CORE Contributor Kris recently aired his grievances on the Internet and the music industry. Check the article below and comment with your opinion.
It does not need to be said that technology has drastically changed music - both as an art and an industry. In years past, bands would struggle to hand out poorly recorded cassettes they created in their garage in the hopes that they may win over a handful of listeners. Today, there are countless affordable programs which can turn any home laptop into a fully functional recording studio and the internet enables you to share your sound across the planet. This is not news to anyone, yet the potential benefits and drawbacks are still highly uncharted, particularly in regards to the spread of digital music and media. The battle between copyright holders and downloaders shows no signs of coming to a head. For every measure taken by the recording industry to prevent and deter "piracy" a counter-measure is already being developed. Without the collapse of Napster the internet would not have seen the rise of LimeWire or Morpheus. As these networks came under attack, various torrent indexes like The Pirate Bay began to surface. It's tragically ironic that the attempts of the recording industry to end file sharing directly influenced the move from pulling single songs from one individual to downloading entire discographies from tens, sometimes hundreds of users at once thereby decreasing download times to minutes. So what is the appropriate next move?
There are many valid (and invalid) arguments to be made for both sides of the battle, but I think we can all agree on two facts; first, that the majority of savvy internet users have, at one point, been involved in file sharing. Secondly, that anyone who produces a product or service is due their fair compensation. Even artists who declare that it isn't about the money but about the art still need to eat and pay rent. On the other hand, many downloaders feel that the assigned value of music is highly disproportionate. They compare the record industry to a big lumbering dinosaur which is unnecessary given the ability to self-promote. In many ways, both sides are right. The old models don’t work because the world has changed. This is the reason why CORE has built a new model from the ground up - but I promise this article isn’t about shameless self promotion.
Countless studies have been done in regards to the influence piracy has had on the industry. It seems that those studies commissioned by the music industry show great loss in revenue due primarily to illegal downloading while studies done by pro-piracy groups show downloading to be a benefit. Studies claiming to be impartial seem to be split on results, depending on the questions they ask. Regardless of your view, here's the fact of the matter: file sharing isn't going away. All the lawsuits, DRM and download throttling in the world will not prevent people from sharing music - this has already been proven. What we all need to do now is find a way to reconcile both the rights of the artists and the industry with the internet revolution. Simply put, we need to make illegal downloading a viable form of promotion.
Regardless of the popularity of the artist, every new album, concert or DVD release need to be promoted. New artists are not yet well known and older artists need to prove that they remain relevant (with the notable exception of The Rolling Stones which require no such assistance). Metallica and Megadeth have been around for time immemorial, yet I am not the only one who asks friends "is there new album worth picking up?" The internet is an invaluable tool for labels and artists to become recognized and yet, primarily in the United States, industry leaders have drawn a line in the sand and fight against it on principal. Back in 2009 for example, EMI began a lawsuit against the group involved in a lip dub music video in which people sang along to the Harvey Danger song “Flagpole Sitta”. With well over two million views, the video brought the song back into popularity which renewed interest in a song and band which had been relatively forgotten for several years. Despite the band members pleas to their label not to pursue citing that this may actually result in revenue, the label continued with its attack because those involved had no rights to the song (and neither did that band, it would seem).
The purpose of any music video is to promote a song. The video itself, in the grand scheme, garners no revenue on its own. Why, then, are music videos being pulled off of YouTube due to copyright violation? An unknown artist cannot make money. A well known artist - even if they are only known through free online viewing and downloading - has the potential to bring in revenue, and that puts them countless steps ahead of others who do not yet have a fan base. One would think that free promotion would be a blessing. "Look," you could imagine an artist saying, "over 50 people have uploaded our music video to their channels and over one million people have viewed it across all the different uploads! We're becoming famous!" Instead someone is counting each of those views as a loss of revenue; "one million people have heard this song for free, and that's theft".
Today, it has actually become much harder for new bands (particularly of the rock and metal genre) to share their music with the public through traditional means. Music videos have not had real airtime since the 90's. The radio wants to play established artists and metal is not 'pop'. Radio songs for the most part are inoffensive and safe. Their sound is similar to other popular songs, increasing their chance of success - in the instances that they aren't, they are by artists who have become household names like Nirvana and Nickleback. Radio is about reaching the largest established audience. Regardless of how many people want to hear harder music, you can't play Static - X in a shopping centre.
How is posting a favourite song on a MySpace page different from putting on an album in your car when driving with a friend? More to the point, what is more likely to get you to spend money on an artist: a friend recommends a band, requiring you to risk $20 on a CD or a having the friend send you a track over the net or link to a music video for you to listen to at home? Fans spend money. They buy t-shirts, hoodies, belt buckles, concert tickets, instructional DVDs by the artists, posters and countless other products. If you question a bands ability to merchandize themselves simply type "KISS" into the eBay search field and see what Gene Simmons has stuck his face on. Getting fans requires investing, just like every other business model - and make no mistake, music is a business. Record labels are out to make money. Artists are out to make money. Studios, venues, merchants and everyone else involved is doing this to earn a living. That's why it's called the music industry.
The modern music industry is littered with those who fail to see the greater picture – or perhaps they are simply afraid to. A bad businessman will blame outside factors for his failure while a good businessman will see the potential threats on the horizon and find away to make them profitable. An attempt has been made to stop music downloading. It hasn't worked, and it has become time to stop wasting resources opposing it and instead adopt a new model to profit from it. Many artists have taken on this belief as well. Three bands of note were The Offspring, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who all released full new albums for free online (Conspiracy of One, In Rainbows and The Slip respectively) before they reached stores.
There have been many suggested models to try and meet downloaders half way - some better than others. I don't claim to have all the answers, but anyone can see that the industry is in flux and the old models don't work anymore. Those who do not adapt will not last, and too many of the old guard refuse out of spite. We are on the verge of entering a new renaissance and endless options lie ahead, but only for those willing to look and think and act.
