Print Email RSS RSS  Share del.icio.us Facebook Twitter
What’s Music Worth?
There's a fine line between free and stealing, or is there?
image
June 21, 2012 | by Grant Clauser

Now I don’t want to sound like some old codger (I’m mid-40s), but what’s wrong with young people these days?

Two days ago a college senior and National Public Radio intern wrote on the All Music Considered blog about her relationship to music. She’s a music fanatic, has a large collection, and plans a future in the music industry. Yet she says she’s paid for virtually none of the music she “owns.”

She says “I’m almost 21, and since I first began to love music I’ve been spoiled by the Internet.”

This isn’t starting out good.

I thought the NAPSTER/Limewire land grab was over, but apparently not, and many people still feel they’re entitled to anything they can get just because it’s easy to do.  “My world is music-centric. I’ve only bought 15 CDs in my lifetime. Yet, my entire iTunes library exceeds 11,000 songs,” write the intern Emily White.

See where this is going.

Where did she get all this wonderful music? She got it from friends who copied entire hard drives for her, from CDs she ripped at her college radio station and from music she copied off the internet. She also depends on streaming services like Pandora and Spotify—neither of those are completely free. You can pay for upgraded functionality or use the unpaid ad-supported option.

Here’s the real stinger:

“As I’ve grown up, I’ve come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can’t support them with concert tickets and T-shirts alone. But I honestly don’t think my peers and I will ever pay for albums.”

Of course, she doesn’t think of most of that music as stolen. If a friend bought the CD and made her a copy, she doesn’t consider her copy illegal. Digital copying has turned a generation of music listeners into cool ninjas who believe that if they can get away with it, it must be OK.

In fact she says she wants artists to be paid (even though she hasn’t done much of that herself). She all for a Spotify-like service that offers everything to anyone and paid all the artists fairly. That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that she’s benefitting from conveience that gives her all the power and makes suckers out of artists.

Let’s not leave electronics manufactures out of this either—products like iPods, smart TVs and, yes, even my beloved Sonos, all contribute to a mindset that music is a free commodity because the hardware (and internet connections) cost so much. 

Not surprisingly, her blog has generated a wave of aftershocks on the internets. One of the most interesting rebuttals came from David Lowery of the bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker and who is also a lecturer in the University of Georgia’s music business program.

Lowery tells the blogger in his own post at The Trichordist: “I’d suggest to you that, as a 21-year old adult who wants to work in the music business, it is especially important for you to come to grips with these very personal ethical issues.”

So what does an artist make from today’s streaming services? Acording to Hyberbot.com if you listen to an album 10 times on Spotify the artist gets about $0.35. If you listen to it 100 times, the artist gets about $3.50. One play of one track gets the artist $ 0.0038.

Writes Lowery:
“Now while something like Spotify may be a solution for how to compensate artists fairly in the future, it is not a fair system now. As long as the consumer makes the unethical choice to support the looters, Spotify will not have to compensate artists fairly. There is simply no market pressure. Yet Spotify’s CEO is the 10th richest man in the UK music industry ahead of all but one artist on his service.”

I admit that when I was a kid in the 80s I taped a little music off the radio and recorded some friends’ cassettes in my dubbing boom box, but the vast majority of my music was purchased. In fact most of those old tapes have since been replaced by newer iTunes or eMusic purchases. I also admit that most of my listening now is from streaming services Pandora and Slacker, plus a little Spotify, all three of which are legal and do pay artists, but not enough to base a career on.

So going forward, what’s music worth? Both my kids are talented singers and musicians. They hope to have some kind of career in performance that doesn’t include waiting on tables. Is this evolving music economy going to be able to support the next few generations of artists, or will corporate-created artists, backed up by TV shows or theme parks going to be the only future?

I worry that as we devalue our media we devalue an important part of the culture. How long can we take all this access for granted before there’s nothing left to access?



Grant Clauser - Technology and Web Editor, Electronic House
Grant Clauser has been covering home electronics for more than 10 years with editorial roles in several consumer and trade magazines. He's done ISF-level damage to hundreds of reviewed products and has had audio training from Home Acoustics Alliance and Sencore. He's also the author of the book The Trouble with Rivers. Follow him on Twitter @geclauser.



Article Topics
What's Related
Popular Tags
Social Bookmark   less


Comments (3) Most recent displayed first.
Posted by Extreme Kahuna  on  06/25/12  at  04:08 PM

The music industry isn’t going to die without cd sales.
Records(CDs,cassettes,8-tracks,digital…) are relatively new.
Artist back in the day loved what they did and traveled around playing music to fans. Then they came up with recordings then came greedy record labels. The time for “records” has come and will soon be gone. Artist will have to go on the road to make their money and sell their swag. Because of technology making it easier, you can literally grab it out of the air now, it will be impossible to stop. They created a market and a lot of people made a lot of money off of it but those days are gone. As far as creativity suffering, poppycock, if anything it will level the field and some good artist will get heard without the backing that other less talented artiss have. Music has been around forever, making money off of recordings. I mean B.B. King plays small clubs and Justin Bieber is on his way to becoming a billionaire. Money for recordings RIP.

Posted by Outdated business model  on  06/22/12  at  05:43 PM

The problem with the whole scenario is….. An outdated business model. Does a musician really deserve $10,000,000 per year. It’s a job, and they can live comfortably at $250,000 per year. Also, purchasing music does very little to support the ones actually making it, instead all the profits go to the wealthy labels anyways. Thoses days are done. This generation in done making the rich any richer time to wake up and smell the roses. The unfortunate part is that somehow these labels are still making big money and the artist suffer. We need an innovative system to completely bypass the music labels and get the artists their fair share.

Posted by jetgraphics  on  06/22/12  at  01:33 AM

Not for profit copying of music or any other product is a curious situation.
Do people retain the right to define how their product can be distributed and re-used once it is sold?
If you buy a movie and then show it outdoors, for your friends, you may be in violation of “the law”.
If you sing “Happy Birthday” in any commercial setting (like a restaurant),  you may be in violation of “the law”.
Frankly, the government is granting an expansive privilege to copyright owners - not just a right to be protected from commercial exploitation of their product.
And the main beneficiaries of this privilege are the corporations - groups of people who own the products of other individuals, many who are now deceased and whose product should be in the public domain.
Personally, I think that stinks. And I think “they” know it. Why else would they equate non profit copying to “piracy” - the practice of grand larceny and murder on the high seas? Because “they” know that their claims are bogus, and they need to posture and pose.



Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.