Guest Comment: Why Music Can’t ‘Just Be Free’
JupiterResearch VP and research director Mark Mulligan specialises in music for the Forrester-owned agency. In this essay, reproduced from his journal, Mulligan argues against the emerging notion that music should be free without labels and creators getting paid…
The French music industry body Société civile des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (SPPF) is suing four US-based developers of P2P applications, including the BitTorrent client Vuze, Limewire, Morpheus and Shareaza, as The Register reports. (The latter is the one that is stimulating vitriol in the tech blogosphere as its development is supported by open source development platform SourceForge). Under newly revised French, the US companies can be tried in the France as their applications have not implemented filtering mechanisms to block out copyrighted material.
A couple of arguments are being leveled at the SPPF - the first that these applications aren’t designed for copyright infringement; it’s not the fault of the developers that they are being used as such. This argument, of course, has been since around the original Napster (NSDQ: NAPS) trial. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t wash. However much there is legitimate usage, the vast majority of usage is not legitimate. All the developers need to do is support their claims of innocence by embedding filtering mechanisms into their apps. If they counter-claim that this would restrict the liberty of their users, then they can’t any longer argue that they don’t support illegitimate usage of their technology.
Another argument being aired is that the music industry should stop being so hung up on trying to get paid online, indeed one story even referred to “the music industry’s obsession with copyright”. That’s like saying “the car industry’s obsession with cars”. Copyright is the oxygen of the music industry. Without it, there is no industry. Sure, there may be cases for changing some industry practices, but copyright remains the essence of making money from music.
Music cannot just be ‘for free’ anymore than cars or houses can ‘just be for free’. If people aren’t paid, they don’t make the product. Sure music will still exist, but you’ll swap nicely programmed download stores and well stocked high street stores for buskers and millions upon millions of artist pages, all clamouring for your attention. Perhaps that sounds appealing? The problem is, most of them would sound a fraction as good as they would if they’d been able to give up their day jobs and been given proper equipment, studio time, mentoring and artist development support. And even those that would still manage to sound okay would struggle to find their way to your PC or mobile screen as they wouldn’t have any marketing support to help them get there.
I’ll close with an account of how we first ended up with music copyright collection (via Germany’s Gema royalty collector), which says as much to today’s ‘music should be free’ argument as it did then, 150 years ago…
‘In 1847, the composer Ernest Bourget visited the Paris Concert Café Ambassadeurs in the company of his colleague Victor Parizot. At the time, Bourget was a popular composer of chansons and chansonnettes comiques. Among other pieces, the orchestra played the music of Bourget. When the waiter presented the composer with the bill for the sugared water that he and his colleague had consumed as the fashionable luxury drink of the period, Bourget refused to pay claiming that the orchestra had repeatedly played his music - without paying anything: and so [took the] sugared water in return for playing his piece. The dispute between the composer and the owner was brought before the court. On 8th September 1847, the Tribunal de Commerce de la Seine prohibited the owner from playing works of the composer without his consent. The exclusive right of the author to public performances that had been anchored in the French law of 1791 was thus put into practice for the first time. And on 26th April 1849 the Cour d’Appel de Paris sentenced the owner of Ambassadeurs to pay compensation - i.e. in this case royalties - to Bourget.’
Posted In: Entertainment, Music, Legal, Countries, Europe, France
Newsletter
Comments (6)
Nov 18, 2008 7:06 AM
Isn’t there one major point to acknowledge? When there is talk about music becoming free, it isn’t suggesting that artists shouldn’t be reimbursed for their efforts.
It’s suggesting that the cost of distribution and retail of a physical product containing music is now replaced by the low cost of electronic distribution, and therefore it might make more sense for artists to use free music as a way to build interest and promote themselves - making the money from merchandise, live events and other mechanisms - e.g. Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails etc.
You’re also assuming that making something free to obtain means that there won’t be different levels of popularity - just because everything is free doesn’t mean it’s all good. Most website content is free to consume but some sites are a lot more popular than others, due to promotion, recommendation, ranking etc.
And surely Wikipedia, for example, shows people will participate in creation for reasons other than payment. People do it for recognition, personal branding, because they like sharing, because they want to get one over on big industry etc. I put in time and effort on my personal blogs because they have numerous benefits - none of which is financial.
And if the creation of music copyright began 150 years ago - music began a long time earlier! Copyright is a by product of a business model for content creation, not a reason for it’s existence.
Nov 18, 2008 1:19 PM
As a digital marketing consultant and a former professional freelance classical musician I’ve watched with dismay as the major labels try to force the genie back into the bottle on this.
This rearguard action can only end in the demise of the traditional record label whose primary contribution was getting physical product from the artists to the consumer. More recently, that has been getting digital product from the artist to the consumer.
They are all missing the point. The future of recorded music consumption is about access not ownership. The only reason for buying and storing CDs and/or downloading and storing digital files, is to be able to listen to that music when wanted.
If it isn’t already possible (someone please tell me if it is), it will soon be possible to achieve this level of music accessibility without having to ‘own’ the track or album. A subscription model.
Add to that the discovery mode used by Last.fm and others and you have a better experience all round.
The majors should be focusing on facilitating access rather than trying to slam the sable door.
If I was a director at one of the majors I’d be looking for merger partners and putting a bid together to buy Last.fm.
Mark Walmsley
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Nov 18, 2008 1:47 PM
It’s a bit late for last.fm (After CBS bought it), but there are plenty of other options out there which are pretty interesting.
It’s interesting to see EMI aiming to start innovating, rather than leaving it to tech companies like Apple, iLike, Last.fm etc.
Nov 19, 2008 3:29 AM
I feel sorry for the artists, the money is, for the most part, needed to feed them. They should have gotten rid of the big four (EMI, Warner, Sony(BMG) and Universal a long time ago. Then, with that element of greed removed, maybe, maybe some really good legal alternatives could have come up. I listen to music - in my car, on my computer, in my portable player, in the kitchen etc. To do this legally, under the present user restrictions on offer from thge record companies, you would have to buy the same song several times. And get some unwanted DRM, that will screw things up, and get mixed up metadata, since the publishers just don’t care and so on. Or I could, if I was crooked, simply download the song from somewhere on the web, as a clean, lossless MP3, and enjoy it wherever I want it. Would I be willing to pay a fair price for that? Would you?
Those who read my comment - have you NO downloaded MP3 anywhere in what you listen to? Truthfully?
Nov 19, 2008 9:15 AM
Robert Andrews wrote:
“All the developers need to do is support their claims of innocence by embedding filtering mechanisms into their apps. If they counter-claim that this would restrict the liberty of their users, then they can’t any longer argue that they don’t support illegitimate usage of their technology. “
Stunning, absolutely incredible. You expect us to prove our “innocence” before we may use our own software, on our own computers over our own network connections? While we’re at it, why not force citizens to submit to regular police searches of their homes? After all, we all know how many people keep stolen goods in their properties. Hey, this type of thinking might catch on…
Can we thus assume Robert, that you will have no problem with the government installing cameras in your bedroom in order to ensure that you don’t indulge in any deviant sexual activity of the type that is currently threatened with legal prohibition?
All you will need to do to support your claim of innocence, is to get CCTV bolted to the wall. If you counter-claim that this would violate the privacy of your bedroom’s occupants, then you won’t any longer be able to argue that you don’t support deviant sexual practices.
So c’mon, get those cameras installed, “the innocent have nothing to fear”, after all…
Jun 24, 2009 5:25 PM
i don’t like it when i spill chicken soup on my bed because then i cant play XBOX with my brother for three days. My dad loves soccer. Morgan Freeman 4 LIFE!!!!