Given that file sharing is not going away what does the music industry do?
-
Persuade their hired guns in Washington to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998.
-
Use the preceding to put the screws on internet streaming broadcasters.
-
Traditionally, radio broadcasters had to pay 3% of their revenues to composers, but not to artists or to copyright holders (record companies). The thinking was that the latter benefited from the promotional value of radio play.
This is clearly unacceptable. Consistent with the DMCA, royalties should be split 50/50 between the recording artists and the labels. After all, the latter middlemen have more effective lobbyists.
-
Demand that webcasters pay 15% of all revenues to them.
-
When negotiations break down, arrange for the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) to recommend a royalty rate 14¢ per song per listener for Internet-only webcasters ( .07¢ per song for commercial radio station simulcasts, and .02¢ per song for noncommercial radio simulcasts). c. 2/20/02. That will show 'em.
(That decision is currently under review.)
-
Make the royalties retroactive to 1998.
-
Advise your customers to avoid visiting http://saveinternetradio.org/ . Streaming internet radio is evil and should be allowed to die. Especially noncommercial internet radio. Do not, repeat, NOT contact your legislators, local press, etc.
-
Another link to avoid: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~willr/cb/sos/
That’s what the music industry does.
Musicguy: *Without this, it would be rare if an artist were able to promote themselves so succesfully that they could support a tour and continue to release more CD’s. It would still happen, just not nearly enough, IMHO. *
Maybe. But maybe not. Northern California’s Tres Pistolas has not been signed yet, but they are going on tour with funding by 8 coporate sponsors. (Small corporate sponsors as it happens, such as Dragonfly Shoes, Red Rum Liquor, Klik Wear, etc. They get to plaster their names on the tour bus, sort of like NASCAR.)
More generally, record companies may very well find themselves squeezed out of the music distribution business, as distribution costs continue to decline. At the same time, I strongly suspect that there will continue to be musicians, although they may find themselves associating more with agents, graphic designers and movie studios and less with record executives.
I’m a big fan of the local music model. I come from a town with a very cohesive and hard working local music scene (Sacramento).
There are a number of bands that have thrived on a local level for years, sometimes decades. Some of these people can live off of the music alone. Most of them have to have some kind of side job- usually related to the local music scene. Musicians own local studios, work at record stores, publish music magazines, own small record lables, run venues, design cover art and do photography for other bands.
It seems to be working pretty well. Even though they can’t get radio airplay (Sacramento radio stations often refuse to play even Sacramento bands that have gone national, much less local local bands) and live in a city with a lot of apathy towards anything local (Sacramento has the biggest case of San Francisco envy you’ve ever seen), local music still thrives. There is a huge amount of creativity, and the local music scene is a vibrant, ever-changeing, self-sustaining community. This not only benefits muciscians and the art of creating music, but it benefits the whole city.
Sure, nobodies idea of being a rock star involves waking up in the morning to open the record store you own, or calling up businesses to get advertisers for the magazine you publish, Being involved in a local music scene is a hell of a lot of work. And chances are you won’t get truely rich. But the advantage is a vitality, amount of artistic freedom, and a truely supportive community that the current system does not have.
This is what I would like to see replacing the record industry.