Isn't it interesting?
Isn’t it interesting?
I recently read the story of the 12 year old girl, I’m sure you’re aware of the story. The RIAA has sued a 12 year old. It conjures an image in your mind, doesn’t it? I view it as a political cartoon: the fat-cat exec, his pockets overflowing with money, stands by as he watches his lawyers beat two thousand dollars out of a little girl.
How did this happen? We’ve gone from paying eighteen dollars for a CD, to getting it all for free, to being scared into paying eighteen dollars again. The RIAA looks down upon us from plush offices and points their finger in our direction, and calls us thieves. They slapped our hands as though we were children, and when we were not intimidated, they sued actual children.
How did we get here?
It appears to me that the basic problem is that we are still supposed to believe that music is a product. We are supposed to look upon music in the same way that we view a toaster, we are asked to see a song in the same way that we view a can of soda. We cannot simply go into the 7-11 and take a can of soda without paying for it. I don’t think there is a soul reading this who would disagree that stealing a product is wrong. Even a shoplifter can acknowledge that he is stealing.
We are asked to view music in this fashion, as a product, yet it is the only product that I can think of, aside from various forms of software, that we are told is not really ours once we purchase it. Once we acquire it, it still is not our property, because we can copy it. We can make multiple versions and give it to friends, and therefore they would not need to buy the product that would still not be considered theirs even if they did buy it.
Isn’t it interesting?
For years, music was a product because of it’s limited means of reproduction. You could listen to music from albums, then tapes, then CDs, and there was no other way of hearing this music besides seeing the band, who created the music, in concert. But in these days, it was not simply the music itself that was the product, because the music and the media it was placed upon were one and the same. We bought music because there was no other way of acquiring it. You could not simply acquire the music out of thin air. If you could, there would be no need for a CD, and therefore no reason to purchase anything. You see, the fundamental problem is, music and the media it was placed upon were never separated into two different things. It was always seen as one and the same.
Then the internet came, and file sharing appeared. Now music was free of it’s required media. Music was no longer a product, to be bought and sold. The CD, yes, this remained a product, but what was always placed on that CD was now free. People stepped back, looked at the music, and realized the absurdity of paying money for sound. They realized that the concept of paying somebody money to listen to something was as absurd as paying money for having a thought, reading text, or smelling the flowers. It was music, and it was free, and no one had to pay for it now that the ability to copy and share it had become unlimited. Music that was previously the property of an infinitesimally small group, now became the property of everyone with the ability to hear it.
This created a problem for those that still sold music. They were faced with the problem of being in the business of selling a product that was no longer theirs to sell. They controlled the distribution of the media, but the reason to buy the media, the music itself, was no longer their property, which made their media useless. Their services were no longer needed, they could no longer get away with taking the music of an artist, controlling how it was distributed to the public, squeezing every penny out of the consumer, and giving hardly anything back to the artist. They could no longer do this, because there was no longer a consumer. They dealt in media, not music.
Isn’t it interesting?
Now, what happens when your job become obsolete? Do you adapt? Do you figure out how your specific specialty can pertain to the future? Not if you’re the recording industry, apparently. The recording industry, seeing their dark future of no longer having a job in the world of music distribution and sales, decided that they had to take down this future. They decided to fight progress. So, they went after the most immediate threat, the new application which allowed the people to distribute music free of charge, Napster.
And Napster went down hard. Yet, after Napster had gone from us, the people were not deterred. How dare the recording industry try to take away what was no longer theirs? A plethora of distribution devices surfaced from Napster’s ashes, and were embraced by the people. And still the recording industry fought their war against the people by attempting to dismantle this form of distribution. Application after application would fall to the recording industry, and the people would simply move on, swatting at the recording industry as though it were an annoying fly who would not lie down and simply die.
And finally, in it’s (hopefully final) tactic of desperateness, the recording industry went after the people themselves. It’s own customer base had become it’s target. The recording industry cried and raved. It called it’s former customers thieves and pirates. The RIAA said to the people: “Use our media, or we will sue you.”
Isn’t it interesting?
And now the world of music is on it’s side. Digital media is the future of music, and no one can say differently. But were does this leave the recording industry? Will they win this war against the common man who understands that the music he hears is no longer confined to archaic media? Ultimately, they never will, even if our current understanding of file sharing is gone forever. Now that the people have acquired their music for free over the past few years, no one will feel as though they aren’t being swindled every time they are required to go out and buy a CD. Many would say that applications such as the iTunes music store, or applications of the such which offer you music for a reasonable price, are the future and the answer. It is not. It still requires you to pay for your music, music that already belongs to you. Our answer to this issue has been around since Napster, and will continue to thrive in such applications as Kazaa and Limewire, because the question is not how to properly distribute music. The question is, how do we rid ourselves of a dead industry which does not know that their time has ended?
And what of the artist? If I am not expected to believe that I am stealing from a defunct recording industry by not utilizing their services, than I am expected to believe that I am stealing from the artist by not using the services of the recording industry that produces their music. I will not rationalize this by saying that the recording industry pays them next to nothing for the sales of records, or that most of the artist’s revenue comes from their live performances. Their service has never been the creation of music. I, personally, would never pay an artist to create a song. The service of the artist is their ability to perform the music for people. To get on stage and do what they do best with their own creations. However, to expect anyone to feel pity for an artist of music because they will be making less money is a ridiculous notion. Simply because an artist will be making half the revenue he or she previously made is no excuse to attempt to deny the immediate and free accessibility of music. Welcome to the 21st century, musical artists. If you make less money because of your chosen career, it is not because your listeners are thieves or pirates. It is because times have changed, and the industry which previously restricted the distribution of the music that you create is now finally taking it’s last breaths. Adapt, artists, and realize that your music is now free to all, and that your ability to make profit will rely on ticket sales.
Much has changed since our music became free to us, and much will continue to change. The RIAA dinosaur will fall, or it will adapt. There will be casualties along the way, and some of them will be 12 year old girls. But our music is now free, and always will be. All that’s left is the need to make sure that the archaic industries meet us at the bell curve.
Isn’t it interesting?
I recently read the story of the 12 year old girl, I’m sure you’re aware of the story. The RIAA has sued a 12 year old. It conjures an image in your mind, doesn’t it? I view it as a political cartoon: the fat-cat exec, his pockets overflowing with money, stands by as he watches his lawyers beat two thousand dollars out of a little girl.
How did this happen? We’ve gone from paying eighteen dollars for a CD, to getting it all for free, to being scared into paying eighteen dollars again. The RIAA looks down upon us from plush offices and points their finger in our direction, and calls us thieves. They slapped our hands as though we were children, and when we were not intimidated, they sued actual children.
How did we get here?
It appears to me that the basic problem is that we are still supposed to believe that music is a product. We are supposed to look upon music in the same way that we view a toaster, we are asked to see a song in the same way that we view a can of soda. We cannot simply go into the 7-11 and take a can of soda without paying for it. I don’t think there is a soul reading this who would disagree that stealing a product is wrong. Even a shoplifter can acknowledge that he is stealing.
We are asked to view music in this fashion, as a product, yet it is the only product that I can think of, aside from various forms of software, that we are told is not really ours once we purchase it. Once we acquire it, it still is not our property, because we can copy it. We can make multiple versions and give it to friends, and therefore they would not need to buy the product that would still not be considered theirs even if they did buy it.
Isn’t it interesting?
For years, music was a product because of it’s limited means of reproduction. You could listen to music from albums, then tapes, then CDs, and there was no other way of hearing this music besides seeing the band, who created the music, in concert. But in these days, it was not simply the music itself that was the product, because the music and the media it was placed upon were one and the same. We bought music because there was no other way of acquiring it. You could not simply acquire the music out of thin air. If you could, there would be no need for a CD, and therefore no reason to purchase anything. You see, the fundamental problem is, music and the media it was placed upon were never separated into two different things. It was always seen as one and the same.
Then the internet came, and file sharing appeared. Now music was free of it’s required media. Music was no longer a product, to be bought and sold. The CD, yes, this remained a product, but what was always placed on that CD was now free. People stepped back, looked at the music, and realized the absurdity of paying money for sound. They realized that the concept of paying somebody money to listen to something was as absurd as paying money for having a thought, reading text, or smelling the flowers. It was music, and it was free, and no one had to pay for it now that the ability to copy and share it had become unlimited. Music that was previously the property of an infinitesimally small group, now became the property of everyone with the ability to hear it.
This created a problem for those that still sold music. They were faced with the problem of being in the business of selling a product that was no longer theirs to sell. They controlled the distribution of the media, but the reason to buy the media, the music itself, was no longer their property, which made their media useless. Their services were no longer needed, they could no longer get away with taking the music of an artist, controlling how it was distributed to the public, squeezing every penny out of the consumer, and giving hardly anything back to the artist. They could no longer do this, because there was no longer a consumer. They dealt in media, not music.
Isn’t it interesting?
Now, what happens when your job become obsolete? Do you adapt? Do you figure out how your specific specialty can pertain to the future? Not if you’re the recording industry, apparently. The recording industry, seeing their dark future of no longer having a job in the world of music distribution and sales, decided that they had to take down this future. They decided to fight progress. So, they went after the most immediate threat, the new application which allowed the people to distribute music free of charge, Napster.
And Napster went down hard. Yet, after Napster had gone from us, the people were not deterred. How dare the recording industry try to take away what was no longer theirs? A plethora of distribution devices surfaced from Napster’s ashes, and were embraced by the people. And still the recording industry fought their war against the people by attempting to dismantle this form of distribution. Application after application would fall to the recording industry, and the people would simply move on, swatting at the recording industry as though it were an annoying fly who would not lie down and simply die.
And finally, in it’s (hopefully final) tactic of desperateness, the recording industry went after the people themselves. It’s own customer base had become it’s target. The recording industry cried and raved. It called it’s former customers thieves and pirates. The RIAA said to the people: “Use our media, or we will sue you.”
Isn’t it interesting?
And now the world of music is on it’s side. Digital media is the future of music, and no one can say differently. But were does this leave the recording industry? Will they win this war against the common man who understands that the music he hears is no longer confined to archaic media? Ultimately, they never will, even if our current understanding of file sharing is gone forever. Now that the people have acquired their music for free over the past few years, no one will feel as though they aren’t being swindled every time they are required to go out and buy a CD. Many would say that applications such as the iTunes music store, or applications of the such which offer you music for a reasonable price, are the future and the answer. It is not. It still requires you to pay for your music, music that already belongs to you. Our answer to this issue has been around since Napster, and will continue to thrive in such applications as Kazaa and Limewire, because the question is not how to properly distribute music. The question is, how do we rid ourselves of a dead industry which does not know that their time has ended?
And what of the artist? If I am not expected to believe that I am stealing from a defunct recording industry by not utilizing their services, than I am expected to believe that I am stealing from the artist by not using the services of the recording industry that produces their music. I will not rationalize this by saying that the recording industry pays them next to nothing for the sales of records, or that most of the artist’s revenue comes from their live performances. Their service has never been the creation of music. I, personally, would never pay an artist to create a song. The service of the artist is their ability to perform the music for people. To get on stage and do what they do best with their own creations. However, to expect anyone to feel pity for an artist of music because they will be making less money is a ridiculous notion. Simply because an artist will be making half the revenue he or she previously made is no excuse to attempt to deny the immediate and free accessibility of music. Welcome to the 21st century, musical artists. If you make less money because of your chosen career, it is not because your listeners are thieves or pirates. It is because times have changed, and the industry which previously restricted the distribution of the music that you create is now finally taking it’s last breaths. Adapt, artists, and realize that your music is now free to all, and that your ability to make profit will rely on ticket sales.
Much has changed since our music became free to us, and much will continue to change. The RIAA dinosaur will fall, or it will adapt. There will be casualties along the way, and some of them will be 12 year old girls. But our music is now free, and always will be. All that’s left is the need to make sure that the archaic industries meet us at the bell curve.
Isn’t it interesting?