|
Music Industry Reformatting |
||
|
|
There are many opinions on the subject of the mp3 and file sharing
programs such as Napster. This
is yet another opinion that has made its way to you.
What you should realise first of all is that I realise that no
matter what I express someone will disagree with me, and if think I'm
wrong you have just proven my point.
Anyway, on to more important topics. I will make it clear from the beginning that I am a proponent of Napster and all file sharing programs. I am also a musician. I personally believe that Napster and the mp3 are merely tools that have been used to make a statement. That statement is simple, "No More". There will be no more abuse of consumer or artist for it is with these ones that the power and control over music and it's corresponding industry rests. I recently received an email in response to one that I sent to the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) which cited the position and opinion of the RIAA. Essentially, it was their argument as to why Napster is bad sent in answer to the argument of why Napster is good. The following are their positions and opinions: 1. The record companies and artists who have repeatedly asked Napster and other sites offering similar services, want a simple thing that I am sure you want for your work - respect. Napster has a new artist program where artists give permission to have their works shared. Shouldn't all artists have the same courtesy from Napster? 2. Music is as important to all of us as it is to you. Those of us who work with creative artists are especially grateful that we have a deep understanding of how hard artists work to achieve music that in their minds is good enough to offer to you. That work takes time and money. 3. The price of music today is the best entertainment value for the dollar. Numerous studies have shown that the price of music has not even kept pace with inflation and has stayed more level than other entertainment products. As the various media outlets for music increase, the cost of marketing and promotion go up, not down. The price of the physical piece of plastic is the least relevant part of the costs of music. The marketing and promotion that broadens the audience for an artist's music is the most expensive part. For a record company (big or small), 85% of all recordings fail to even make back their costs. It is the small number of successful records that fund the development of new music. Therefore, when someone takes the "hits" new artists are getting hurt as well. 4. For those who have written that Napster has been a source of education about new music, I say thanks for being open to new music. There are numerous music sites on-line that promote new bands that don't also encourage stealing from those that are already popular. Go to MTV.com, getmusic.com, sonymusic.com. warnerbros.com. listen.com, launch.com, emusic.com, mp3.com, hollywoodandvine.com, artistdirect.com….the list goes on. 5. A number of people have suggested that we "just don't get it". People say if Napster is shut down, numerous other places are ready to takes its place. Believe me, we do "get it" and we do understand both the technology and the interest people have in getting music on-line. Litigating our way through the Internet is not our preferred or intended method. We hope that once the service offered by Napster is confirmed to be against the law, that there will be little interest by most people in continuing to test their fate. While some may think that a Gnutella program or one of the many other kinds of open source programs offers anonymity to users, they don't. While I don't have any illusions that all free music distribution will suddenly stop, I do believe that most people want to be honest and care about their favorite artists. 6. Finally and most importantly, in my view, the
legitimate on-line music business is developing quickly. Artists and
record companies know that you want music on-line and you want it soon,
easy to use and at a good price. That is the challenge of the music
community. It is a good challenge and I believe it will be met. But it
will be met with a fundamental difference from the way Napster operates. A
legitimate music business will recognize that music is the lifeblood and
career for artists and songwriters and producers and musicians and many
others. That work must be respected and rewarded by those enjoying the
fruits of their labor. Now, the first sentence within this collection of paragraphs I have
a difficult time making sense of so I won't even comment on the first
paragraph. All I can say is,
even if I were signed with a major record label, I would still want
nothing more from my music than to have it heard, and that is the honest
truth. That is the only fruit
that I personally would seek for my labour, therefore in my opinion, no,
artists shouldn't have that same courtesy from Napster.
More than that, the new artists' music can make it's way on to
Napster just as easily as any other, the so called courtesy made by
Napster is merely a way of showcasing their music in the public eye so as
to gain more coverage. The next statement made is this, it takes time and money to make
good music. What I say to
this is that it is true some of the time.
However, just as often good music can be produced without any time
or money. I mean how much money does it cost to plug a guitar into a
friends computer and burn a CD. Not
a lot. Perhaps what is
responsible for the tremendous cost is the super high quality and glitter
that has been thrust upon us by those seeking a profit.
In any case, again, I personally would happily endure such costs if
I knew there were someone out there that would enjoy music that I made.
The same opinion is true with any art form that I would involve
myself in. Again I would like
to stress that this is not just a justification on my part, but an example
to show that not everyone must make money. Moving on. The next
statement, made in paragraph three, I have a hard time understanding. It almost seems that they are trying to make my point for me.
The paragraph states that the marketing and exposure of artists and
their work is what procures the most cost.
I believe someone should draw it to the attention of the RIAA that
Napster is merely one medium through which this can be accomplished free
of charge. This has basically
been my opinion from the beginning, that Record Companies should join with
sharing programs such as Napster, use the free exposure generated by the
software and its users, and save themselves this unbelievable 85% cost,
thereby allowing the fans access to free music while the large
corporations still make their money.
Such a Reformatting of the industry would make everybody,
especially the fans and artists happy.
It would seem that either this reasoning escapes the heads of such
major organisations, or there is something more behind their costs and
motivation. Perhaps powdery
substances and large internal combustion engines. As for paragraph four, thanks again for making the point. Paragraph five is what I believe to be a tug at the heartstrings of
the abused. It sounds like
the appeal of a husband begging his battered wife to take him back,
promising never to do it again. The
use of the statement "don't get it" I find particularly
offensive and insulting. There is no "it" to get, merely a collection of
principles and ideologies. Fans
do care about their favorite artists, but not to the point of wanting to
help them make $6 million a year rather than $4 million.
Even still, it has been the affirmation of many of the most
opposing music groups that their fight against Napster isn't about money.
This is obviously either a lie or an excuse, but in any case it is
undeniably false. That is why
the fan, though he may care about the artists, still uses Napster.
It is also why, even if Napster is labeled illegal, more programs
will follow, because the demand will be there along with the interest in
continuing to test the so called fate. The final point made states that online music will be made
available at a good price online. Unfortunately,
as the concepts of supply and demand dictate, at this point a good price
is no price, that is to say, free. As
for the concept of the work being rewarded, there would be no reward for
anyone without the fan and the consumer.
Therefore, we shall dictate the reward, and maybe if the
corporations are good we'll give them money, but until they stop being
greedy, all I plan to give them is my admiration, time, imitation, and a
listening ear. I do hope that these statements will instill in others the desire to make the same point, and in those that represent the music industry the wish to embrace my suggested reformatting. I thank you for your time and energy in taking in these opinions. Sincerely: |
