|
In defense of copyright
by Dave de Sylvia
August 27th 2009 | 64 Comments
There's something eminently lovable about Frank Turner.
First of all, he's a protest singer, but he's not a socialist: a fact he is at pains to point out given, well, the strange fact he's a protest singer but not a socialist. Second of all, he's prone to get involved in slagging matches with his- how shall I put it?- leftier internet fans as a result of point #1. Third, he's actually an excellent musician, with two (soon to be three) quality solo albums under his belt. And he knew Prufrock before he was famous.
Turnere's latest foray into pissing off his fans/friends/everyone was a seemingly innocent re-tweet of a hilarious (and insightful) satirical article in the Daily Mash poking fun at file-sharing proponents that quickly got more heated.
Later, he gathered his thoughts and wrote this rather measured refutation of the increasing numbers who not only refuse to pay for music, but don't even understand why it's necessary to do so in the first place.
It's all well-worth a read, but I've pulled a couple of key passages out for emphasis: let's put it this way: recording isn't free, instruments aren't free, session players, producers, engineers, artists aren't free. My time isn't free either - I work hard and I expect to get paid for it. Maybe we are heading for a world in which all recorded music is free, but if so, be prepared for gig and T-shirt prices to rise. This is a favoured claim of the anti-copyright movement: "musicians make all their money from touring anyway" "I won't buy the album but I'll buy a t-shirt instead" etc. The simple fact is that all record contracts aren't the same, and while many artists make no money from record sales, others rely on sales and advances to pay for tours. Other artists make music that simply doesn't translate to a live setting.
the idea that by stealing music from the internet you're somehow crusading for justice against the big bad record labels is absolute fucking bullshit and needs to be stamped out. Britney Spears and David Geffen aren't going to downsize their condo's [sic] because you didn't pay for a Fugazi album. The people hit first and foremost are the low-level workers in the industry and smaller or independent artists. Telling yourself otherwise is, in my opinion, more often than not a lame attempt to salve a guilty conscience. Impeccable logic, again, and phrased so well that it just demands to be quoted.
Anybody who's even worked on the edge of the music industry (as I have for some years) can tell you that the number of people you deal with on a day-to-day basis is declining, while the number of actual working musicians seems to grow exponentially. Look at the massive lay-offs in EMI and Warner over the past couple of years, or the (hopefully temporary) demise of Touch & Go Records as a publisher of new music.
Telling yourself otherwise is, in my opinion, more often than not a lame attempt to salve a guilty conscience. This is just worth quoting again.
But it's point number three that hammers home the utterly bizarre logic of those who hold up the Pirate Bay et al. as crusaders of modern morality.
This brings me onto point three: most people don't know very much about the mechanics of the music industry, but feel qualified to theorize about its economics at length. Give this man a prize and bag full of money. Now, I'm not suggesting for a second that a) all musicians are expert on the economics of the industry, or b) all musicians are in the same boat as Mr. Turner.
But you have to take a step back and ask yourself who you are prepared to put your trust in: the musicians who deal with record industry politics day in-day out, watching the cash flowing in and out of their bank accounts, or the faceless logician behind a laptop screen (now a prison cell) in Sweden? It should be a simple choice.
Now, to digress for a moment:
Having worked in the music industry for a few years, I do a fair bit about it, and I think illegal downloading is a bad thing. As a point of proof, find me any indie record store or independent artist who thinks that file-sharing is a boon for them and their career. QED.
Not quite QED: this is broadly true, but not strictly true. Coming from a PR perspective, it's not too hard to identify the artists who do benefit from illegal downloading, and many of whom do little to discourage it.
It's hard to imagine Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavillion making such a dent in the charts this year had it not been for massive blog buzz building all through late 2008. Ditto Panda Bear in 2007, or, let's just come out and say it: Girl Talk. Post-hardcore spazzes the Kidcrash were screwed over by their first label and few years ago, and found the perfect way to get back at them: posting their entire first album (and the rest) for free (illegal) download on their label's site.
So I'd add a caveat to Turner's argument, one that he kind of hints at making himself: the benefit of copyright ownership and whatnot isn't just the economics of how many records you sell, it's the ownership and (still limited) control the superficial aspect of how your music is distributed.
If The Kidcrash want to post all their music online for free, it's their perogative. Nobody would begrudge them the right, and they may even make some money from it (though it's not their motivation). Frank Turner, however, is a working musician who would rather like to make a career of the thing that he does so well. And good luck to him.
Frank Turner's third album, Poetry Of The Deed, is scheduled for release on September 7 (UK) via Xtra Mile and September 8 (US) via Epitaph.
Download 'The Road' from Poetry Of The Deed here.
Share: Facebook
 Stumble
 Digg
 Del.icio.us
Comments
Alright, now where is the article?
|
I read his blog this morning. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that if you do choose to pirate a CD, don't tell the artist about it.
Can't wait to see him next month.
|
Ditto to everything redsky said. Especially the not being able to wait to see him. And with Gaslight Anthem. Fuck yes.
|
Good read. The thing is, illegal downloading isn't going anywhere, so arguing that it needs to be stopped is kind of pointless. What needs to be done is a rehaul of the typical record label marketing scheme. Record labels and artists need to make their record worth paying for. The internet is a great thing, the record labels need to get with the times and take advantage of it.
|
this is an old argument and nobody ever comes to any new realisation and everybody claims to have impeccable logic lets give it a rest shall we
|
that's why his blog was titled "angry thoughts on a tired subject"
|
commence pointless debate
|
"that's why his blog was titled "angry thoughts on a tired subject"
i'm not reading his blog it'll be like the piracy threads in our politics subforum just with one boring post that pretends it has perspective because the guy writing it has some level of fame within the industry. it's not like people within the industry have never vocally supported illegal downloading after label bosses have made the exact argument this guy is making time and time again from the very beginning so I wonder why this deserves a whole article
|
"I wonder why this deserves a whole article"
My guess is Dave wanted to flex his creative muscle after a good read?
|
well, its well written as usual and i'm not criticising him on that. it just seems unnecessary and done to death
|
maybe he's got a crush on frank turner and wants to send this article to him with a note saying "i wrote dis for u bb
|
goddammit why it's only a harmless less than three sign
|
No, it's because the features section has become a neglected puppy.
|
"i'm not reading his blog it'll be like the piracy threads in our politics subforum just with one boring post that pretends it has perspective because the guy writing it has some level of fame within the industry"
You haven't even read it! You're insane.
|
"You haven't even read it! You're insane."
that I will not doubt
but you've highlighted key sections that you thought were worth reading, if this was the cream of his argument it would appear that he isn't offering any new revolutionary theories or insightful ideas on the matter I haven't seen discussed elsewhere and at similar length by people within the industry and music fans alike. everybody grabs their little niche of the argument and latches on for it with dear life, clearly offended if somebody else comes along and tries to argue the alternative perspective. Just like the religious debate. Hell, music is a religion to some people. Piracy in general is a similar way of life for many, in my experience ;)
Under nothing short of a totalitarian dictatorship will there be an elimination and shortage of file sharers in the future, that I am sure. Using the internet as a promotional tool to attempt to reach out to that one music fan who cares enough to support your music should be top priority.
I have to wonder about all the CD's sitting on shelves not being sold before the internet came along.
|
Frank's response to the responses to his response of his original post. http://www.frank-turner.com/2009/08/short-replies.html
|
"that I will not doubt..."
OK, but you have to consider the absurdity of your position. You're saying the argument has been done to death and there's nothing new to be said, but you're perfectly happy to discuss at length the fact that you don't want to talk about it.
The point is that, despite your opinion, the debate on copyright is not over and never will be. Copyright as a set of legal rules may be tearing at the seams, and the result will probably be that some of its less virtuous caveats will have to change for the better, but that doesn't change the fundamental logic that lies behind it.
I completely reject the idea that nobody will ever change their mind on the issue- it's intellectually lazy to even suggest it. Copyright as an institution may be dying, but the future of musicians everywhere hinge on the habits that consumers form- whether they decide to support musicians financially, in whatever form, or whether they choose to view recorded music as some essential right that they're entitled to.
The point Frank Turner made, particularly eloquently in my opinion, is that he doesn't just make music for the hell of it. He is a working man who deserves an income no more or less than anybody else, and if people want his music they should have the decency to pay him for it.
|
[quote]OK, but you have to consider the absurdity of your position. You're saying the argument has been done to death and there's nothing new to be said, but you're perfectly happy to discuss at length the fact that you don't want to talk about it.[/quote]
No, I just don't want to talk about what has been said before. I want progressive opinions and including myself in this equation: nobody is offering them.
[quote]The point is that, despite your opinion, the debate on copyright is not over and never will be.[/quote]
As long as people keep running around the same circles this is a certainty.
[quote]Copyright as a set of legal rules may be tearing at the seams, and the result will probably be that some of its less virtuous caveats will have to change for the better, but that doesn't change the fundamental logic that lies behind it.[/quote]
What is this fundamental logic? I'm willing to bet any logic you have employed on the matter is hotly contested and not only for the reasons that people "are trying to hide their guilt" which to me seems just as much as a cop-out explanation as the "faceless corporation" tag put on stony faced label executives trying to defend their wares.
[quote]I completely reject the idea that nobody will ever change their mind on the issue- it's intellectually lazy to even suggest it. [/quote]
You have never read one of these piracy debate threads before have you? They are incredibly non-constructive.
[quote]Copyright as an institution may be dying, but the future of musicians everywhere hinge on the habits that consumers form- whether they decide to support musicians financially, in whatever form, or whether they choose to view recorded music as some essential right that they're entitled to.[/quote]
I'm not here to argue this, and I would agree.
[quote]The point Frank Turner made, particularly eloquently in my opinion, is that he doesn't just make music for the hell of it. He is a working man who deserves an income no more or less than anybody else, and if people want his music they should have the decency to pay him for it.[/quote]
If I had a dime for every musician who said this i'd buy all the music and the world and pay all the musicians and give it to everyone for free and send all the staff members on sputnik a decorated cake and convertible sports car of their choice ;]
|
"No, I just don't want to talk about what has been said before."
Then stop talking?
"What is this fundamental logic?"
That the energy and effort into producing a piece of music (or anything else, for that matter) should entitle the creator to some level of ownership of the product?
"You have never read one of these piracy debate threads before have you? They are incredibly non-constructive."
Of course I have. Discussions are only constructive if the people involved are willing to engage, and clearly you want the discussion to end before it's even started.
|
yeah it's a pity that we filled 2 pages of the pirate bay article with massive long posts, i'm sorta fatigued on this issue at the moment :[
|
Whether some want to talk about it or not, it's still an issue. The problem is, as stated, people choose to make excuses for filesharing even though they don't know anything about the economics behind the music buisiness. Nice article, Dave. Now if we can only get some banners or at least summaries underneath them on the main page.
|
[quote]Then stop talking?[/quote]
Stop responding!
ilu man i'm just a wee bit drunk and little bored :]
|
"The thing is, illegal downloading isn't going anywhere, so arguing that it needs to be stopped is kind of pointless. What needs to be done is a rehaul of the typical record label marketing scheme. Record labels and artists need to make their record worth paying for."
everyone needs to forget everything they're arguing about and focus on this, this is where the answer lies.
|
That won't fix anything forever, people like getting shit for free.
|
It would have been nice if this article had more than a trifle amount of actual analysis rather than a mostly rehash of what some guy from million dead has to say.
|
That said, despite the redundancy I liked the article anyways and meatplow being stupid.
|
yeah i'm good at that sometimes
|
Hmmm...
He's got a point there.
|
Working at HMV, I know record sales have gone down a lot. I admit that I use the internet to 'try before I buy', but if I like then I buy
|
This is just the shit that happens when you try to market art, it's like thieves who steal paintings to keep the allure of the art alive in a closely-knit underground community, in this case the thieves are music pirates. Naturally, it feels criminal to pay for art, people are going to complain about record prices until the end of time. If you want to look at the industry from a monetary standpoint everything this Turner guy is saying is correct but is it really even supposed to be a fucking industry?
|
"use the internet to 'try before I buy', but if I like then I buy"
I do the same, if I really love an album and I believe the band/artist deserve the money then I'll buy it
|
"If you want to look at the industry from a monetary standpoint everything this Turner guy is saying is correct but is it really even supposed to be a fucking industry?"
Well, yeah- it's his livelihood.
|
I'm just having a hard time finding out what draws the line between an entertainer and an artist.
|
That's because simplifying it to a point where one doesn't equal the other and vice-versa isn't possible. Art and entertainment are coexistent. Furthermore you can argue that any occupation yields a creative side, not just art.
And the reason why art/entertainment costs money is because it costs money to produce. I mean, how do you think your fantastical Origin of Symmetry got recorded? Did you just so happen to think that the poor souls on the assembly lines in China building guitars, drum heads and mixing desks were going to work for $0 per hour so Muse could buy it for free at their local music store (hey I bet the guy behind the counter was working for free too) -- for them to then give you the album for free, CD and all? Did producer Dave Bottrill just say to the band "hey I'll go without food for three months, we'll just call this one a favour shall we?" Can't you see that if you don't pay for the cost, the smallest most seemingly insignificant person feels the results.
It's circular - that is essentially why money exists. That is why your so-called "art/entertainment" costs money. That's why it is supposedly "marketed". If they could, I'm sure all artists would give their art/entertainment away for free. Rightly so, some of course do, which is fine. I'm sure those who are self-producing have at least their Gran cooking their meals or some other particular arrangement.
Genuine artists don't care if they get money or not - they perform because they love it. Anyone in a career will tell you they do it mostly for the enjoyment, not because of its associated dividends. Others may say "I may not enjoy my job, but I at least respect it".
In a similar manner to everything else, the music industry employs people (artists, entertainers, musicians, grounds people, etc etc etc. The same group of people who probably come into your store or workplace to support you whenever they need their taps reseated or the dog groomed, just so you can have a meal on the table at night. Trying to differentiate between art being free vs. the rest of the world's world's occupations is just a feeble place for many to shun their conscience.
I don't see how it is that hard to contemplate, really.
|
Despite your condescending attitude I wasn't asking any of that, in fact I confirmed that, what I was asking is if its even a good idea to market something that we have an endless supply of: creativity. Its like selling water, it doesn't make any sense to us because it shouldn't.
|
yeah but it doesn't cost anything to make water. Besides, selling water does make sense because we all pay for it, and not just bottled water, i'm saying you pay for the water that flushes your shit away, it's an infinite supply, but it costs money to get to you.
|
I was referring to bottled water, the kind of water thats necessary to our survival as opposed to plumbing. I'll agree to pay for plumbing because that is a complex system, I disagree about paying for water the substance because I could walk to a stream and get it for free. Entertaining people, thats a complex system too but being an artist is something I don't need to walk anywhere to acheive, it's an ability I was given, like the ability to walk and find water. I wasn't however, given the natural ability to single-handedly build a plumbing system that caters to an entire state. See what I'm saying?
|
yeah, but if you're gonna make the comparison of paying for creativity to paying for water, the comparison makes the most sense when comparing to water for plumbing. They are both complex systems that cost money to provide, therefore we pay to have it. I can understand the comparison to bottled water if it didn't cost the artists any money to make the music, but it does.
|
Now it comes down to my original question. I believe that once an artist agrees to market themselves in the same routine way that entertainers do they essentially become one and forfeit their art for the sake of distribution if the entire project isn't self-financed. Art is a combination of aesthetic and metaphor, and there is neither in generic industry.
|
This is why downloading shouldn't be illegal. What artists need to do is make it worth paying for a physical copy. It's like having pictures of valuable art, when you download an artists music, it should be like having a picture of a painting, you're not getting the full affect. This way, those artists that actually provide creativity worth owning, will make money, and those in the generic industry will eventual die off. If that makes any sense.
|
You mean like make free downloading legal but only allow teasers/samplers of the content? Or just low quality files?
|
low quality downloads for free. If you buy the physical album, artists need to make the packaging cool, interesting album artwork, a chance you'll get free tickets to a show, etc. Just make it really WORTH it to buy the actual album
|
I'd like that, go back to a vinyl kinda thing. The problem is people will buy these records with interesting packaging and upload them and people will download them, legally or not. But in my eyes, that is just something the composers should accept, because it's called file sharing for a reason, it's just people with common interests sharing them. A similar situation would be going to a friend's house and borrowing an album. It's going to happen, it's been happening since before the internet was even an idea. It's nature, and we shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
|
It's hard to resist just downloading everything i want free of charge. It's irresistable. It's just so easy and I don't have a lot of money. It's be nice if there were actually CD store around my house that weren't over a bridge and far away. And if they were cheaper.
|
This article is basically what I believe.
|
Someone needs to reinvent the system.
Pirating music isn't going to go away. It's too easy and so widespread that it's impossible to contain. Labels need to think of different ways to make money off of the music industry aside from simply selling music.
Take the book industry for example, libraries basically give books away for free for both entertainment and educational purposes. The book industry has adapted and worked along side with this system and remaining mostly intact.
Same with the film industry, it's easy to access just about any film for free on the internet. Companies like Netflix have been on the ball with this and changed their services to match the demand of easily accessible films.
Bottom line is, industries change, the music industry seems to be fighting this change rather than trying to capitalize on it.
|
What an unbiased article...
I think this as close as you can get to a blow job through words, very good.
A protest singer who protests change? Isn't that defeating the purpose?
|
Since when are opinion pieces supposed to be unbiased. This isn't a news report...
|
"One can only give an unbiased opinion about things that do not interest one, which is no doubt the reason an unbiased opinion is always valueless. The man who sees both sides of a question is a man who sees absolutely nothing."
|
^Society Sellout
The thing though with books is for example, how many copies of Twilight is a library going to have vs. a book store?
And also, how much time does it take to scan Twilight vs. just ripping a CD.
Once you borrow a book, how easily could you distribute its contents vs borrowing a CD.
The music industry is fundamentally different from the book industry. The music industry won't change itself that easily, and frankly, while I wouldn't mind lower CD prices, the music industry is only trying to profit like any other industry. That doesn't mean that they're evil and that we should steal music.
|
I'm not trying to prove that the industry is evil or not or that we should steal music or not. I'm simply saying that the music industry is going at this problem in the wrong way and using other industries who have gone through the same thing and adapted.
The analogy you came up with is comparing very different actions, you are comparing stealing (Ripping) against using (scanning). I would say the amount of time to "steal" each product would be equal, stealing from book off the shelf is about equal to ripping a CD in time. The difference is location, one you can do at home with little fear of repercussions the other you do at a store where the, sometimes, have anti-theft systems and there's a higher risk of getting caught.
Those obviously have different risks involved. Which is why I compared it to a library because it's simple to go to the library and barrow books, about as easy as going on limewire or whatnot and downloading music. The difference is one is "illegal" and one is not. Why? Because the industry has adapted to be able to make money WHILE a free service, like a library, is functioning. What I'm saying is the music industry needs to come up with a way to do this rather than spending loads of money trying to stamp out file sharing (which has been around for almost two decades now and is only getting bigger).
|
Actually I'm not entirely sure what definition of 'scanning' you are using. I assumed you meant to quickly read the book but I guess you could have meant using a scanner to copy a book. In that case it would be similar but I would say it's completely unnecessary since we have a service like libraries which allow you to take books for free.
To defend my statement against that point of view I'd have to say that you took what I was saying too literally. I was not saying that we should make music libraries where albums are borrowed, obviously that would create some problems because it is very easy to burn albums, like you said. There is a different solution that the music industry has not thought of and doesn't seem to be interested in thinking of. There are a few that are trying, packaging albums with other benefits is a good start but probably not enough to encourage a come back of album sales.
If you boil down what I'm saying I guess it would be that: Change happens in industries and, historically, fighting it doesn't usually stop it, therefore true successes in the industries embrace and adapt to the changes rather than fight against them.
|
I love this guys thoughts (because I don't download) but I think Meatplow wins. We are all getting a little tired of this circular argument.
|
File sharing is the greatest thing that could ever have happened in terms of promotional capabilities for artists. It's no worse then copying VHS or cassette tapes like old farts did back in the old days.
|
well it's slightly different to copying VHS tapes because you're essentially illegally duplicating artists intellectual property
|
also back in the days when VHS tapes were actually relevant the internet wasn't really that evolved in terms of social media and filesharing applications. If artists really wanted to stop "illegal" downloading of albums they should work on taking down all of the blogs that there are, but there's so many of them. I don't know what can be done because people will always find a way to copy and share something, no matter what it is.
|
|
