The Music-Copyright Enforcers

David Gans wrote on Facebook: “There are more people listening to music now than ever before.... But because of this new kind of accessibility, people feel like they don’t have to pay. Why is that?

This was in response to a NY Times article titled "The Music-Copyright Enforcers." That posting on Facebook was followed by 33 comments. I wanted to chime in with my thoughts and wrote more than I expected to. Not wanting to get to windy on Facebook, I am posting it here instead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Music is not something that you can hold in your hand, you hear it with your ears. Yes, it is art, but compare it to a painter or a sculptor. Artists of those genres sell their art, something solid they can hold in their hands, and get paid for the object, then the buyer becomes the owner of that piece of art.

There is the strong perception that music business executives have been ripping off artists, withholding royalties, etc., practices that have been going on since radio was invented. If I buy a CD and that musician does not get his fair share, then why should I pay money to fuel some coke head music biz exec’s drug habit?

The end user, the listener of music played by a radio station does not have to pay money to listen to the music played by that station. The station pays the fees, the listener then must hear the commercials, but also has the option of switching stations.

Pioneering jam bands such as The Grateful Dead, Phish and String Cheese Incident, among many others, discovered that audience taping can be used as an advertising tool. By trading music (remember “BnP’s”), a new ‘customer’ was found who would pay to see that band. But if I buy a CD and love it so much that I have to get my best friend to hear it, too, and I burn a copy of it for him, uh-oh, I’m in trouble, despite that band gaining a new customer. (Bands who have a different set list every night benefit from this the most. Bands or singers who play the same 105 minute repertoire every night do not benefit from this.)

Some bands are not taper friendly because they are concerned about the quality of the recording. With today’s technology, audience recordings are extremely listenable, and better than playing a store bought CD in a rag top car, better than vinyl, and better than cassette tapes.

Society and technology are constantly evolving. The law is always playing catch-up with new technology. The law needs to be proactive and not reactive, and to get priorities straight. Go after the guys who are copying and burning CD’s in mass quantities. Don’t go after the guy who burns a CD for a friend. Wait a minute… what’s a CD? I mean, don’t go after the guy who sends a file of a song to his friend.

Advertising is constantly evolving as well. Five years ago, you could watch a youtube video of a song by your favorite band, a highlight of a key play in last night’s ball game, or a news item without any advertising. Pop-up blockers eliminated that form of advertising. Now, you are subjected to 15 seconds of advertising before you can watch that video. Someone’s getting paid.

I’m all for musicians, singers, and songwriters getting their fair share. If I buy a CD, then lose it, or break it, or it just gets old, and a friend burns a copy from his purchased CD for me, should that be a crime?

Then there was the joke about Metallica suing someone over the use of an ‘E’ chord. And isn’t Disney trying to collect royalties on “It’s A Small World After All”?