Digital Music

[rush242]

So I was reading a post on here about SOLO and and it jogged my memory about a discussion on the old SOLO email list. I'm pretty sure it devolved into a screamfest, but let me mention it here, because I'm curious.

Does anyone have any thoughts concerning the digital reproduction of music and giving it away for free?

I'm not referring to the idea of taking Britney Spears' latest and duplicating it and selling it for profit, but what about making it available for anyone to download off of your hard drive, for free? Or, downloading other such things for your own personal use.

On one side, there's the argument that it's theft of the profit that the artist would have made had they sold the album, song, .mp3, whatever. On the other side, given that there has been a sea-change in the world of digital music, what about the argument that artists now all know that the second that they release their music in *ANY* form it has effectively been released into the public domain. Not performance rights, or usage rights, of course--I'm not saying that ABC could just download an .mp3 and use it to make money. But that, in essence, since they know they cannot protect it, they are willingly releasing it, knowing they will never make a dime from it.

Obviously, this comes up at school all the time, surrounded by undergrads and all. And this is why I ask. They simply do not care that it is/was theft. Many (most?) have made it a point to never ever pay for music again. What happens when hundreds of millions or billions of people simply consider digital music as free as air and couldn't care less about the RIAA or what anyone else thinks about it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rush,

When new technology hits, people who have become very powerful using the old technology do not usually like it because it makes them change their habits and opens the power doors to newcomers.

I do not have much sympathy for RIAA. The model it serves is centralized control of culture.

I am much more excited by something like MySpace and a whole generation of independent musicians who are selling their music because of it. Incidentally, many famous musicians make killings on MySpace marketing, also. That is just one of the Web 2.0 things that is changing the face of intellectual property. There is an explosion going on and we are right in the middle of it.

Ironically enough, by having so many free downloads, the money in the music market has actually increased. Record sales (including DVD's) for most musicians, except the very top, have also increased. (And, believe me, those top 10 type artists are not wanting for anything. They live in the lap of luxury. So they are still very well paid for their creations.)

If you are interested in looking into this, here are two former posts of mine that touch on some of the fundamental issues.

Copyright, Lessig and Web 2.0

The following video is a presentation Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons) gave at Google in October 2006. It is still more than valid. It is an elementary education in copyright concepts.

The video is a bit long (about an hour—61:04)), but it is fascinating. I guarantee, if you are not familiar with Lessig's line of reasoning, you will be challenged on some of your copyright beliefs in ways you never thought about before.

Some day it will be interesting to analyze and compare Rand's view of intellectual property against this new approach. It is also interesting that Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia and staunch Rand admirer, was one of the first people to utilize this new approach in a big way.

Authors@Google: Lawrence Lessig

Relax and enjoy. This is something that is changing the world as we know it and making it better.

Michael

Running an internet marketing business really is one of the toughest jobs you'll ever have, but it's also one of the toughest jobs you'll ever love.

The above quote is by Armand Morin on a teleseminar. I find these words extremely inspiring. They can apply equally well to any profession and express the perfect emotional attitude toward productive work. It even sounds Objectivist.

For those who have never heard of this guy, he is a self-made millionaire—many times over—in both internet marketing (selling his own software and other products) and country music, although this last was not known until a few days ago. He caused a huge upset in the music industry. He had aspirations as a country singer, so he adopted a fantasy name, Michael Lee Austin, made a CD, decided to use only his internet expertise for sales instead of the traditional route, and completely blew out the Billboard charts. He outsold almost all of the singers the best companies in the entire recording industry were promoting.

Having worked in the recording industry, that impressed the hell out of me. People on the outside have no idea how much power industry moguls have wielded in the past on making or breaking an artist at whim by controlling the sales and distribution channels. I LOVED seeing the back of that broken by innovation. (Now he is even teaching recording company bigshots how to use the Internet to make their sales.)

I have never been much of a country music fan, but I am now an enormous fan of Armand Morin.

Morin rocks.

Michael

So you see, instead of RIAA constantly making a fool of itself and trying to hold back the progress of technology to protect its power clique, it should have been encouraging its members to recycle their thoughts on intellectual property concepts and market models. Instead, it missed the boat. Now others, like college kids, geeks and Internet marketing gurus, are arising to create a volume of wealth that even the greediest bastard among them could not imagine.

That's capitalism at its finest.

There are still many bumps to be worked out because the technology is so overwhelmingly universal and much more suited to rule of personal volition instead of rule of centralized law, but I have no doubt the concepts will all fall into place. (btw - Lessig and others have done much more work.) This means that you, I and everyone around us has a chance to become rich at selling information and entertainment if we want it—and selling it on our own terms in what the market will bear and operate—instead of being obligated to suck up to some industry moguls and accepting who they determine will be the stars. (And, believe me, these industry moguls, who only exist because of government monopoly on licensing the airwaves, are also not hurting. I even get a kick out of imagining them in a classroom with Armand Morin teaching them how to sell CD's and charging them through the nose for it. )

This is a long subject, so I suggest you digest the information above before we get in deeper. I hope you will be as fascinated as I am.

Michael

[rush242]

This is a long subject, so I suggest you digest the information above before we get in deeper. I hope you will be as fascinated as I am.

Well, I finally got a chance to look through the stuff you posted. Thank you, Michael.

But I'm not as concerned with the RIAA (I know why they protect their own interests, even if I think they are making glaring strategic errors) as I am with the seachange that has occurred in the transfer of information.

Take, for example, Michael Newberry's work. Admittedly, I cannot profit from electronic versions of his work--there is a paper trail, and I don't have a license to it. However, I can, with very little effort, take a high-quality picture of his work, and have it printed it Kinko's. It may not be a zheeclay, but so what? If it fades after a few years, I have have them print it again.

Does the transfer of electronic information constitute theft when the creator is aware, in advance, that the second they release their work outside of their garage, or studio, or wherever that is has been effectively been released into the public domain?

I think this is where the explosions began last time. Heh. Tirades about theft and the eeeevil theives, et cetera.