Ask the Readers – What Are The Consequences Of Treating Music Fans Like Criminals?
These isn't a new topic, but it's one that won't go away; and its about time that the Hypebot community weighed in. The best comments will be featured in an up-and-coming post on the topic.
a) Does the record industry treat fans like criminals, and what are the consqences?
b) Does the fear of theft hamper artist creation?
Share on:
If I may add a third question for my own nefarious purposes, what are some of the best (unflattering) descriptions you recall music industry execs using to describe such music fans?
if you steal you are a thief, if you purchase you are a consumer. it’s simple. seriously – actions define who you are…
a) It depends who you’re referring to as the record industry. If it’s the big cats and the acts who saw their fame before the internet became widespread; yes. They had filters between them and the fans; they never had to worry about the internet, leaks, and instant access. However, the acts who have come around in the post-a̶p̶o̶c̶a̶l̶y̶p̶t̶i̶c̶ internet days; no, they do the exact opposite. As the owner of an independent music company and as a musician I understand that my music is going to be shared. The true power of music today lies in individual fan experience and using the internet/social media to connect with fans.
b) No. That’s an excuse that a lazy artist will make. Any major label act who is saying their creativity is destroyed by theft is a liar. Taylor Swift’s first week, 1 million debut of speak now shows us if you have the songs and the fan base, you’ll see paydays. Independent acts that don’t have major label backing typically aren’t big enough to be pirated and should be offering incentive to buy with bundles, free track releases prior, etc — or else they run the risk of people never actually hearing their music.
In California when you buy a computer you have to pay a recycling fee.
My phone and electric bill have many many extra charges for fees and services.
I can see it now, a music tax on every internet connecting device sold and a music tax on every ISP or internet service.
Then the fun part, we get to sit back and watch how they divvy it up. What do you think? The top 50 acts get 90% of it and the the remaining 10% goes to everyone else? Ouch!
Ends up to be an unusual but pointed way to look at it.
a) the record industry has an old business model that does not work anymore, and they try desperately to cling on to it instead of embracing new models.
the major thing where they go wrong is:
“everyone that download would have bought the music if they could not download” which never has been true. if the majority of the people coudlnt download, they would simply havent discovered the new music. The only artists that really, really has any disadvantage are the really big ones, e.g. Madonna, Britney Spears, but i reckon they probably gets sold loads of albums anyhow…
my main source for discovering new music is through music blogs, if i couldnt get music from there, i simply wouldnt discover new music so the artists i discover there has all to gain from having their music on blogs.
b) no, the internet has made quite the opposite; homemade mashups, remixes etc, the general public is more engaged in music as ever before. No artist has never thought of music as a “career choice” and now estimate it to be more risky than before.
These are fabulous and well thought out answers. Thank-you.
I’ve come to a place where I try to see the world (and “piracy”)the way it is – rather than how I want it to be – and try to figure out how to deal with.
It works for me, but I admit that I’m not the one whose artistic output is being stolen…
a) Yes the industry has in the past and still does treat fans who use P2P downloading like criminals. It’s just plain ridiculous for record labels to be targeting people who download music for individual use. If they’re going to target anyone, they should be targeting the people who download music on an industrial scale. Even that is pointless because for every “illegal” downloading site shut down – another 10 spring up. I think the consequences of the record labels demonizing fans who use P2P for personal use is that these people are now even further alienated and therefore less likely to give a damn about the plight of the major labels and their artists.
b) I hate the word ‘theft’ being used in this context. I prefer to use the word ‘sharing’. I think that P2P downloading actually assists artistic creation. P2P enables the rapid and sometimes viral dissemination of media. It provides artists with another form of distribution and a highly effective one at that. People discover new artists via P2P that they would never have otherwise found because they would never have purchased the CD. However, when these artists go on tour, many downloaders will buy tickets to the show (a formidable upside). P2P has benefited independent artists the most because it has taken away the stranglehold that the major labels once had over distribution.
The record industry is doing exactly what they have to at this moment in time. They are a business that is trying to keep as many sales and power that they have established throughout the past that is slowly slipping away from them since the age of the internet. I don’t think that the industry necessarily treats music fans as criminals, but they do treat them like a lot of big business’s do, which is selling a product to people that is not of the greatest quality, but trying to pass it off as if it were and the only place to get it is from them. This is not the case anymore.
Does the fear of theft hamper artist creation? It depends on the artist. If the artist is signed to a major label, then they are going to be more tempted to create music that reaches a wider audience which normally leads to blander music. They are also more worried about illegal downloads and file sharing because this hampers the sales of their product which will influence their label to keep investing in them or not.
If the artist is on a smaller label or unsigned, I believe they see illegal downloads and file sharing as a blessing, a tool even, that they can use to further market their music and create fans that they previously wouldn’t have been able to attain. These are the artists who aren’t under a lot of pressure to sell tons and tons of music. Its clear that these are the artists that really do love what they do because they are doing it for the pure joy and not the money.
Free album download at http://www.facebook.com/chancius
The whole file sharing/piracy/death of the industry thing is a subject that needs to be laid to rest. These high profile blogs truly are the new media! Try a little experiment – Stop reporting anything that remotely leans toward this subject, and let the world turn. But to play the game:
a) I guess in the eyes of the RIAA, at least, yes, you are a criminal. Their Gestapo style mentality has done far more damage to the industry than “pirating” alone.
b) If creativity is hindered by the fear of theft, you really can’t call yourself an artist, can you? Deal with it. Use it to your advantage. To borrow a quote – “adapt, improvise, overcome!”
a) It seems the current push among new acts, artists and managers is “Direct to Consumer” marketing models, like Topspin’s Model or event what Radiohead is doing. And the main reason for this new direction among those trying to break new acts is IT WORKS! This is how you build a fan base today. It is remarkable that the labels are going the other direction. Alienating fans and being more closed not more open. And they also are not HELPING their acts build those relationships with fans. They are not making it easy for the fan to get close to their acts.
b) No actual artists ever thought “I would write a better song if I knew it wouldn’t get stolen.” They are creating the best art they are capable of because thats is what an artists does. Now for manufactured acts I am sure some accountant is telling managers “we can’t spend any more money producing this because here is what we will sell today, we will just have to go with what we have.” If you rely on expensive production, hired musicians, paid song writers, consultants and chaining some one else’s fad piracy is something to fear. If you rely on your own talent and creativity you will still have those with or without piracy.
a) First of all, you have the problem wrong. The problem isn’t that fans are sharing mp3s, the problem is that artists can’t bill the businesses facilitating that theft – the file servers, lockers, and googles of the world. If companies were liable for fines each time their site allowed unauthorized access to content, trust me, CEOs would figure out how to keep their site clean of stolen content.
b) No. There is life after the mp3. We just haven’t built it yet.
“Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy” by Lawrence Lessig is a great book and his thesis revolves around this same question. He argues that the copyright war (waged by those companies at the top of the content industry) is having, or is going to have, a significant impact on our kids’ capacity for creative expression. While there certainly needs to be regulation on media content to encourage innovation (which would be laws against illegally downloading music), some forms of copyright law have gone too far and are stifling new forms of cultural production.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
A) In the light of Tunecore’s problems (http://bit.ly/eZj42v) we are into a new phase when audio fingerprint licensing really must come to the fore. If there was a sound licensing infrastructure on the web people would know who owned what and how to get it legally. Google fudged this on YouTube (Content-ID is dubious to say the least). If the RIAA, BPI, IFPI and the rest cared they would throw their weight behind licensing-technology. In the mean time blaming small time downloaders for the problem is just daft.
B) A question I see almost daily is “how do I copyright my songs and stop people stealing them?” My answer is always the same, get them out there, make your name. Don’t waste time trying to hide them.
The labels had an option to deal with the problem, they failed. It was arrogance and stupidity. The culture did not see the threat. Keep in mind that few people know that pre MP3, labels had scandals with cut outs and rack jobbers and controlled the piracy they themselves created for decades, and made money off of it. The artists lost out, but at least they had ways of making money. Now the artists have a harder time making money to say the least and a whole lot more people in their pocket if they do.
The treatment of fans as criminals has had no effective result, piracy continues,the labels still dominate and I am amused that everyone here still thinks that the majors are engaging in an old business model..If the model is market dominance, then yes, but there is a lot more going on and the numbers are not telling the total story.
The truth is they are in a new business model and shedding the extra weight. They have gone from music business distribution models to pop star promotion of brands that are musical. They still own the market share. For those who pay attention to such things, the film studios lost the screens (the Fox case), even without the screens their control has not changed. The majors have always known the score, 10% of the acts make 90% of the money. They are weeding out the losing 90% and focusing on the remaining acts. Different machinery, fewer employees, less diversification, same end.
B,) Does theft hamper creation? The actual process no. My acts still write no matter what. What it does do is knock a lot of artists out if the industry since they can no longer make a living at it. In the end it robs us of potentiality. The cream does not rise to the top if the cow is dead.