Update: Preface removed. Reason: it was dumb. Onward…

A favorite topic at Slashdot centers around the music industry, CD sales, and online distribution of music — naturally, the latest coverage of this topic elicited some interesting discussion. Here’s a quote (with slight editing for clarity) from a commenter:

We both agree that there is no feasible business model that aligns with the reality of modern technology, only you seem to be focusing on deriding the people who don’t pay directly for their copies of music (according to our brief custom of the last 70 years).

Why is it so hard to see that it’s ok to let companies with no practical business model die off? I know it becomes a touchy subject when we bring art into the picture, but the spirit of copyright law is to promote the creation of art, not to give business models to musicians. It seems particularly hard for people of the last couple generations to fathom that music (or art in general) can be created without being paid for copies of their work. They can’t see that the true value in art is the process by which it is created, that is what is rare.

Copyright History
Let’s state things right out: copyright law should **not** be used to prop up an industry whose distribution model (selling physical CDs) is rapidly becoming irrelevant. (The digital audio player supplanting CDs is an example of disruptive technology — more on this later.) Rather, understanding the true intent of copyright law necessitates delving into its history. In the 1700s, regulations on the copying of creative works first became necessary when printing costs came down. As printing costs fell, the ability to mass produce popular works rose. This rise in reproduction of the original creative works forced the related laws to evolve. Now, because this is going to get rather complicated, we will enter into (cue clouds and echoes) EXAMPLE TIME (TIME TIME time time)…

It’s the year 1720 — let’s say you, Mr. Literati, publish a play through Lino Printing Press. Lino happily sets the type and chugs out copies. However, Mono Printing Press picks up a your play and begins printing its own copies of the play and makes money off of that! Gasp. At this point, you are getting money through Lino Printing when it sells copies of your play, but Mono Printing pays you nothing, nada, zilch, bupkis. However, thanks to copyright law, your rights are protected. You can get the law to come in on your side and say “hey, Mono, stop printing those illicit copies of Mr. Literati’s play.”

The Link to Music
We can conclude from this example that fast, cheap reproduction forced the law to evolve. Unfortunately, it only gets more complicated from there. First, let’s examine the role that Lino Printing Press played — you see, it did not manage the copyright for Mr. Literati. Certainly, it benefited from having the exclusive privilege of distributing his creative work, but it didn’t make any claims on his copyright. When we fast forward to modern times, an important difference is the fact that the distributor (let’s call them SonyBMGScopeIslandCapitolJive Records) absolutely does legally manage the artist’s copyrights. Therefore (and this is an important therefore), the distributor acts in the interest of the distributor (not the artist) when it comes to copyright… especially copyright gray areas.

And what bigger gray area is there than digital music distribution? (Certainly, you can argue that digital music distribution has been legally ruled on, but some say the most recent victory by the record companies is an exception to the rule… in a law based on precedents, exceptions to the rules are very important indeed. Anyhow. Let’s get out of this parenthetical statement.) It is time to extend the Mr. Literati example.

Distribution Disruption
His legal woes with Mono Printing resolved, Mr. Literati is happy, and so is Lino Printing. But suddenly, over a period of a few years, there arises a method that allows people to transfer books between one another. To make this clearer (and because it is the 1700s), the method of distribution used by this fictional town will be this: telepathy: a fellow (or lass) reads the book, internalizes with perfect fidelity every phrase therein, and then is able to mentally transfer the entirety of the book to anyone he or she wishes. Other people are enjoying the product of Mr. Literati’s mind without having purchased Lino Printing’s product! That is, there is a different route of distribution for Mr. Literati’s ideas. Keep in mind, by any definition, what these people are doing IS NOT STEALING_. Whatever violation of laws that may occur, it is a violation of _intellectual property laws — no physical object is ever “stolen” during this process, contrary to what your friendly media cartel says.

Here’s where it gets exciting.

In order to embrace this new distribution path, what could Lino Printing do? Well, they can grease the wheels of this new distribution system. You see, if you are Joe Sixpack, looking for the newest creative work by X, it might take a while to find a person who can telepathically transmit the creative work to you (remember, this is our fantastical 1700s example). But, if you know you can just get it telepathically (bear with me) from Lino, why not just go there? Lino Printing goes from distributing a physical object to selling convenience, accuracy, and guaranteed availability.

But SonyBMGScopeIslandCapitolJive Records doesn’t want a new distribution medium. A new medium means a lower margin and higher volume business… which changes the rules of the game (just ask Dell). It also allows musicians to function perfectly well in the utter absence of these giant music corporations. Does being an unsigned artist distributing music independently result in the wealth and fame associated with superstar musicians? Not yet — but soon, perhaps.

So. With regard to that recent lawsuit I spoke of — the question is: did the digital sharing of $24 in music to (at most) 50 people, amount to $220,000 in damages? No. This huge number was set to send a message against file sharing. Unfortunately, that message is delivered straight to some of the biggest enthusiasts of music — those who are interested in new artists; thus who are constantly scouring the globe for the next sound/band. Who wins here? Nobody. The game must change. The old business model must change. Our ideas about ownership of music must evolve. In the meantime, at least one thing keeps changing — the music.

• Copyright
• Music
• Slashdot

1 comment left

Essays Nearby

• No Picture Today: A Poem/Haiku
• Apps, Part Deux
• St. Thomas Admissions
• God, Faith, and the New York Times