Friday, September 4, 2009

Reflection 2

Are the prompts for this reflection opposites? Is the choice between failed group efforts and successful group efforts? Did I misread?

IN ANY CASE

I consider the fight against media piracy, particularly through the internet, an example of a partially failed, partially successful group effort. In the schema I have in mind, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the losing group, while independent artists and their fans are the winners.

The reader should be quickly losing confidence with my authority: the RIAA, everyone knows, is all-powerful. Optimism on the side of unlabeled artists is naive. Despite the public distaste for the RIAA's anti-piracy methods mounting nationwide, (please excuse that mouthful of a half-sentence,) little progress seems to have been made by The Industry's opponents.

FIRSTLY

I have in mind a particular definition of "piracy": stealing. Via the internet, files containing copyrighted material (most commonly music) are easily downloaded, granting property ownership for free. My definition continues to verify that neither party favors piracy. The good guys hate piracy with the same vigor as the bad guys, for the exact same reason: it is a sap on their livelihood. Piracy, in my argument, is colored "bad".

AS AN ASIDE

I accept the argument that piracy may, in fact, have positive effects for independent artists, as it awards wide exposure to small-time artists that would otherwise have a hard time spreading their music. True, I say to those making this point, but such a narrow picture of things isn't appropriate for my point. Ultimately, piracy takes money away from the creators. Let the "bad" rating stand.

TO START

I present a brief and highly simplified history of the situation:

1.) Music is invented by humans, possibly inspired by birds.

2.) Much later, an industry is founded to distribute recorded music.

3.) The recording industry is extremely successful, by financial terms.

4.) Piracy exists through many mediums, including copied cassette tapes, burnt CDs, and finally in its most powerful form, the internet.

The RIAA has made numerous efforts to combat piracy. When faced with the threat of burnt CDs, anti-copying mechanisms were installed on new CDs. When Napster became an easy avenue for piracy, the RIAA used its influence to push through legislation to shut down the p2p software, and even sued a few of its most prolific users. Most recently, the RIAA (along with other powerful groups with similar interests) worked with Apple to put digital "protection" on all media bought through the iTunes Online Store. Effectively, all files acquired through iTunes cannot be freely passed to other computers, other software, or even onto too many burnt CDs.

If the reader is skimming, this is the paragraph where I present the failed group effort as mentioned in the prompt. The RIAA is failing at stopping piracy. I think their failure can be blamed on the fact that their solution to the problem does not properly serve all of the members of their "group", which I am taking to include both the RIAA and its customers. While the anti-piracy ploys work to ensure the income of the RIAA and its clients, these methods hurt the customers. (I am assuming the reader understands the frustration and inefficiency of .mp3 digital protection.)

IN CONTRAST

I insist that independent artists are a group that is (more) successful at fighting piracy. More bands have started approaching piracy as a problem that must be conquered by morality, not by force. Increasingly, bands are selling songs (both digitally and on CD) straight from their homes, without filtering them through the "protection" of the RIAA. This solution immediately brings an element of trust to the artist/fan relationship, something I think (as Gawande stressed) is quite effective at bringing effective change.

SPEAKING OF GAWANDE,

I think that I can fit the independent artists' solution to piracy into his three elements of betterment.

INGENUITY is apparent in the software that allows bands to sell music directly from the artist to the fan over the internet. This technology is so new, in fact, that it has not yet been deemed entirely legal. (I will leave it up to the reader to deduce which heavily influential industry is fighting against this legislation.)

DOING RIGHT can be seen in the fans' decision to, instead of downloading the music for free, supporting the artists by buying directly from them.

And DILIGENCE, I suppose, is the years and years of opposition pirates gave the RIAA, never giving up on the idea that the current system is too faulty to keep.

1 comment:

  1. The last bits in this piece about direct marketing and finding new ways to create transactions between up and coming artists and their fans is interesting. I wish you had written more about this. Is the model essentially the same as shareware for software downloads? If there are differences between the two, can you explains those? Also, as an old fogie and totally clueless about new music today, I don't understand how new artists market themselves. Is it through live performance or something else?

    On your discussion of RIAA, I was a bit dismayed that you didn't mention copyright at all. My own belief is that the Law itself is bad and that in fact causes piracy. In other words, if the Law were more reasonable, people would tend to adhere to it.

    On DRM, I'm under the impression that Steve Jobs reversed Apple's approach with iTunes a couple of years ago and now the music that you buy through the iTunes Store is in the clear.

    Finally, it would help me as a reader if you would identify the source of your information. You say that fans are paying for the music when it is direct marketed. What do you base that claim on? Do you have data on this yourself or are you citing something you read? (If the latter, then you need to do this.)

    ReplyDelete