whichwayup.org

03/14/07 02:27 AM: Music wants to be free

The discussion of copyrights on creative works has been going on since the invention of radio. Most likely it was present even before that. The question all along has been how best to protect the copyright holder. Rarely, if ever, do you see a debate that also takes in account the public good, or how copyright laws should help protect creativity. Instead, it becomes a black and white issue, with the copyright holder versus the thieves.

I’ve had a cursory interest in this going back to the day I downloaded my first mp3 back in 1998. I’m a bit ashamed to admit it, but indeed I “stole” the song “Walkin’ on the Sun” by Smashmouth. Oh lord. Back in 2003, I wrote a fairly extensive piece on the RIAA’s lawsuits against college students. I consider myself fairly informed on this issue. I also have some first-hand knowledge of the music industry, having worked with, and become friends with, many musicians.

What would I like to see? Congress should limit copyrights to perhaps, say, 3-5 years. Three-to-five years of exclusive commercial distribution, with an greatly expanded fair-use exclusion. Take for example, Girl Talk’s sampling. He takes various source material, which is copyrighted, and uses it to create new songs. Girl Talk is but one example, you can choose your own (The Avalanches, The Go! Team, etc., etc.). One of the songs sampled is “Bittersweet Symphony” by the Verve. Is anyone going to buy the Girl Talk record as a substitute for the Verve record, because it uses a short loop sample? No, of course not. Is someone going to be confused and think that Girl Talk is the Verve? I should think not. Fair use should extend to new works created from something old, something that is materially different than the original. Fair use should also extend to the non-commercial sharing of copyrighted material.

Now let’s address the typical counter-argument of, “Doesn’t this hurt the artists? Why would they create music if they couldn’t get paid for it?” This assumes a few things, one being that all artists are solely concerned with eventually making obscene amounts of money, and second that a majority of an artist’s income is from record sales. For most musicians, both of these are false. For 99.5% of artists, the second is definitely false.

Take a smaller band, on a small record label. Maybe, if they are lucky, they can produce a thousand or so records. Even at $15, that’s $15,000 for the band. Not exactly bling-worthy. Smaller labels have less distribution, so often the only way to purchase the record is directly from the record company, or at a show. Most bands sell very few records at a show, and it would take a long time to sell 1,000 records. So how do they eat? They play shows. Why do you think most independent bands tour 6-8 months each year? So they can sell a bunch of CDs at their shows? Bands make money by playing shows, period. They sell what merchandise they can, whether it be CDs, shirts, posters, etc—but their main source of income is from playing live music.

An interesting phenomenon has taken place in the past few years. Bands on small indie labels, and even unsigned bands with self-released records, have been able to sell out shows all across the country, and in some cases all around the world. Can you imagine, in the 1980’s, 90’s, or at any time prior to the “spread of piracy” that an unsigned band could sell out shows in towns across the country? A band that releases maybe a couple thousand CDs, selling 500+ tickets in one city? How do you think that happens? Certainly not from hearing the band on the radio, and I’ll bet not from listening to 2-3 songs on a band’s web site or Myspace.

Take Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, for example. After the release of their self-titled album, they played a sold out show here in Washington. They sold probably around 400-500 tickets at the Black Cat. I’d venture to guess a majority of those people did not legally purchase the record. I’ll bet most of them downloaded the album, or a few tracks, liked it, and went to the show. So again, how exactly did the band lose out on that one?

The purpose of copyrights is to spur creativity. The idea is to provide an incentive for creativity, in order to further the public good. If you’re iffy about this, just check out the U.S. Constitution, it’s in there. Copyrights were not designed simply to provide a perpetual revenue stream for the content owner.

That said, those who would be harmed the most by free sharing of music would be artists who rely on the sales of millions of records for their revenue, and more importantly, the large corporations who own their music. It could be argued that these are the artists who contribute the least to the public good, but perhaps that’s a bit shaky of an argument. A vast change in copyright law would “hurt” musicians who write a few songs and hope to live off record sales for the rest of their lives. On the flip-side, it would “help” musicians who make their livings playing their music for their fans.

Music wants to be free. The public clearly wants music to be free. Both free as in beer, and free as in speech. As I see it, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be free. I’ll admit, if I had paid for all of the music I have on my computer, I would have paid some $22,000 for it (or more). That’s about $21,500 “worth” of music I would never have heard. That’s about 75 artists I would have never known to go see play a live show. I would bet most artists would rather have someone listen to, enjoy and appreciate a shared copy of their music than have someone who had never heard of them. Any artist who tells you different shouldn’t enjoy the privilege (and it is a privilege) of a copyright.