The music industry is no different from any other huge corporation, be it Mobil Oil or the Catholic church. When faced with a new technology or a new product that will revolutionize their business, their response is predictable:
a. Destroy it. And if they cannot,
b. Control it. And if they cannot,
c. Control the consumer who wishes to use it, and the legislators and laws that are supposed to protect that consumer.
Please read this article and make sure your elected representatives understand their constituents views.
I sent email to Janis Ian, thanking her for presenting this from the artist’s point of view. I also asked if there was much opposition to the RIAA’s and the music industry’s stance on digital media. She was gracious enough to reply and yes, there is a lot of opposition, but it’s largely anonymous. The artists have lost control of their own voices when they can’t speak on this issue. Perhaps instead of lobbying congress, we need to also encourage musicians to weigh in on this. If, as the article above suggests, Napster activity at its peak represented $500,000 a day of revenue for the industry, what could a more complete solution yield? Imagine more — all — artists, complete catalogs, out of print stuff, historical recordings, all available in a portable format.
Where this idea represents money for stuff that’s taking up shelf space (metaphorically and literally), as well as the chance to enrich the music-loving public’s experience, the people who can make this happen want to find some way of making sure no one gets something for nothing.
The bottom line is the artists lose some potential audience, the music-lovers lose the opportunity to hear music they may not have access to, and the industry loses money, more than Napster may have cost them.
Myabe we’ll just see more and more small labels where the artists have control over their works and how they’re distributed.
Once again, I’m led back to this article I mentioned a few weeks back.