I work in the recording industry and, naturally, if my music is played on TV or Radio or distributed on CDs, I receive an author's fee. I don't think anyone would argue with that right and I suppose that most people would understand my feelings if my income was drastically reduced by piracy and I became angry.
However, having seen the music industry from the inside, it's clear to me that the big labels are not interested in supporting up-and-coming musicians. Nor are they at all interested in adding to the world's cultural heritage. So what is their goal?
TO MAKE DOSH, MOOLAH, SPONDULICKS, MONEY, CASH!! AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!
How do they achieve this?
The real mastodonts like Sony, Warner or Universal have a list of 'meal-ticket' artists (like the omnipresent Britney or N'Sync) which they promote and manage by:
- carpet-bombing TV, Radio and Magazines with advertising (especially those with teenage audiences or readerships)
- arranging placements on high-audience TV and Radio programs (you think the producers, presenters, VJs or DJs choose playlists or guest artists? Think again!)
- getting the music on big-budget film soundtracks (even if the songs don't actually appear in the film: "music from and
inspired by ......") which is easy for labels like Universal or Sony as they also distribute movies.
- getting the artist to sign a Mephistopholean contract which obliges him/her to record x albums, do promotional tours and more or less say yes to everything (including a pathetic percentage)
- surrounding the artist with songwriters, stylists, spin-doctors, producers etc. to ensure that the product is as commercial as possible (the artist is lucky if he/she has any say).
These measures cost a lot of $$, so they don't tend to spend much on promoting other 'risky' (ie. 95% of the world's) artists thus strangling musical diversity and the artists' own creativity.
They also mean that if they're going to promote a new soloist/band, they choose/create a clone of a successful artist - usually fabricated from scratch with auditions (like New Kids on the Block>>>Take That>>>Boyzone>>>N-Sync etc.etc.etc)
With this kind of financial muscle, they brainwash their way into the heads of millions of kids (who are susceptable to marketing and don't mind spending $15 of their parents' money to buy the CD). They fix prices by puting pressure on distributors and obviously have a big say in what CDs are sold in major stores:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...38103,00.html. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/17918
They completely suffocate other artists and smaller labels who can't compete with massive scale marketing. In short, 4 or 5 record labels more or less totally control the entire music industry (Capitol Records, Sony Music, BMG Music, Universal Music, and Warner Music).
Until P2P came along!
The rapid rise of Napster made it clear that millions of users were (and are) fed up with the mafia of the big labels - last year record sales in the US went down for the first time ever (I believe). P2P is a distribution channel that the labels have no control over. For this reason the RIAA shut down Napster and has taken legal action against Fastrack (Kazaa, Grockster, Old Morpheus). This has created a completely anachronistic situation where the major record labels are now
at war with their consumers. Doesn't exactly fit in with the "Customer is King" theory, does it?
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,37857,00.html http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2..._morpheus.html
As a musician, I feel sorry for legitimate artists who lose some of their income through piracy. But the situation of the big labels has become unsustainable and a revolution is necessary to level the playing field and restore diversity and creativity to commercial music. Even successful artists can be severely limited by these labels (take Prince/TAFKAP/silly symbol, for example) so in the long run it's best for everyone. The labels take the biggest cut of CD prices so they will suffer far more than most artists and, quite frankly, I think they deserve it after so many years of price fixing and general abuse - I've spent something like $3000 on CDs in the past 12 years.
P2P allows independent artists and small labels to promote and distribute their music internationally at little cost - better than the web where most (though not all) searches and hits are governed by commercial criteria. I already know of bands who have become reasonably well-known through word-of-mouth and distribution on the web / P2P. This type of support can then snowball with offers of concerts or recording contracts. P2P could even become one of the major (legal) distribution/promotion channels for music in the future. On some occasions, for example, I have downloaded an mp3 and later bought the album.
The situation is not quite so bad in countries like the USA, UK, Germany or France where a lot of strong independent labels exist. However, these are still relative ghettos - each genre with its specialized radio stations, cable channels, concert venues and publications - since the mainstream is still totally controlled by the biggies. In Spain, where I live, the indy labels are weak with pathetic budgets and minimal distribution while mainstream music is anodine, repetitive crap (with 0 diversity) listened to by brainwashed kids who know all the lyrics by heart. This, for someone who loves music is soul-destroying.
I know there are other people who will see the moral issues in a different light but I really think P2P is a good thing for music in the long run. I see the current situation as a transitional phase. The big labels
HAVE to change and the RIAA simply won't be able to shut down all the file-sharing networks (though maybe they'll make some impact in the US of A by pressuring ISPs). I sincerely hope that, after a couple of pendulum swings and a few years, things will settle back into some degree of normality (and legality).