File Sharing and Music Quality and Diversity
It's been a number of years since the record industry killed Napster, the first significant file sharing system. At that time, we were told that file sharing would result in a lack of new music, creativity would disappear, new music would become a thing of the past.
As other file sharing networks replaced Napster, exactly the opposite has happened; artists that would have never gotten past the industry payola system got exposure and there is a wealth of creative music. This era is really a golden era of music after decades of strict industry control.
I believe that the whole issue of copyrights and patents need to be looked at more closely. The idea was that patents would give the inventor incentive to invent more and overall benefit society. The idea was that copyrights would give the author incentive to write more. Overall the system seems to be harming society more than it is helping.
Corporations, huge multinational soulless corporations are the flaw in the patent and copyright system. They simultaneously prevent the inventor or author from being substantially rewarded while at the same time they largely deny society the benefits in the name of maintaining a tightly controlled monopoly and huge incomes for themselves.
You won't find all of this new creative music everywhere. You won't find it on the radio for the most part because the industry still largely controls what is broadcast. The exception is small college radio stations, internet radio stations, and a new breed of low power FM station that are independent.
The record industry done their best to try to squelch these stations by charging exorbitant license fees to air materials they own. This backfired though because many of these stations adapted by playing only independent artists, thus giving those artists more exposure, exactly what the record companies were trying to avoid.
It's a weird coincidence that these independent artists are often referred to as "Indie" artists; while the independent promoters that pass the payola to the radio station corporations are also referred to as "Indies".
Recorded music is to live music as porn is to sex, and the recording industry are nothing more than musical pornographers. Both industries rely on using the legal system to control competition from other channels. Much of what the porn industry does sits on the border of legal, "obscene" material is defined sufficiently vaguely that exactly what is legal and what is not is open to interpretation. This allows large producers with large lawyer staffs to control the market and kills the small producers.
Similarly, the record companies want to control what artists get exposure so that only those that are friendly to the industry get exposure. That means only artists that will accept contracts which provide little compensation to the artist and much compensation to the record companies get exposure. Artists which make a lot of money through live performances obviously are not favored since they are less dependent upon the recording industry.
Payola is still alive and well in radio, it's big business. The recording industry sidesteps the payola laws by allowing "independent" promoters to take care of the payola aspect of the business, and they in turn generously compensate these promoters. The change in radio station ownership laws in 1996 have allowed a handful of corporations to own the majority of radio stations in the United States. Disk jockeys no longer have the freedom of choosing any of their music. Nor is the choice left in the hands of a music director at the station, instead, a mega-corporation hands them a play list, detailed to the minute, of what they will play, the same thing the other 500 stations owned by the corporation plays, based upon who paid them to promote what.
There are some bright spots. A number of years ago, a pirate radio station, called Free Radio Berkeley, told the FCC where to go when they tried to shut them down. They went to court, arguing a first amendment right, and the courts agreed. They remain on the air and provide education for other potential broadcasters to get their own stations on the air.
The FCC never took the case to the supreme court, for if the supreme court ruled the same way the district and state supreme court ruled, the FCC would essentially lose a substantial portion of their enforcement capacity. Instead, they went to congress and asked for the creation of a low power class of FM broadcasters so these people could be afforded a legal avenue towards freedom of speech and they would be able to continue to regulate the industry.
The broadcast industry went ape shit, not wanting to lose control of the markets to these small broadcasters, and severe restrictions were placed on low power FM, among them, they can't operate commercially, which substantially undercuts their revenue base. Of coarse there are ways around that but it's a form of legal harassment and restraint. Do you see the similarities to the porn industry here?
It's the same with file sharing. The industry really can't shut it all down, they'd like to but there are lots of legal uses for file sharing systems, and in reality it's the legal uses that they are concerned with. File sharing services can legally be used to share music that the artist or copyright holder allows to be shared. There are many independent artists that make money either through touring, or self publishing, and use these file sharing services to get exposure for their works. When a normal person has a choice between "real" music and the cookie cutter formula crap the record companies sign, the latter seems much less attractive. Of coarse, the record companies could actually offer real artists fair contracts but that ain't gonna happen.
Getting back to the porn analogy, I encourage everyone to go experience live music whenever you get the chance, the real thing is always infinitely better.
As other file sharing networks replaced Napster, exactly the opposite has happened; artists that would have never gotten past the industry payola system got exposure and there is a wealth of creative music. This era is really a golden era of music after decades of strict industry control.
I believe that the whole issue of copyrights and patents need to be looked at more closely. The idea was that patents would give the inventor incentive to invent more and overall benefit society. The idea was that copyrights would give the author incentive to write more. Overall the system seems to be harming society more than it is helping.
Corporations, huge multinational soulless corporations are the flaw in the patent and copyright system. They simultaneously prevent the inventor or author from being substantially rewarded while at the same time they largely deny society the benefits in the name of maintaining a tightly controlled monopoly and huge incomes for themselves.
You won't find all of this new creative music everywhere. You won't find it on the radio for the most part because the industry still largely controls what is broadcast. The exception is small college radio stations, internet radio stations, and a new breed of low power FM station that are independent.
The record industry done their best to try to squelch these stations by charging exorbitant license fees to air materials they own. This backfired though because many of these stations adapted by playing only independent artists, thus giving those artists more exposure, exactly what the record companies were trying to avoid.
It's a weird coincidence that these independent artists are often referred to as "Indie" artists; while the independent promoters that pass the payola to the radio station corporations are also referred to as "Indies".
Recorded music is to live music as porn is to sex, and the recording industry are nothing more than musical pornographers. Both industries rely on using the legal system to control competition from other channels. Much of what the porn industry does sits on the border of legal, "obscene" material is defined sufficiently vaguely that exactly what is legal and what is not is open to interpretation. This allows large producers with large lawyer staffs to control the market and kills the small producers.
Similarly, the record companies want to control what artists get exposure so that only those that are friendly to the industry get exposure. That means only artists that will accept contracts which provide little compensation to the artist and much compensation to the record companies get exposure. Artists which make a lot of money through live performances obviously are not favored since they are less dependent upon the recording industry.
Payola is still alive and well in radio, it's big business. The recording industry sidesteps the payola laws by allowing "independent" promoters to take care of the payola aspect of the business, and they in turn generously compensate these promoters. The change in radio station ownership laws in 1996 have allowed a handful of corporations to own the majority of radio stations in the United States. Disk jockeys no longer have the freedom of choosing any of their music. Nor is the choice left in the hands of a music director at the station, instead, a mega-corporation hands them a play list, detailed to the minute, of what they will play, the same thing the other 500 stations owned by the corporation plays, based upon who paid them to promote what.
There are some bright spots. A number of years ago, a pirate radio station, called Free Radio Berkeley, told the FCC where to go when they tried to shut them down. They went to court, arguing a first amendment right, and the courts agreed. They remain on the air and provide education for other potential broadcasters to get their own stations on the air.
The FCC never took the case to the supreme court, for if the supreme court ruled the same way the district and state supreme court ruled, the FCC would essentially lose a substantial portion of their enforcement capacity. Instead, they went to congress and asked for the creation of a low power class of FM broadcasters so these people could be afforded a legal avenue towards freedom of speech and they would be able to continue to regulate the industry.
The broadcast industry went ape shit, not wanting to lose control of the markets to these small broadcasters, and severe restrictions were placed on low power FM, among them, they can't operate commercially, which substantially undercuts their revenue base. Of coarse there are ways around that but it's a form of legal harassment and restraint. Do you see the similarities to the porn industry here?
It's the same with file sharing. The industry really can't shut it all down, they'd like to but there are lots of legal uses for file sharing systems, and in reality it's the legal uses that they are concerned with. File sharing services can legally be used to share music that the artist or copyright holder allows to be shared. There are many independent artists that make money either through touring, or self publishing, and use these file sharing services to get exposure for their works. When a normal person has a choice between "real" music and the cookie cutter formula crap the record companies sign, the latter seems much less attractive. Of coarse, the record companies could actually offer real artists fair contracts but that ain't gonna happen.
Getting back to the porn analogy, I encourage everyone to go experience live music whenever you get the chance, the real thing is always infinitely better.
posted by Nanook at 3:06 AM
0 comments
links to this post
