I try to step back from the Slashdot groupthink on issues such as file sharing and music trading. However, I can't help but feel that the RIAA is being hypocritical and more than a little heavy-handed when it comes to copyright infringement.
I briefly read some stuff on the RIAA web site today, and on the surface it sounds plausible. I took a minute to remind myself why the tech-savvy crowd is pretty uniformly anti-RIAA and pro-file sharing. I think the core reasons are: fundamental differences of opinion regarding the application of copyright in the digital age, frustration with the slow adoption of more efficient methods of music distribution, and anger towards the record (and movie) industry because of high prices and the lack of truly creative new music.
The fundamental differences over copyright are probably the most important but hardest to explain. I'll pass this one over for now except to say that in the effort to buy new legislation and implement technological protections against copyright infringement, there has been a lot of collateral damage that has hindered innovation.
The frustration comes from the knowledge in the geek world that the technology exists to connect artists and musicians directly to their fans, by-passing the traditional distribution channels. The up-front costs of producing an album are large, but they actually make up only a tiny fraction of the cost of a CD at your local music store. I mean REALLY tiny. Those up-front costs could easily be borne by artists in other ways besides record deals. What is missing is the critical mass of people to use a new distribution method to show artists that it is feasible. Of course, it's coming slowly with things like Apple's iTunes web store, but it's years later than it needed to be. Honestly, I think most techo-types are sort-of holding a grudge, and would like to see the big companies profits cut out of the equation as vengence for their interference in the transition away from the old distribution channels.
Sure, eventually the digital distribution methods will take over, and if there is enough competition, prices might even come down. Over a few years or decades, the bloated corporations might be trimmed down until record execs only make a couple of times as much as the average musician, instead of orders of magnitude more...
Which leads to the anger. We all know, and have known for some time that most of the price of a store-bought CD is in the advertising, distribution markup, and record company profit. What's more, nearly all popular music goes through the big five or six record companies, who don't compete on price. There is no free market to drive competition. Maximizing profits for the record companies depends on the noteriety of their artists and large advertising budgets. The side effect of this is that companies pare their rosters down to a relatively small number of acts that appeal to the widest possible audience, to concentrate their advertising in a relatively small number of markets. This get maximum ROI for the corporate masters, but it leaves us, the citizen, in the musical wasteland we see today. A few newly-rich mediocre "musicians" with glitzy videos showing off sex and a rich-lifestyle, backed by multi-million dollar advertising events (I mean, award shows), inbred "entertainment" media programs, pay-for-play pop radio stations all owned by one company, mega-tours sponsored by Coke and Pepsi, and the average talented local musician and songwriter struggling for an independent record deal and some regional touring.
That last end of it is the part I see. Since I've been working in the live production business for the last 8 months, I hear how the old hands in the business seen the touring industry go from lots of different bands taking out good-sized shows, with decent crews and maybe owning their own equipment, to today, when even the big tours are on tighter and tighter production budgets. Only the mega-companies get the mega-business.
So the current state of the music and entertainment industry at large is like an overfed animal, grown fat on the profits of the last decades, and now using its weight to throw around lawsuit and buy laws to prevent changes that threaten it. The barrier for entry for new talent is incredibly high, but so is the barrier for entry for new record labels, new musical styles, and new businesses in the support industries surrounding music.
Okay, now put on your rosy-colored classes, I'm going to daydream a little...
Imagine, instead, a future where you and I could find music we liked through recommendations from friends or by searching for music similar to things we already liked, instead of being told what we should like today by repeatedly hearing it on the radio or seeing it on TV. There is no reason that there shouldn't be plenty of new, quality music being created in just about every style that the music industry has ever seen, and new styles being created all the time in addition. If you like disco, there are probably musicians out there right now who would gladly earn a modest living writing and playing new disco music. Even if most people wouldn't buy it, there are certainly more than enough that would.
The problem isn't that the musicians and writers around out there. The problem is that the record companies find it more profitable to promote only a few very popular items. Perhaps the mythical "average" person would be overwhelmed by too much variety, and they wouldn't want to have to find music that they liked for themselves.
However, I can't help thinking that with low-cost communication networks like the internet, something would self-organize. How about webboards or automated ratings systems that allow people to submit info on their listening habits in return for regular updates on what's popular world-wide. This could easily replace the current pop market, and it would certainly support parts of the existing entertainment media as some "musicians" would put great effort into driving up their popularity in order to become rich and famous.
However, there is no need for the traditional record companies in that picture. Smaller music labels can certainly afford to front the cost of producing top-grade albums, and the networks can make distribution affordable. If everybody knows that lots of music it "out there" then the barrier to entry is lowered. The small label doesn't have to sell their first-born to a mega-company to get their albums into the distribution channels to music stores world-wide.
This could allow a renaissance in music, opening up many small but steady niche markets for music in an endless variety of styles.
Eventually, I could even see a distribution model where local stores or even national chains produce hard-copy albums by downloading the music and cover art from record label servers online.
The problem then becomes convincing the stores to supply music from the small independent labels worldwide. However, if the cost of the end product is low, and the store has to pay the same (or similar fee) to get a song from a mega-label server or an indie-label server, then success is possible. The really tiny music store in your small community can now offer the same selection as the 10-storey Tower Records store in Boston or NYC.
Anyway, enough with the rose-colored glasses for now. I still sympathize the with anti-RIAA folks, though I try not to deprive any artists of royalty income myself. If it's something I want to regularly listen to, I'll buy it (eventually).
Oh, and piracy has nothing to do with copyright infringement. The popularization of the term has been largely by media companies, first in the context of unauthorized radio or television broadcasts, and later in the context of infringment of copyrights and patents in software and entertainment. It's a ploy to demonize their opponents by associating emotionally-charged terms with ethically debatable acts. Piracy to me is the taking of property from others on the open sea by open violence.
