|
|
Do Pro-Sharing Artists Need a Voice?by George Ziemann — November 28, 2010 Read an article a couple of days ago at Billboard about the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, A2IM, HFA, AFTRA, SESAC, the Songwriters Guild of America, NMPA, and SoundExchange and their standard "you're stealing our stuff" speech about an article in PC Mag concerning alternatives to LimeWire, along with PC Mag's response to the criticism. Naturally, my initial response was amusement. The copyright police are now going to hassle magazine writers because they print actual facts? Really? Do the RIAA and it's "friends" really think they can alter the march of technology by writing nasty letters to anyone that speaks about it? It's been a decade now and the old cry of "Embrace File-Sharing or Die" still has a ring of truth to it that none of those anagrams are yet the slightest bit inclined to acknowledge. Beyond the amusement factor, there's nothing new there at all. Just a new potential victim in the campaign of perennial pointlessness. But it makes me wonder. When are the rest of the independent artists going to get a voice? I know for a fact that a great number of indies actively use file-sharing, Creative Commons alternative licensing, give away some material for free, support the cyber-community and are willing to take advantage of every avenue available to reach an audience. The question arises as to how great that number really is. The given fact is that, regardless of how many people producing content feel that way, no one is speaking in their behalf. Even Rich Bengloff, President of the American Association of Independent Music, signed the letter to PC Mag. So he's not promoting copy-left alternatives, either. No one is going to write to prominent web sites or magazines, show up in front of Congress or the Copyright Office, or anywhere else, to argue that the RIAA, ASCAP and the rest of that group do not really represent the country's artistic community. No one is going to argue that these organizations are trampling the rights of everyone else to protect corporate profits. No one is going to champion the alternatives that provide free and open access to music and art on the Internet. There was a point in time when this made me angry. It seemed pretty urgent for a while, only because the audience was the one taking the worst hit over it all, which I perceived as being detrimental to music, not to mention just seeming like a stupid thing to do. And it was, at least for the groups that were yelling "piracy" the loudest — the same groups still singing the same song. It's obvious that they haven't learned anything yet, but they haven't changed anything, either. The internet is still out there. Peer-to-peer technology not only can't be stopped, it also will continue to evolve faster than the music industry can chase it because there are so many other, extremely legal, uses for it. Like the unknown masses of independents sharing some (or all) of their music. The basic problem for those who create content and will distribute it willingly (for a variety of promotional motives), and the reason they need a voice, is that everything The Acronyms are trying in vain to stop is usually something the rest of us thought were pretty cool things to do from an artistic viewpoint. The most popular ideas were always the ones at the top of the hit list, so every time you were just starting to get comfortable with something, it was either shut down, destroyed, run out of business, or otherwise made useless, and you had to keep finding a new spot and starting the process again. It seems as if lately, much of this has receded but, as the letter to PC Mag illustrates, it's an ongoing thing. This makes me think that perhaps enough time has passed that rational thought could finally enter the conversation. On the other hand, does it even matter? Is anyone even paying attention to The Acronyms any more? Or are they fading into futile irrelevance? As I was pondering this, I saw another story at slashdot (which is where I saw the original Billboard article about PC Mag) — Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants. This is even more ridiculous than threatening magazines that print facts.
They're suing a lawyer for providing legal advice? A greater question seems to be — Can the USCG (U.S. Copyright Group) just steal the U.S. Coast Guard's acronym/trademark? Isn't that exactly the type of claim we would expect to see the Copyright Group file if they had the acronym first? Of course, all of this simply means that "irrelevance" was the correct answer. After 8 years of writing about this, the answer seems to still be the same. The Copyright Police are going to keep complaining until someone figures out how to block their music from being shared. I fully expected some bright college student to figure out how to give them exactly what they wanted by now. Block the "illegal" music from the net. It would, of course, be the instrument of final destruction for the traditional record business, which would solve the representation problem. Still, it seems as if there might be more room than ever for the introduction of rational thought, along the line of "Hey, we're here, we own copyrights, too, and may have a different opinion." Just for those times people are going to make policy decisions that effect the independent community. Of course, that all seems to be irrelevant as well. Technology is going to keep advancing beyond the pace that interest groups (like the Copyright Police) or government regulation can keep up with. By the time they react to anything, it's already too late. Maybe it's simply more productive for artists to just ignore it all, ride the wave and adopt new tech, or at least attempt to take part in it. After all, it's your music, whatever you do with it is legal, and none of the copyright hoopla really applies, other than to complicate things for the audience. So I didn't really answer the original question posed in the title, did I? Do pro-sharing artists need a voice? When I started writing, it seemed the answer was "yes." Now, I'm not so sure. The key word is "need." |
Related Stories Industry Execs Call Out PC Mag For Encouraging Piracy — Billboard
Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants -- Escapist Magazine via slashdot |