Opinion

Music Biz Wants Crackdown

Misguided industry pressing PM to nail music copiers.

By Michael Geist, 16 Oct 2007, TheTyee.ca

Trent Reznor

Innovate or die: Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails.

In the weeks leading up to tomorrow's speech from the throne, several music industry lobby groups have urged the government to prioritize intellectual property protection. Led by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), these groups blame government inaction for recent sales declines, arguing that legal reforms are needed to support Canadian music industry innovation.

While the data suggests that peer-to-peer file sharing is at best only a minor reason for the decline (more significant is competition from DVD and video game sales and the emergence of big box retailers such as Wal-Mart who have pushed down retail prices and decimated sales of older titles), events over the past month have provided the clearest indication yet that musicians and music sellers are charting a new course that is leaving the major record labels behind.

Punishing best customers

In the mid-1990s, the industry focused on retaining its core business model by emphasizing two strategies. First, it relied on copy-control technologies, supported by additional legal measures, to curtail unauthorized copying. Second, it lobbied for the establishment of a private copying levy on blank media to compensate for the copying that technology could not control.

Ten years later, that strategy is now in tatters. The use of copy-controls have proven to be an abject failure -- not only do they do little to stem the tide of unauthorized copying, but they ultimately punish the industry's best customers who face a barrage of interoperability problems, security threats, and inequitable limitations on their personal property.

In response, digital music sellers are now virtually unanimous in their rejection of these technologies. Leading online music retailers such as Apple, Amazon, Puretracks, eMusic, Yahoo!, and Bell have all rushed to assure consumers that a growing percentage of their offerings are free from copy-controls. In fact, a Yahoo! executive recently brashly proclaimed that his company will not "invest any more money in consumer inconvenience."

Some music labels, including EMI and Universal, appear to have gotten the message. They have joined the many Canadian independent labels -- which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of homegrown releases -- in dropping copy-controls for some of their releases.

Dithering with failed approach

Despite generating more than $200 million in revenue for the industry and artists, CRIA also views the private copying levy as a failure. Last month, it asked the Federal Court of Appeal to allow it to intervene in the legal battle over the application of the levy to Apple iPods. Rather than supporting the extension of the levy, it surprisingly wants the court to strike it down, thereby reducing revenues to artists.

Why the change of heart? CRIA now admits in court documents that the extension "broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement." In other words, the levy creates a compensation system that legalizes peer-to-peer music downloads.

As the industry dithers with its failed strategy, musicians have begun to take matters into their own hands. Last year, the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, which includes some of Canada's most acclaimed musicians such as Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Feist, Sam Roberts, Billy Talent, Sloan, Sum 41 and Barenaked Ladies, spoke out openly against suing fans and the use of copy-controls.

A growing number of international stars are following suit. Last week, Radiohead released its latest CD without copy-controls on its website under a pay-as-you like system (Canada's Issa -- formerly known as Jane Siberry -- has successfully employed a similar approach for many years).

Canada's red hot digital music market

The Radiohead announcement unleashed a stunning series of follow-up developments -- reports indicate that Nine Inch Nails, Oasis, Jamiroquai, the Charlatans, and Madonna have either left or are ready to leave their record labels in search of greater commercial success through live performances, merchandise sales, and other online innovation that may include free distribution of their music.

Other artists are exploring new distribution partnerships -- the Eagles are selling their latest CD directly to Wal-Mart, Prince distributed millions of copies of his latest CD for free in Britain in a newspaper promotion, former Kinks lead singer Ray Davies plans to do the same, and Nettwerk Records, one of Canada's leading indie labels, combined with a newspaper to offer free downloads of some of its most popular artists.

The rapid pace of innovation highlights the fact that artists and consumers are responding to the new digital reality. As Canada's digital music market continues to grow (last year it outpaced both the U.S. and Europe), Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner ought to remind lobby groups that it is the lack of innovation -- not government intervention -- that lies at the heart of their tales of woe.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

3  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • dorothy

    4 years ago

    Messing with Karma

    I think this is a profound case of what goes around comes around.

    If people who are in possession of 'intellectual property' does some sharing, such as putting a book draft on the web for free, harvesting the feedback, then steadily improving the work, and ultimately publishing 'the normal way', but still maybe posting key chapters of the book on line, that book will sell in its entirety, as has been proven again and again. Performing artists could set up a similar mutual situation and likely benefit from it.

    When, however, the raw 'gimme' comes out on the surface like some sort of ugly rash, the copying is what goes back. As you shout in the forest, you will be answered. An artist is only as good as his last production, and it is my guess, that if they get too grasping, the bad Karma will choke them eventually as artists and they will put out crummy quality. They are just another version of the very rich, who have been struggling to lift themselves out of having to prove themselves over and over, but could 'rest on their laurels'. Fearing, perhaps, that they won't be able to measure up again and again. Get all you can, while you can.

    I never thought myself, that resting was all it's cracked up to be. Time enough for that in the last long sleep. While I live and breathe, I'll be running. Don't understand those who choose the other way.

  • jk

    4 years ago

    Pity all the millionaires

    The music industry can't calculate the activity behind all the music being downloaded as lost revenue any more than it can calculate songs played on the radio as lost revenue. The truth is a 13-year-old kid with $10 a week allowance wouldn't spend more than $10 a week on music or videos. The fact he can listen to more than he can pay for is nothing new. People have been taping records to cassettes and movies or TV to VHS tapes for decades. In fact, music has been free to the public since we first started gathering to listen to the radio.

    So these crocodile tears aren't helping the music industry's cause (or the film industry's). The truth is, music and film/video producers have been steadily pricing themselves out of business. For instance, rather than downloading a TV series I was enjoying (Prison Break), I went to future shop to purchase season 2 to catch up. The price: $57 plus taxes. This was double my expectations. The same with many CDs. Why pay upwards of $30 for an album that may be of marginal quality? If the music industry is feeling robbed, I feel robbed at being expected to pay so much for a disk that we both know is worth probably about a dollar to press and distribute.

    My question(s): why hasn't the music industry embraced the opportunity to reach these millions of extra users? People are making fortunes this way every day by providing free services and generating revenue through the traffic. So why should a dinosaur industry either not willing or not able to take advantage of new opportunities be propped up by government controls?

    Kudos to Radiohead for its direct marketing strategy. It's a lesson to the rest of the industry to smarten up and look inward for its salvation. With any luck the big labels will disappear and musicians will be able to bypass bloated corporations to reach their audience directly. I'm sure many bands will find trading a gold or platinum record a small price to pay for tens of millions of listeners/fans around the world.

    Plus anything that cuts out Wal-Mart as a key middleman has to be a good thing.

  • deeby

    4 years ago

    They're parasites....

    ...and are finally facing the grim reality that many artists don't need them.

    Radiohead's new album is a perfect example. Between contracts, all they required was an online distribution mechanism, (admittedly no small feat for a band with less $$), and voila: distribution to millions of listeners directly, with no revenue whatsoever for anyone but themselves. Industry executives must be freaked by that prospect.

    They won't be worried about no-name musicians, who'll still require distribution etc. But Radiohead's new business model proves conclusively that established musicians don't need the industry as a distribution channel, period.

    This is the thin edge of the wedge. Why would any successful artist forgo the additional revenue from online distribution in favour of providing a cut to a bunch of suits in LA?

    Watch as other big players bolt from the major labels. It's only a matter of time....

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.