The Brooding Savage

Is music undergoing democratization, or anarchization?  I've argued before that P2P sites are a populist movement in the music industry, to the dismay of the major music labels.  But I was taken to task recently by a friend who compares the use of P2P against recording labels to the use of technological weapons by the Bush administration.  I like the analogy of the music industry to a government, but is BitTorrent really the same as a Smart Bomb?  Are P2P sites really akin to the Bush/Cheney White House? 

 
A reader and friend responded to a previous post of mine about the “democratization”  of the recording industry.  In particular he objected to technology advocates who advocate P2P sites in favor of retail music.  You can read my original post.  Here are some excerpts from his comments, which I find representative: 

Technology provided new consumer outlets, but never provided Label services like some would inappropriately claim. I knew the technology sites would one day have to pay to become "retail stores," just as Napster was advocating at the time. But they were never trying to become "Record Labels." Labels are banks who give artists money to record, tour, buy equipment, advertise, publicize, sell, distribute, hire attorneys, accountants, assistants and more, all of which are still needed, even with Internet "retail stores" like iTunes…

The notion of "democratization" as used by technologists toward music seems as absurd as when used by the Bush regime, and I find them similar. We live in a world, for better or worse, driven by "capitalization" which technologists seem hellbent to overthrow when practiced by the music industry. Yet, if the technologists do not 'capitalize" their own companies and VC funding dries up, there is no "democratizing" technologists employed there any longer.

I personally find P2P users bombing the legal music industry to be no different than Bush bombing with technology in illegal wars and using illegal wiretaps that overthrow even more rights guaranteed by the American Constitution. Those same "democratizing" technologists provide the wiretaps, provide the smart bombs, and agree with right-wing politics most of the time, as suggested in an article about Facebook published by The Guardian in which the author refers to those technologists as "neo-conservative libertarians." Maybe you are one too? The last 8-years of all this bombing by Bush and his technology friends may have done more to overthrow Democratic Rights than to provide the "democratization" of anything.

 --David Bean, Digital Music Professional

As anyone who ever befriended a struggling artist, I’m sympathetic to the plight of musicians.  I’m sympathetic with those trying to get recording contracts; and I’m sympathetic to those who have recording contracts and find their careers going nowhere.

But I have less sympathy for major record labels.  First, I believe generally they are in the business of generating “stars”, rather than promoting artists.  To this end, they spend a huge amount of capital on “artist development” and then maximize their investments by focusing on highly-profitable artists while allowing the bulk of their portfolio to go unsupported.  The result is homogenization and a dead-end career for many very talented artists.

But mostly, I believe major labels have become so entrenched in their money-making system that they are unable to accept and take advantage of the changing technology landscape to benefit their clients.  Make no mistake, even if albums disappeared and the price of a song fell to 25¢, there are still profitable business models for artists and labels – but rather than adopt to these models, major labels find it easier to abuse their customers and their clients in order to squeeze every penny from each constituent.  In this, major labels are serving shareholders rather than artists or consumers.

It’s also worth noting that the major benefits provided by labels (recording, touring, advertising, publicizing, selling, distributing) can all be done inexpensively online.  And if labels didn’t reduce prices based on their technical windfall, they would be guilty of price gouging.

A recent article in Billboard Magazine spotlights Major Label’s attitude on the subject. Even though labels are exploring alternate business models, their support often comes at a hefty price for partners. Firms can be forced to pay higher upfront fees for licensing music, or in some cases (like that of MySpace Music) they must give up an equity stake in their companies.  Would-be free music service SpiralFrog paid more than $3 million in upfront fees to UMG before it even launching its service. Imeem paid up to $20 million in advance fees in addition to granting the labels equity.  These draconian fees have been responsible for the death of innovative music services.

As for my friend’s claim that “technologists” are responsible for either P2P copyright infringement, smart bombs and wiretaps, I find this unsupportable.   For every smart bomb, there are 10 new antibiotics and vaccines; but somehow Pharmacy companies are seldom thought of as humanitarian.  Likewise, agro-conglomerates breed superior crops that feed billions but have questionable business policies.

It seems there’s a disparity between a technology and it’s application.  I would go so far as to say that technology is never moral or immoral, and that “technologists” are likewise morally indifferent.   Morality is the purview of the user, and if P2P downloaders are cheating labels, then also labels are cheating music fans.  Both have their respective consciences to deal with.

But at least it can be claimed that P2P downloaders did not start this fight.  Downloaders use P2P because the cost of music has become prohibitively high.  Most studies show that fans would gladly pay a fair price for a song in exchange for security,quality and convenience.   But instead of trying to find that acceptable price-point, major labels squeeze their customers and make music even more expensive and inconvenient.  Labels need to look to the future, and let lower track sales drive other revenues, including sales of merchandise, concert tickets, ringtones and free streaming video and audio supported by advertising.

Democracy is not the same as anarchy. It’s not individuals doing whatever they please – stealing whatever they can.  Democracy is the popular enforcement of a just and equitable business model that treats artists and consumers fairly.  And there are just and equitable music business models.

Democratization demands a heavy price.  In the case of governments, it often subjects the minority to the will of the majority (or the apathetic to the determined).  In the case of music, it’s a populist revolution.  The business landscape has changed, and if the controlling regime won’t relinquish their old ways, it’s democracy’s right to overthrow the regime in favor of the new. That’s what we’re seeing now.