Music and the Modern Capitalist Economy

Greetings,

Today, I write about the music biz. (Brace yourself, it's gonna' be a long one.)

I have the media player set to play a random selection of Metallica tracks today, spanning the following albums: Kill 'Em All, Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets, ...And Justice For All, Metallica, and S&M. I, like a lot of folks out there, have a love/hate relationship with Metallica. I love EVERY song off of the albums I just listed. As far as metal goes, the first five Metallica albums are just not to be fucked with. I've read numerous critiques citing Master Of Puppets as the greatest metal album of all time. By the way, I am of the opinion that The Chemical Wedding, by Bruce Dickinson (of Iron Maiden) is BETTER than "the greatest metal album of all time." I don't just mean that it's better than Master Of Puppets - I mean it's better than even the title of "greatest metal album of all time." But I digress; the point is, Metallica is still like the gold standard for heavy metal. But they've got all of this other bullshit going on nowadays, and it just gets in the way of their music.

Of course, the "other bullshit" to which I am referring is the Napster controversy, as well as the group therapy and the personnel changes. The Napster thing's kind of tricky for me. I am an artist, and I would like to be paid for my art just like anyone else would, but I think that all of the RIAA's arguments on this one are just ill-conceived. And, of those ill-conceived arguments, few are more ridiculous than the excuse Lars Ulrich trumpets to try and keep Metallica's street credibility while still working to crush file sharing. I don't care enough to go and pull up a direct quote, but the basic idea is that the band found a copy of their single I Disappear online before they'd ever released it, and they were upset because they want to be the ones in control of how their music is distributed.

This is one of those George Carlin moments where you listen to someones argument and you think to yourself "Hmmm... it's articulate... it seems to make sense..." - then you think about it some more, and finally you realize, "No...wait... Yep! They're full of shit!"

The reason I think Lars is full of shit is because, it seems to me, all Metallica has to do to be in control of how their music is distributed is to not give any advanced copies of recorded material to anyone other than the people working on the project with them. It's not that difficult. Unless the recording studio gets broken into, or unless someone hacks into the studio's computer on which the song file is stored, they ARE in control of how it's distributed. If you want to be that secretive about new material, treat it like top-secret information. You don't give it to anyone you don't trust, or who doesn't have a need to know. Songs don't just show up on Napster by accident. Somebody has to put them on a computer to begin with, then that computer has to be logged in to a file-sharing network, or get hacked in order for the song to be let out onto the world wide web. For fuck's sake, it's not rocket-science. So, in the case of I Disappear, one of the band members or Bob "I killed metal" Rock probably had it on his computer, logged into Napster or some other file-sharing network - or got hacked - and it got out. Either way, it can't get out without either permission or negligence. And all of this is without even mentioning that the only reason Metallica ever got a chance to become as big as they are now is because a bunch of thrashers in San Fransisco in the early 80's used to trade a bunch of "dubbed" Metallica cassette tapes. They certainly weren't in control of their distribution back then.

The part that really sucks is that I can't quite figure out whether Lars knows that this is a bullshit argument or not. I guess it really doesn't matter. If he knows it's a bullshit argument, then he's a spoiled, rich rock-star who's afraid he may have to get a gold-lined swimming pool instead of a platinum one. If he doesn't know that it's a bullshit argument, then he's ignorant, out of touch with reality, and shouldn't really be allowed to make public statements - especially not to congress. Note - I should mention here that I write down a lot of bullshit arguments to support my opinions, but I will admit that they are bullshit in a second if someone calls me on it.

Whether or not he can smell his own bullshit is actually irrelevant even to the effect of the bullshit. On the one hand, it's nice to think that almost everyone I talk to sees the argument for bullshit (even if they haven't quite thought it through as completely as I have). On the other hand, people are still going to buy his music either way. Hell, if they came out with another album like ...And Justice For All, or Ride The Lightning, I would go buy it. Hence the "love/hate."

Like I said, the whole "piracy" issue is a difficult one for me. Ever since I was a little boy, I've wanted to be rock star. As I get older and I think about it more and more, though, I realize that the reason I want to be a rock star is not because of the money or the fame. I want to be a rock star simply because music is my true passion. It's the one thing that I'm exceptionally good at, and I think that I should be able to make a living at it. So, if you look at it strictly from that standpoint, you would think that I'd be on the side of the RIAA.

Well, the problem is, I am also very passionate about equality, justice, and fairness - almost as much as I am about music. I don't think it's fair that the RIAA can sue a housewife in Middle-America for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a few songs. That is not justice. Justice would not permit a huge and rich corporate entity to extract punitive damages from a person who most likely doesn't have the money to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive damages, and who, in my opinion, didn't actually steal anything.

I mentioned earlier that the RIAA's arguments are bogus. Here are a few examples of their rhetoric, and my equally rhetorical answers to each:

1.) People who illegally download songs off of the Internet are stealing money from the artists who work hard to make the music.

Ok, so this type of rhetoric plays to the sympathy of the audience by trying to victimize the artists. It often works because the artists are popular and people want to be on their side. That is, until you open your eyes and realize that you are living in a modest dwelling, driving a late model car, living paycheck to paycheck while your favorite artist - let's say... Brittany Spears - is wondering why one of her myriad personal assistants is late this morning, forcing Brittany to pack her own things for her next trip to the exclusive, posh rehab center that the judge ordered her to for driving under the influence in a car that probably cost more than your annual salary.

But let's not even worry about that for now. Let's assume that Brittany has earned every penny she has. Even so, it is fairly common knowledge that most of the profits in the music industry come from concert tickets, merchandise, and endorsements. The Cd's themselves don't contribute much toward Brittany's rehab bills - they contribute to the label's overhead, mostly. So then, you go back to the idea that file sharing takes away from that revenue. Well, then I will take you back to the fact that if the record label can shell out the money from the CD sales to pay for the cost of the tour, the management, the recording itself, and all of the other various overhead, and still afford to pay Brittany enough to live like she does, then they're really not hurting that badly. The point being - Brittany doesn't really make a great victim when you think about it.

2.) You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a TV. Illegally downloading copyrighted material is STEALING!! (Note - This argument was actually used by the MPAA, not the RIAA, but the principle is the same.)

First of all, this whole principal of file-sharing as "stealing" is based on a very liberal interpretation of the definition of the word. "Stealing," as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission." The RIAA argues in court that a copy of a copy of a copy is still the property of the original copyright holder. This is the only way they have a leg to stand on. That leg, however, is on a very, very slippery slope. The slippery slope rests on the public library system. I have, for the past couple of years, been working my way through the Dark Tower series by Stephen King. I purchased every book in the series, until I got to the last book. I didn't have the extra money to go buy the book, so I checked it out from the library. I read it and returned it. Neither Stephen King, nor his publisher got a single penny from me. Note - I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that part of the tax money that funds the public libraries goes to paying copyright fees, but I don't pay anything directly to that purpose.

In essence, file-sharing websites are just like the library. Sure there is the fact that you don't get to keep the copies of the material you check out from the library, but you have the right to go check it out as many times as you want, so essentially its the same end. The RIAA should focus their efforts on lobbying for the right to collect copyright fees from the file-sharing websites (like they do with radio stations) rather than suing the end users. It's much better PR, and it's more fair.

My rhetorical answer to the "you wouldn't steal a car..." part is this: A friend of mine has a BMW. Another friend of mine has a very nice plasma-screen HDTV. I would never dream of physically stealing either of those things - neither from my friends nor from the original dealers. If I could, however, go to my friends house and make an exact copy of his BMW, without hurting his original BMW, and allowing him to keep his original BMW, you bet your sweet ass I would. The same thing for my other friend's TV.

3.) We live in a capitalist society, and artists and record executives deserve their cut of the CD sales. File-sharing deprives them of that.

This is just a re-hash of #1, except that it brings capitalism into the picture. Anyone listening to this argument who actually knows even a little about the original principles of capitalism can see through this one. The underlying principle of capitalism is that competition will foster progress to the betterment of society. This is partially why, in the past 100 years, humanity has seen more technological advancement than in the previous 10,000 years.

In the novel Lullaby, author Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club) writes "The trick to forgetting the big picture is to look at everything close-up." This argument distracts us and keeps our attention on the details - the artists and the record companies not getting their money. The "big picture" is that capitalism is like evolution. Competition forges new ideas, and the best ideas grow and reproduce and thrive. The old ideas become obsolete and die out. The RIAA's traditional business model - making Cd's, selling them for $15 - $20, and using that money to support an extravagant tour to turn a profit - is obsolete. The business model isn't beyond saving; it just needs to adapt. The economy has changed, and the public has found an easier, less costly way to access recorded versions of the music they like. Meanwhile, people are still willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to go see The Rolling Stones, or Neil Young in concert. So with that in mind, here are some suggestions for the RIAA:

First, there are a couple of different ways to "add value" to a product. One is to add extra product for the same price, the other is to offer the same product at a lower price. All I've heard from the RIAA on this so far is that they are going to try to add some flashy packaging gimmicks to try to boost sales. Here's a thought: Sell Cd's with the same packaging that they had 10 years ago, for $5 -$7.50. I would buy a shitload of Cd's if they were only $5. Hell, man, people spend $5 on a fucking cup of coffee at Starbucks. I'm pretty sure they'd shell out $5 to get a copy of the new 50 Cent or Kanye album. Yeah, your profit margin on each CD might shrink, but you'd make up for it with volume. Not to mention that modern advances in digital recording techniques have made it easier than ever to produce quality recordings, which should logically help with production costs.

And for those people who just want a couple of songs, make the cost of legally downloading music cheaper as well. Cut the price in half. Sell songs for 50 cents a pop instead of a buck. I'm telling you, it would work. You'd still be able to make a killing on the tours, but you wouldn't have the bad PR of bankrupting hundreds of college students and Midwestern housewives over your greed and your lack of business vision.

Another idea, would be to start treating music like all other types of easily accessible media (Free TV, Free Newspapers, Free Websites, etc.) - SELL SOME FUCKING ADVERTISING!! The Stones were already figuring this out back when I saw them in concert in 2002. The whole tour was sponsored by E-Trade. I'm not sure exactly how you'd advertise on the recordings, but I'm sure there's some tweaked-out, hungry intern working for Sony, Columbia, or Elektra who could figure something out. You could also start negotiating for contractual rights to a cut of any commercial endorsement deals that the artists make. My point in this whole little section is that there are myriad ways to turn a healthy profit off of a product as appealing as todays pop music. You just have to adapt to the market.

Holy crap. This thing went on way longer than I thought it was going to. I hope you've enjoyed our time together here. Tune in next time for another fun-filled rant session with your favorite man of the cloth. Until then...

I am the Reverend Humpy and I have approved this message.