand. Right now, there is a “free” supply. That will not last. I am not smart enough to know the next step. If I did, I would be keeping it a secret and capitalizing on it.
Comment by heliotrope — 09.02.08 @ 2:55 pm
LaShawn, dont’ fret.. you can download all your favorite beats from soundclick.com.
They have “Instrumental - Gangsta” beats. This way those offensive #@$!& words won’t assault your sense.
Turn the bass AND treble up and “bounce, baby, bounce” - all ROYALTY FREE. LOL.
not.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 09.02.08 @ 5:22 pm
I think one reason so many musicians are leftists is that they judge all businesses by the music business, which is corrupt and ruthless. Artists and writers have never been fairly compensated for their work, but with recording companies and distributors it’s a different story. Payola might have been a scandal, but it’s never stopped.
heliotrope, honey, you overestimate aspiring musicians, I’m afraid. Too many, like aspiring writers, are willing to give their product away for free, just to know that they have that product out there with their names on it. (Incidentally, new writers didn’t get recognized in general interest magazines; those published only established writers. It was the pulps that gave most their start, and those died for a variety of reasons that had little or nothing to do with television.)
Comment by Trish — 09.02.08 @ 11:54 pm
As a Christian, I am hopelessly conflicted. Conflicted only in the intellectual sense, however.
Because I have absolutely no problems with mass distribution and copying of stuff. As long as there is attribution.
Does that make me a bad person? Perhaps. It makes about 99% of all Malaysian yuppies and ~80% of all Malaysians bad also.
I can’t muster enough energy to care about this, unfortunate as it may sound.
Comment by Gregory Kong — 09.03.08 @ 4:11 am
Having never read Garrett’s ““The Tragedy of the Commons,” I traipsed through an internet version. I found it both provocative and valuable. Thank you, Helio for expanding my horizons yet again.
What is fascinating to me is the intersection of the scenario posed by LaShawn in her post and “The Tragedy of the Commons.” One might say that the post is far more than a musicology/techie post. Rather, it touches on all of the other issues commonly considered political.
In fact, this issue is perfect fodder for debate as the emotional components are less incendiary.
Fundamentally, when the benefits of a good outweigh the costs, there will be an increasing demand for the good.
I was speaking to my yard guy one day. He now has ten children by three women and works for cash under the table so that his wages are not garnisheed. At the end of the day, he receives more utility from his behavior than he does cost. His costs have been displaced upon others. In fact, he maintains that his kids are far more well taken care of by the “system” than he could muster up. Whatever one thinks of this from a moral standpoint, the truth is that this is a rational decision for him. Everyone loves freebies.
The tragedy of his decision is obvious, as is the case of taking music for free. Cost is utterly informative. Cost is also crucial to a free society[no pun intended].
Comment by jb — 09.03.08 @ 8:22 am
In the digital/electronic age, whatever can be place on the internet, YEARNS to be free.
“Information wants to be free” is new a new phenomenon, and under the public domain, music as a medium is information.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 09.03.08 @ 9:32 am
jb, you have nailed it for the seventy-eleventh time. I hope you printed out Hardin’s essay. It will be part of your view forever!
Comment by heliotrope — 09.03.08 @ 10:57 am
Seventy-eleventh, no less! Woo hoo!
In all humility, Helio, you are my metric for clear, original, intelligent, principled, compassionate discourse. And did I mention I like the way you write???
Comment by jb — 09.03.08 @ 3:05 pm
The tragedy of the commons is applicable as it relates to physical, finite resources; things like land, water, or minerals. Private property is one system we have to efficiently manage scarce physical resources. The theory being that people will take better care of a resource they have a personal stake in.
The tragedy of the commons has no applicability to music because it is neither physical nor finite. In fact it is infinitely reproducible at very low cost. Copyright is a means to create scarcity where there is none by granting a monopoly right to one party and using the state as an enforcement mechanism for that monopoly.
Mankind has always had music. True artists create because they want to create. Some argue that true art is being crowded out by promoters who pitch what is the most sale able not the most beautiful or artistic. Think of Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus. The greatest music, which has stood the test of time, was created without the benefit of a copyright monopoly. Think of Mozart or Bach, or folkmusic or hymns.
Comment by Jardinero1 — 09.03.08 @ 8:41 pm
Certainly there were no copyright laws to protect Mozart and Bach, but how does that relate? At the time, music was limited to live performances for which the musicians were paid, either by a wealthy benefactor or ticket sales. There was virtually no loss of revenue. They were protected by the intrinsic scarcity of their products because of technological reality. The copyright was a stopgap during the sometimes slow revolution of infinitely reproducible work. But now that pertinent technology has been fully realized, the paradigm has shifted. However, the point remains that the artist’s interests need to be looked after.
As for this idea of artists creating ONLY for the sake of creating - it’s a high-minded sentiment, but does not speak to the simple fact that artists have to live, and there is only so much time in the day. So either artists get paid for their work, or they have to devote more time towards earning a living elsewhere, thereby diminishing the quantity and quality of the works available for consumption.
The current market model does tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator (in terms of packaging), but a future model that works better with current realities should provide a wider and deeper pool, and a better environment for modern-day Mozarts to shine.
Comment by Gabe — 09.04.08 @ 8:48 am
yes, artist do have the right to be paid for their work, however, the fines for movie and cd infringement are greater than fines and punishment for rape and murder. That’s messed up AND there should be some sort of fair use allowed.
Comment by Melissa's Cozy Teacup — 09.04.08 @ 9:54 am
The problem is this, and you can criticize me on this, but it seems like I can spend an awfully long time in Borders trying to find the Blondie singing Denise Denise in french or I can search for it on you-tube.
And, more often, I can find song who’s title’s and authors I cant remember.
If you like music its hard to accept shrink wrapped garbage on a cd if you can find the good stuff on line.
Of course you-tube ing music is stealing. Now the question is is am I missing some subscription site that will for sure have the tunes I like?
Comment by john — 09.04.08 @ 11:13 pm
There are plenty of pay-per-song type sites out there where, at least, you can search without having had to poney up cash just for the privilege of browsing. But this is all part of what LaShawn’s been talking about. The business model is what’s bad here. It’s bad for the industry and it’s bad for the customers. And ultimately, it’s up to the industry to make the necessary adjustments so that everyone can be properly served.
Instead, we’ve gotten this legal flailing of the arms and covering of the ears by big labels - using Draconian measures to try and hold on to the old model. Here’s an idea:
Each label sets up their own webstore. They can promote their artists there, provide industry news and blogs, host fan sites and sell songs and merchandise. They could sell each song for a decent price, sell collections of songs (i.e. albums) for a discounted bulk price, or perhaps they could put in extras that make it worth more. There could even be different pricing for low quality and high quality files. Perhaps some low quality files could be offered as free downloads. Or even a single or two for new artists could be offered for free to tease people into purchasing albums.
Files should be easily transferred from one medium to another. But “open” file sharing, as in making a file available for public use, should be prohibited - maybe through embedded software. That way, “fair use” rights are maintained, but artists and distributors don’t lose their shirts.
Comment by Gabe — 09.05.08 @ 9:44 am