h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I still think that the current row over breaking copyright on music is an example of this kind of issue.

If we removed copyright on music, or even set the copyright to be only one year long, then there'd be enough music available for everyone in the world to listen to music twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, and never hear the same track twice. In nature, there is no shortage of music.

But that would never do, because music companies want to make money, and recording artists want to make money, and so forth. So we have the copyright laws, which create a kind of enforced scarcity. When filesharing apps come along and pose a technological solution to this enforced scarcity, there's all kinds of strife...

-Martin

Interesting observation.

Aren't many artists and would-be artists attracted to the industry in the first place by the enormous amount of money that can be made, which is a direct result of the copyright system? Many of them clearly don't do it to express their inate musical talent, as a brief review of the singles chart shows (or maybe I'm just turning into my father.....).

So, if you take away the copyright, and therefore most of the money, will the dross fall away, because only those who are driven by the music, and who have genuine ability, will now bother to pursue a musical career? In that case, wouldn't there be less music available, albeit of a higher average quality?

Yours

Danks

Money is certainly one of the motivators. Fame is another. Innate creative drive is another. And I'm sure there are more.

Certainly by removing money from CD sales, you'd lessen the motivation from money. There'd still be money from live performances, merchandising, endorsements, sponsorship. Lots of other industries survive that way: orchestras, choirs, djs, modern art, stage acts, house bands, buskers, ... why should pop music find it so much harder?

Another issue is that increased availability of music will encourage more people to try and freely express themselves musically, inspired by existing work. This works for fanfic, fan art, entries on h2g2 - why shouldn't it work for music? So I don't see that music production will necessarilly decrease. Even if it does, it'll be outweighed a thousand times by the increased availability of what music is produced.

-Martin

By and large, theaters, orchestras and choirs in California cannot survive in the ways you have listed. They almost always need to be non-profit organizations that rely on donations by philanthropists. If all music had to be created this way, there'd be a lot less, and it'd have to suit their patrons taste instead of the popular one.

I worked for a large men's chorus, and they request donations for their self-made CDs for prices similar to that which the big producers charge for popmusic CDs, and made a decent profit. If this chorus were to strike a deal with one of these companies, they'd get 2.5 pennies per CD instead of $5, and the nationwide demand for choral music just isn't 200x high. This, hefty membership dues, and the rather expensive ticket price for the performance only began to cover the cost of operations.

Fair enough: I'll correct that earlier statement: "There'd still be money from live performances, merchandising, endorsements, sponsorship, donations". The point is, various forms of entertainment survive quite happilly without relying primarily on CD/film/etc sales.

I'm not entirely clear on why it's better for music makers to be slaves to their CD customers, than to be slaves to their live audiences, sponsors, and benefactors. If you're making money from music, you're always going to be somewhat beholden to the suppliers of that money. I see no reason to suspect that the CD-buying public exert less of an influence than the charity-giving public would.

Here's an example: there's been a 15% drop in CD sales over the last 18 months, largely due to copyright-breaking. Has anyone notices a corresponding 15% drop in the number of pop acts? Of course not. There's still just as much music going around as there ever has been. Shows like 'Pop Idol' are massively popular on TV. There are more music radio stations, more music TV channels, with larger audiences, than ever before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2319209.stm

One of the symptoms of a failing market is an increase in advertising for that market. I remember seeing that very clearly in the early stages of the failing property market in the late 80s and early 90s.

It is possible that the increasing number of shows like Pop Idol are the same phenomenon - an industry trying desperately to prop itself up.

There is an allied question which is what is the music industry actually for?

I am assuming that the technology is becoming cheap enough and readily available enough for musicians to produce competent music without the industry's production expertise. In which case the music industry is entirely about promotion and advertising.

If a stage can be reached where musicians do not need the music industry, then will the music industry need musicians. It is arguable that the music industry is at that point already, and that all it needs are 'acts'.

On the subject of why do people become pop musicians - there is a clear difference between the Spice Girls of this world, and the Mobys. The former being insecure little ladies who want to be admired, the latter being thinking and talented individuals who have things they want to say.

Ben

The short answer of why be beholden to CD buyers is that there are a lot more of them, and the commitment required of them is much less. There's nothing particularly noble about bartering, and it's certainly less efficient.

I am very much the hippie-type, but there are some folks whose music I like that I wouldn't want to be involved enough in just to aquire the music. To me, Trent Reznor is appalling, and if I had to know him personally, I'd never get to hear the great music Nine Inch Nails make.

Getting patrons is very hard! The multiple CD buyers approach allows me to be lazy.

> "There's nothing particularly noble about bartering"

You've lost me there. Where does bartering fit in? I've not suggested bartering. I'm not particularly in favour of bartering.

> "To me, Trent Reznor is appalling, and if I had to know him personally, I'd never get to hear the great music Nine Inch Nails make."

Again, I'm lost. If music becomes uncopyrighted, why would you suddenly need to get to know Trent Reznor to hear his music?? Download it online, or get a copy from a music store for near cost. If you like it, donate a few pounds to his band, or buy a T-shirt, or whatever.

----

My own (much smaller) experience is of a pair of friends who made a short animation (the polos of death) while at uni. It took a lot of their time and energy. They didn't do it for the money, though they won a small award that got them a small sum of money.

The animation is available for free download online. They also sold CDs (£2) containing the animation. Despite the animation being available for free, people bought the CDs because they like the animation and wanted to support my friends' animating - and hoped to see another animation in a similar style. They also sold a T-shirt (£10) with a polos of death logo on it. 50% of the cost of each item went towards the expenses of the animation.

See it for free here:
http://www.thepolosofdeath.com/

My point is twofold. If there was no (or less) copyright on music, small groups like your chorus would still be able to sell CDs. Except you'd be selling them partly as a means for supporters to make donations. Partly you'd be selling convenience. The second point is that patrons don't have to be wealthy fat cats who dole out millions to worthy causes. They can also be people walking past a busker and putting ten pence in the hat. Or people like me splashing out 12 quid on a CD and a T-shirt.

Besides, you're a small group, so you're effectively out of copyright anyway. If I knew someone with one of your CDs, I could easily copy it, and there'd be no chance of being caught (though of course I would never break the law). It's only the massive music labels that can afford to put anti-copying tech on their CDs, and can afford to try and prosecute people on filesharing networks, and the like. So if filesharing was going to massively dent your CD sales, it would already have done it. Tell me, have you had a 15% slump in CD sales recently?

-Martin

Yes - people do pay for convenience. The Star Report (remember that) was a best seller, despite being available in its entirety online.

B

Most students are subsidized in some fashion. Are they making a living from their production?

Martin, the context of bartering and getting to know Reznor, is me imagining myself as an involved non vital services philanthropist. I am very much a non-profit volunteer type, and I see lots of necessary things that need doing, and not enough people throwing their $3.10 at it. (getting 1000 CDs produced in LA happens to cost more than this per disk) If this is true for the civil rights and other ideated social changes I am working for, why suppose folk will be less selfish about other, less necessary, non-material goods? Who absorbs the cost of people not able to afford vital health care?

As far as material goods, like a CD that I can own instead of having to load up your friend's article from the web, there is the matter of artistic temperament and my own materialism. I'd be unlikely to give an artist a small amount of $ as a share of their future artistic output when they might be unproductive or uncreative wastrels. I'd want that CD in front of me, or I'd barter other things for what the artist needs to live, right now, until the CD is produced. Even if I liked what was on the web, there'd be nothing guaranteeing me that for my 2 pounds sterling, the copy would be as good. Who absorbs that bad-copy loss?

I find your argument similar to the Libertarian one, only about different resource.

Libertarians (american style) talk about anyone being able to seize whatever already-part-of-the-world resources one can, without government pollution-prevention or environmental-protection interference. Their dubious idea is that a clear owner of a resouce won't damage its long-term value. They clam up when you talk about seizing enough of the atmosphere for yourself to breathe and then charging companies who pollute this volume a $ cost equal to the amount of your life that they are stealing, and another $ cost to the damage to your enjoyment of antartic critters and cultures caused by the destruction of the ozone.

Folks are too selfish to give sufficient value to ideas, much the same as that factory isn't going to recompense you for your lungs. Such is the point of copyright. During tin-pan alley days, theft was so common, that small orgs and individuals in the US banded together in collective action and *created* the social response, the company ASCAP to enforce their copywright. ASCAP sues abusers on creators' behalf.

Students? In a sense. They're adding value, if only to theirselves, so it ought to be *possible* to make a living. And it is - but only on a temporary basis of course.

> "getting 1000 CDs produced in LA happens to cost more than this per disk"

They're the smaller size of CDs, and they're hand burned and hand labeled. A more professional organisation would of course charge more and produce a better quality CD.

> "why suppose folk will be less selfish about other, less necessary, non-material goods"

*shrug* They are. People pay money to buskers on the street. They don't have to. They can listen to the music without paying (freeloading, if you will). But a minority of people are happy to pay. It makes them feel good. Makes them look good to their friends. And it means that they get more of the kind of music that they like, because buskers will play what pays. And so forth.

> "Who absorbs the cost of people not able to afford vital health care?"

I think you have an idea that people have a fixed "charity" budget, and that supporting new music will have to come out of that. I don't think that's the case - people are used to spending money on music, and that spend could buy and large be moved over into a new form of supporting music. People already buy singles, not because they want the single, but to "support" their favourite artists by getting them higher up the singles chart. It's the same process.

Besides, poor people will be able to afford more healthcare now that they're not spending any money on music. Music might even make them happier, if it's as powerful as people say.

TBC...
-Martin

> "Even if I liked what was on the web, there'd be nothing guaranteeing me that for my 2 pounds sterling, the copy would be as good"

If it was utterly dire, you have the Sale of Goods Act (or equivalent). Or you could rely on market forces - people who sell dodgy CDs are likely to make their would-be sponsors unhappy, which will hurt them financially. Or you could check reviews from other customers. Or you could create the CD yourself, and just give them a donation. Or you could get a CD off a third party, if there is one.

> "I find your argument similar to the Libertarian one, only about different resource."

The key difference being that clean air is essentially a finite resource, and music is esssentially an infinite resource. If I "claim" enough music to keep me in fresh tunes for the rest of my life, it has no effect on the ability of others to do the same thing. Playing music does not damage its long term value.

> "Folks are too selfish to give sufficient value to ideas"

What you mean is, I believe, that creators of ideas "deserve" more money than they would acquire if ideas were not patentable and creative expression was not copyrightable.

You are no doubt correct. And nurses "deserve" more money than company directors. However, trying to recompense people based on what they "deserve" distorts the market and creates artificial surpluses or shortfalls. In this case, trying to ensure that musicians get what they "deserve", by restricting copying, creates an artificial shortfall in supply of music.

Of course, the number one consumers of music are musicians, who thus stand to benefit the most from free music.

> "theft was so common"

You don't mean theft, you mean violation of copyright. Theft is when I steal something and deprive the original owner of its use. Copyright violation is in no way comparable to theft, as the person I'm copying the music from consents to me so copying the music, and is unharmed by it.

> "the social response, the company ASCAP"

ASCAP is a legal response, not a social response. A social response would be if society as a whole decided that freely copying music was a horrible thing to do, and shunned and shamed people into not doing so. In fact, copying music is and always has been socially acceptable.

Copyright laws, of course, have been influenced not by what society wants, but by how many politicians can be bought by the music industry.

Oh, and ASCAP sues so-called "abusers" on behalf of copyright owners, who are generally not the actual creators.