The news that the record industry had obtained the support of the Government in securing a “memorandum of understanding” from the six biggest internet service providers, should not have been entirely unexpected. This industry has a long and prosperous history of fierce protectionism, jealously guarding its humble innovations with a cobweb of patents, aggressive marketing tactics and exploitation.* Its latest wheeze, to get ISPs to whack an arbitrary flat fee on anyone downloading music, smacks of the doomed last gasp of a bloated beast, desperately flailing in its new inhospitable environment. Because this is about the survival of the record industry. The BPI has instigated this because it is the BPI’s members that are in trouble.
The official line is that this is all in aid of the musicians – particularly those long-suffering “smaller” artists, for whom it could be the difference between working full-time as a musician or going back to the day job. But where will the money raised from the proposed levy end up? “The money raised would be channelled back to the rights-holders, with artists responsible for the most popular songs receiving a bigger slice” – for “rights-holders” read songwriters and record companies; while the “bigger slice” would presumably go to the likes of Coldplay. The Beatles’ estates and other needy hopefuls. (I say “presumably”, as there is, as far as I know, no reliable indicator of which artists are most downloaded.) So, that’s business as usual then, as those who have always profited most from the industry’s redistribution schemes will continue to keep their coffers flush.
There is no question that illegal peer-to-peer downloading is harming the wallets of the record industry and its biggest artists, whose profits come almost entirely from royalties cheques and CD sales; but to claim, as the industry’s defenders such as this guy have, that it is the small-time musicians who are being hurt the most is disingenuous to say the least. When a band or musician is at the semi-professional level, their prime concern is exposure. In the year since I had the internet installed and began downloading mp3s – and streaming internet radio (which also pays no royalties to collection societies) – I have heard more unfamiliar music than in probably any of the previous fifteen.
The CD: the industry's petard by which it has now been hoist
The ease and cheapness of distribution means anyone with an internet connection can get an mp3 or ogg of their recordings to a potentially vast audience, without worrying about how many copies to produce, where to store them all or how to pay the distributors. They won’t make any money, but they might get more people to come and see them play live. And contrary to the conventional belief that tours are loss-making promotional gambits, the last decade’s resurgence in live music means that the money is there for a band that can draw a crowd. A “small” band will now not bother going on tour unless there’s a good chance they’ll at least break even.
True, the amounts I’m referring to are not life-changing; a future music industry would perhaps consist of a multitude of middleweight bands with modest audiences, run more like efficient small businesses, with the narrow day-to-day profit margins that implies, rather than the star-creation and huge outlay of current major label-led entertainment. Unglamorous, perhaps; but any businessman worth his salt (even in the music business) would recognise that an industry must adapt to its environment, not vice versa. And it was the industry’s innovations that helped to create the current environment – with the establishment of CDs.
The record industry wants to have its cake and eat it. It enthusiastically funded the development of the CD, and hence precipitated the ensuing digitisation of all recorded music. Albums from the back catalogue were hastily re-issued in the new format – often with shoddy re-mastering by engineers unfamiliar with the properties of digital audio – which, combined with the steady deletion of vinyl editions from the same roster, contributed to the take-up of the new discs and the players to play them. The record companies were more than happy with the arrival of digital technology, allowing them as it did to sell punters records they had already bought. If it wasn’t for this ruthless exploitation, music in an easily-copied digital form would not be as universal as it is today, and the problem of music “piracy” on the internet (by curiously benevolent pirates, sharing their CD collection as they do for free) would not be so widespread.
What’s really funny about this is that vinyl sales are on the increase!** (A revival which, needless to say, originated in the independent sector.) Further anecdotal evidence of that old home-tapers plea: that music fans, on being convinced of a band (either by friend’s mix-tape or download) will go out and purchase the record – because our consumerist society loves a good product.
*The early chapters of Louis Barfe’s Where Have the Good Times Gone? gives an exhaustive history of the tiffs and spats between the inventors of various “talking machines”, in the days before any kind of standard format was reached.
(We Don’t Need This) Fascist Groove Thang
“Music industry to tax downloaders – £30 ‘licence fee’ set to revolutionise illegal file-sharing” (Independent)
The news that the record industry had obtained the support of the Government in securing a “memorandum of understanding” from the six biggest internet service providers, should not have been entirely unexpected. This industry has a long and prosperous history of fierce protectionism, jealously guarding its humble innovations with a cobweb of patents, aggressive marketing tactics and exploitation.* Its latest wheeze, to get ISPs to whack an arbitrary flat fee on anyone downloading music, smacks of the doomed last gasp of a bloated beast, desperately flailing in its new inhospitable environment. Because this is about the survival of the record industry. The BPI has instigated this because it is the BPI’s members that are in trouble.
The official line is that this is all in aid of the musicians – particularly those long-suffering “smaller” artists, for whom it could be the difference between working full-time as a musician or going back to the day job. But where will the money raised from the proposed levy end up? “The money raised would be channelled back to the rights-holders, with artists responsible for the most popular songs receiving a bigger slice” – for “rights-holders” read songwriters and record companies; while the “bigger slice” would presumably go to the likes of Coldplay. The Beatles’ estates and other needy hopefuls. (I say “presumably”, as there is, as far as I know, no reliable indicator of which artists are most downloaded.) So, that’s business as usual then, as those who have always profited most from the industry’s redistribution schemes will continue to keep their coffers flush.
There is no question that illegal peer-to-peer downloading is harming the wallets of the record industry and its biggest artists, whose profits come almost entirely from royalties cheques and CD sales; but to claim, as the industry’s defenders such as this guy have, that it is the small-time musicians who are being hurt the most is disingenuous to say the least. When a band or musician is at the semi-professional level, their prime concern is exposure. In the year since I had the internet installed and began downloading mp3s – and streaming internet radio (which also pays no royalties to collection societies) – I have heard more unfamiliar music than in probably any of the previous fifteen.
The CD: the industry's petard by which it has now been hoist
The ease and cheapness of distribution means anyone with an internet connection can get an mp3 or ogg of their recordings to a potentially vast audience, without worrying about how many copies to produce, where to store them all or how to pay the distributors. They won’t make any money, but they might get more people to come and see them play live. And contrary to the conventional belief that tours are loss-making promotional gambits, the last decade’s resurgence in live music means that the money is there for a band that can draw a crowd. A “small” band will now not bother going on tour unless there’s a good chance they’ll at least break even.
True, the amounts I’m referring to are not life-changing; a future music industry would perhaps consist of a multitude of middleweight bands with modest audiences, run more like efficient small businesses, with the narrow day-to-day profit margins that implies, rather than the star-creation and huge outlay of current major label-led entertainment. Unglamorous, perhaps; but any businessman worth his salt (even in the music business) would recognise that an industry must adapt to its environment, not vice versa. And it was the industry’s innovations that helped to create the current environment – with the establishment of CDs.
The record industry wants to have its cake and eat it. It enthusiastically funded the development of the CD, and hence precipitated the ensuing digitisation of all recorded music. Albums from the back catalogue were hastily re-issued in the new format – often with shoddy re-mastering by engineers unfamiliar with the properties of digital audio – which, combined with the steady deletion of vinyl editions from the same roster, contributed to the take-up of the new discs and the players to play them. The record companies were more than happy with the arrival of digital technology, allowing them as it did to sell punters records they had already bought. If it wasn’t for this ruthless exploitation, music in an easily-copied digital form would not be as universal as it is today, and the problem of music “piracy” on the internet (by curiously benevolent pirates, sharing their CD collection as they do for free) would not be so widespread.
What’s really funny about this is that vinyl sales are on the increase!** (A revival which, needless to say, originated in the independent sector.) Further anecdotal evidence of that old home-tapers plea: that music fans, on being convinced of a band (either by friend’s mix-tape or download) will go out and purchase the record – because our consumerist society loves a good product.
*The early chapters of Louis Barfe’s Where Have the Good Times Gone? gives an exhaustive history of the tiffs and spats between the inventors of various “talking machines”, in the days before any kind of standard format was reached.
**In a slightly confused article from Elisa Bray of the Independent