Record and movie industry business models are hopelessly outdated. The next generation of P2P networks and their powerful distribution techniques will undoubtedly accelerate this problem into a state of emergency for the industry. As P2P applications become further decentralized, anonymous, and untraceable, even suing consumer won’t be a revenue collection option. (It was always a bad idea, anyways.)
So what’s a record company to do? William Fisher has several well thought out proposals that are outlined in his book Promises to Keep. Read Andrew Orlowski’s review in the The Register.
3 Comments
And this benefits who again?
The artists are being screwed by the record companies, NOT the fans. Not a single recording artist would give a shit about p2p if the labels would actually compensate them for sales in a fair and humane way.
AFTER the Dickensian record contracts are reformed and samplers/remixers aren’t sued for using three unrecognizable notes of a George Clinton record then maybe it’s time to look at ways to make record companies even richer and more powerful.
The major record labels are nothing more than glorified marketing companies. They exist to package and distribute entertainment to the masses in a manner that a fan (aka consumer) can easily acquire. They also happen to control nearly every useful promotion and distribution channel in existence, which is certainly one reason that new and more efficient means of distribution (ie. P2P) that can’t be bought or controlled scare the fucking shit out of labels.
I understand your point well: if the labels can’t figure out how to survive in this brave new world of P2P, then let them sink — their utility is no longer important enough to be of value to an artist. That time will come when a new distribution medium eliminates the relevance and importance of traditional distribution channels.
I don’t think today’s P2P does it. I do, however, fully expect some new anonymous and untraceable file sharing application to arrive that will allow fans to trade whatever they want, however they want, with no concern over lawsuits or trade groups garnishing their paychecks. This is what people want, and some bright programmer will surely give it to them.
So, the point is not who is getting screwed right now — we all know the answer to that (as you point out). Rather, if there is to remain some value in the existence of labels as we know them (ie. marketing experts), what role will they play in the future? Who is going to run the show and just what is fair compensation to all parties involved? These are the big questions that need to be answered.
The lawsuits over the 3 notes is insane … and desperate! I consider it to be a symptom of an extremely broken and antique copyright law. Ironically, it inspires to me to continue promoting sample music, mash-ups, and DIY remixes as a legitimate art form.
In any case, thanks for your thoughts, Victor. The whole situation irritates me as well.
–Matt
he, my ignorance of this subject is probably unsurmountable as I haven’t read the book we’re talking about and only glancingly know of the flat-fee proposals.
but while we’re here…
Orlowski seems to be appealing to the RIAA and MPAA wrt how they can use the system to replenish their losses in a file-sharing world so I was just going by that. “Everybody wins” he says.
But artists will continue to sell 100% of ownership rights to labels even in a flat-fee world because of The Myth that you perpetuate above: The Myth says the labels know how to market the music they own.
In fact they have no clue how to break a musical act.
I worked for big labels for 15 years and here’s what I saw every day: The contracted artist is responsible for breaking in on their own. If and only if the artist has PROVED to be a viable money making venture does the company START to “invest” capital and resources. Before that point the artist must pay, out of their own pocket, for radio promotion, publicity, in-stores, and most touring expenses. Once the artist is popular the company’s in-house publicity and promotions dept. become caterers responsible for snacks and booze at the press events.
Imagine some other industry that had 400 contractors and only 20-25 are generating revenue for both the company and contractor. The company makes up the losses by raping the other 380 who are living below the poverty line and in debt to the company for $100,000s because god forbid a record company would pay for recording costs. That would be bad business.
The only way I know of to make this all go away is to give artists (not consumers) a sane and fair alternative that funnels them the money directly from the consumer. If flat-fee-pooling is a tool to facilitate that then fine, but it’s just another store front, like PayPal buttons, or Magnatune, or whatever.
The difference is: flat-fee pooling seems to be a WAY IN for the labels into filesharing revenue. If true, that’s just bullshit. Preferrable to that is to simply legalize all of it under a non-commerical Creative Commons license and let it the fuck go (which turns out to be boon for emerging artists btw)
Even in the best case flat-fee pooling doesn’t, by itself, reform the industry. For that you need to destroy The Myth that says that under some circumstances, signing with a major label is good for your career.
Post a Comment