La présentation du juge Gomery m’a laissée plutôt incrédule jeudi dernier. L’écart extrême entre les générations semble être un problème clé, évidemment. Toutefois, comment se fait-il qu’en 2008, un projet de loi au contenu archaïque tel que le C-6 a-t-il pu voir le jour? Qui peut donc travailler sur l’élaboration de telles idées aussi et proposer la perpétuation de méthodes aussi désuètes? Il faudrait définitivement davantage d’Allen et de Ryan sur leur comité de consultation!
Le juge Gomery a finalement craché le morceau : la propriété intellectuelle n’est pas une priorité du gouvernement (actuel). Pourtant, comme l’a affirmé M. Tarlton mardi dernier, l’industrie de la musique est en grande forme. C’est plutôt les compagnies de disques qui éprouvent de graves difficultés. L’internet et toutes les possibilités que cet outil offre est une opportunité pour relancer une véritable économie créative et rentable de la musique. L’infrastructure requise est sans coût (sinon un abonnement à un serveur) et le potentiel est plutôt inexhaustible.
Cet écart irréconciliable entre la perception actuelle de la propriété intellectuelle (c’est-à-dire une propriété véritablement immatérielle, ou même une « propriété publique») et celle qui a donné lieu à l’instauration de « taxes » sur les cassettes et les disques vierges (propriété matérielle) est, à mon avis, une des raisons qui fait en sorte que le gouvernement continue à être littéralement déconnecté dans son approche du problème. Si les gens de ma génération (j’ai 30 ans) et celles précédentes ont, la majeure partie de leur vie, consommé leur musique à travers l’achat de cassettes et de disques compacts, très peu d’adolescent actuels le font. Cette culture de la musique que M. Tarlton décrivait (« Everybody was buying music then! ») est toujours présente, mais sa forme a changé. Toute la dimension physique et organique de l’achat de la musique n’est plus. Aujourd’hui, tout s’achète virtuellement. Comment faire comprendre à des enfants que derrière le « click here to buy now », il y a un véritable produit, une propriété jadis tangible? À mon avis, si le gouvernement s’acharne à conserver une conception traditionnelle de la propriété intellectuelle, il faut alors qu’elle soit responsable d’éduquer les jeunes générations qui sont déjà passées à une autre étape de la consommation de la musique : la virtuelle. Peut-être faudrait-il développer des outils de conscientisation et d’éducation sur les questions de propriété intellectuelle et de consommation responsable de la musique au même titre que ceux qui sont actuellement diffusé sur l’environnement et la sexualité? Nous informons les jeunes sur l’importance de ne pas commettre de crime, mais s’ils ne comprennent pas les enjeux actuels de l’industrie de la musique (contrairement à ceux qui comme moi on déjà physiquement acheté de la musique), peut-on les blâmer? Je ne le crois pas. Faudrait-il tout simplement penser à redéfinir la conception de « propriété » dans la propriété intellectuelle ou de trouver une façon de décentraliser la compétence fédérale sur la question?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Courtney on DKD and Seligman
Last week we had the opportunity to hear the ins and outs of the music and concert promotion business from Donald Tarlton(DKD) and Dan Seligman. The men shared insight from two very different sets of life experiences. They are in opposite stages of their careers: Dan, emerging and hopeful, Donald, trying to wind-down his career and looking back on his success. They represent different genres and are targeting different audiences: DKD the most popular bignames of the past few decades, and Dan, the smaller scale predominately indie scene. However, their differing life experiences did not lead to the stark difference in perspectives I had anticipated. Both spoke of the same fundamentals – the thrill of putting on a great show, love of music, and (with reluctance) the necessity of being a businessman.
While Donald certainly wears the business hat with more comfort than Dan it was present in both cases, and I do not see this as a negative thing. DKD’s story about cleverly ensuring profit at the concerts at Expo ’67 even after signing an unfavourable contract is an early glimmer of his success that would follow as a businessman. Finding a way to turn the same amount of music and same number of fans into profit by forcing them to pay repeatedly (for shorter shows) solved the $0.25 concert problem. Dan on the other hand is less focused on profit. He set up Pop Montreal as a non-profit organization to ensure its continued existence. He is still more business-minded than he wanted to admit though; expanding the festival, balancing the books, and hiring big name acts to draw in crowds (even at the risk of turning off his original target audience). Each of the men seemed intent on presenting himself more as a music enthusiast and thrill seeker than a practical number cruncher. It is evident from listening to them that success necessitates a balancing of both art and business sense though, so why the reluctance to admit this.
No matter how business minded DKD is, I still empathized with his story about having his most spiritual experience (“give peace a chance”) twisted and portrayed as the money grab of a greedy businessman. I think this shows one of the problems musicians face today, and something that needs to be overcome to ensure the success of the industry. We are too intent on being in one box or the other: the artist box, or the (evil) business box. We slot people into one role or the other, and then watch their disappointment as they realize that in truth we all need to be both.
I believe the balancing of business and music is required of artists, no matter how much we want to resist it. Whether you are a performer, composer, or concert promoter, this mingling of art and business cannot be ignored. For me, as a performer, realizing this was a tough blow. When I got my first job in an orchestra I quickly (and sadly) realized that it was no longer just about loving music. People were underpaid, concert repertoire was not always thrilling or challenging, and the majority of my colleagues did not even seem to like what they were doing. I was surrounded by people who had forgotten what drew them to music. They treated it as a job and it was devastating. I think the problem is that artists are not taught that it is ok, and even necessary, to be able to think business and art at the same time. We spend years training because we are passionate about music, but when it becomes the way to pay the bills the love is tested and we are not prepared to deal with it. I think that musicians need to learn from the beginning that the business side of things is unavoidable.
There is a fine line between greed and ambition, and between selling out and success, and this is the constant balancing act musicians must undertake. The most difficult stage is realizing that (as DKD said) this is a business. If musicians can allow themselves to think about the business side from time to time, and if the money managers think about the art side things will run smoothly. We will combine creativity and passion with entrepreneurial spirit and business sense and the music industry (and the artists within it) will thrive. At such a changing time for the industry, it is the perfect chance for us to challenge the norms, resist playing the artist vs. businessman game, and proudly wear both hats.
While Donald certainly wears the business hat with more comfort than Dan it was present in both cases, and I do not see this as a negative thing. DKD’s story about cleverly ensuring profit at the concerts at Expo ’67 even after signing an unfavourable contract is an early glimmer of his success that would follow as a businessman. Finding a way to turn the same amount of music and same number of fans into profit by forcing them to pay repeatedly (for shorter shows) solved the $0.25 concert problem. Dan on the other hand is less focused on profit. He set up Pop Montreal as a non-profit organization to ensure its continued existence. He is still more business-minded than he wanted to admit though; expanding the festival, balancing the books, and hiring big name acts to draw in crowds (even at the risk of turning off his original target audience). Each of the men seemed intent on presenting himself more as a music enthusiast and thrill seeker than a practical number cruncher. It is evident from listening to them that success necessitates a balancing of both art and business sense though, so why the reluctance to admit this.
No matter how business minded DKD is, I still empathized with his story about having his most spiritual experience (“give peace a chance”) twisted and portrayed as the money grab of a greedy businessman. I think this shows one of the problems musicians face today, and something that needs to be overcome to ensure the success of the industry. We are too intent on being in one box or the other: the artist box, or the (evil) business box. We slot people into one role or the other, and then watch their disappointment as they realize that in truth we all need to be both.
I believe the balancing of business and music is required of artists, no matter how much we want to resist it. Whether you are a performer, composer, or concert promoter, this mingling of art and business cannot be ignored. For me, as a performer, realizing this was a tough blow. When I got my first job in an orchestra I quickly (and sadly) realized that it was no longer just about loving music. People were underpaid, concert repertoire was not always thrilling or challenging, and the majority of my colleagues did not even seem to like what they were doing. I was surrounded by people who had forgotten what drew them to music. They treated it as a job and it was devastating. I think the problem is that artists are not taught that it is ok, and even necessary, to be able to think business and art at the same time. We spend years training because we are passionate about music, but when it becomes the way to pay the bills the love is tested and we are not prepared to deal with it. I think that musicians need to learn from the beginning that the business side of things is unavoidable.
There is a fine line between greed and ambition, and between selling out and success, and this is the constant balancing act musicians must undertake. The most difficult stage is realizing that (as DKD said) this is a business. If musicians can allow themselves to think about the business side from time to time, and if the money managers think about the art side things will run smoothly. We will combine creativity and passion with entrepreneurial spirit and business sense and the music industry (and the artists within it) will thrive. At such a changing time for the industry, it is the perfect chance for us to challenge the norms, resist playing the artist vs. businessman game, and proudly wear both hats.
Emilie on DKD and Seligman
At the beginning of his presentation, Donald K. Donald drew a distinction between the recording industry and the music industry, the latter of which he referred to as “alive and well”. As a concert producer, Donald seemed able to take a more detached look at the mistakes made by the major labels, even criticizing some of his own business moves. Donald not only seemed conscious of the thriving local music scene, but went as far as to commend the indie movement for its creativity and innovative qualities, comparing it to the jazz of the 20s. I found his attitude to be refreshing, considering it was coming from someone who spent his career promoting massive mainstream artists. Yet toward the end of his presentation, Donald made a comment about no indie band ever reaching “stadium status”. This presumption that stadium status is somehow indicative of success and is what all bands strive for, quickly shattered my hopes that the lecture would be more than a display of the “generational gap” between old and new business models.
What is interesting about Dan’s business model, however, is that it does not function very differently from Donald’s. The main difference seems to lie in the size of the events. This distinction is not insignificant, however, as it gets at a major difference between the ethic of alternative and mainstream cultures. Huge stadium shows sell out year after year because of fans’ attachment and loyalty toward an artist, while concert goers in the independent music scene are motivated not by their devotion to the people behind the music, but to the music itself. While there are “Beatles fans” and “Bruce Springsteen fans” who proudly identify as such, you will be hard-pressed to find a “tUnE-YarDs” or a “the xx fan”, and yet many people will claim to love their music. In short, the “indie ethic” is based far more on the appreciation of individual tracks or albums than it is on personal attachment to the creators. This focus on music over image, as Dan pointed out, was a reaction against the big overly-marketed stadium bands of the 90s.
To the outside world, this perceived lack of loyalty, for example, upon an artist’s return into town or the release of a new album, makes indie fans occasionally look like traitors with short attention spans who are too cheap to actually purchase their “favourite band’s” CDs. It is also the lack of personal/emotional identification with the creator that perhaps partly explains the resistance toward paying for music.
Still, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the anti-image, anti-marketing ethic of indie culture and what Dan does, promoting and managing emerging artists. Dan seems to toe the line quite effectively between aiming for larger, long-term success of artists and maintaining an authentic, grassroots aura to his business. This clever balancing act is probably the reason Dan has been so successful and also the reason that he will not be producing stadium shows any time soon.
What is interesting about Dan’s business model, however, is that it does not function very differently from Donald’s. The main difference seems to lie in the size of the events. This distinction is not insignificant, however, as it gets at a major difference between the ethic of alternative and mainstream cultures. Huge stadium shows sell out year after year because of fans’ attachment and loyalty toward an artist, while concert goers in the independent music scene are motivated not by their devotion to the people behind the music, but to the music itself. While there are “Beatles fans” and “Bruce Springsteen fans” who proudly identify as such, you will be hard-pressed to find a “tUnE-YarDs” or a “the xx fan”, and yet many people will claim to love their music. In short, the “indie ethic” is based far more on the appreciation of individual tracks or albums than it is on personal attachment to the creators. This focus on music over image, as Dan pointed out, was a reaction against the big overly-marketed stadium bands of the 90s.
To the outside world, this perceived lack of loyalty, for example, upon an artist’s return into town or the release of a new album, makes indie fans occasionally look like traitors with short attention spans who are too cheap to actually purchase their “favourite band’s” CDs. It is also the lack of personal/emotional identification with the creator that perhaps partly explains the resistance toward paying for music.
Still, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the anti-image, anti-marketing ethic of indie culture and what Dan does, promoting and managing emerging artists. Dan seems to toe the line quite effectively between aiming for larger, long-term success of artists and maintaining an authentic, grassroots aura to his business. This clever balancing act is probably the reason Dan has been so successful and also the reason that he will not be producing stadium shows any time soon.
Federico on DKD and Seligman
Donald K. Donald’s recollection of personal experiences in the music industry throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s was at the same time entertaining and filled with interesting advice for both ourselves and for future generations.
Donald’s started off in the music business as a DJ back in the 60s. Founder of a number of large-scale rock festivals in Montreal and Toronto, he soon understood (even as early as the 60s) that it is necessary to plunge into the culture that immediately surrounds you in order to attract the attention and sympathy of audiences; he also quickly understood the importance of approaching and communicating with Montreal’s bilingual audiences in both French and English.
After his first experiences as an events creator, he became a record producer in the 70s, founding his first record company, basing his business on the concept that “everything is about personal connections with producers and agents.”
By the 90s, he was one of the most prominent and influential figures in the music business in Canada, mostly working in the Montreal and Toronto areas. Thanks to his almost 50 years of experience as a record producer, founder of small and large-scale events, PR and artist agent, Donald possesses a very clear vision of the evolution of the music market from the 60s up until to today. This vision puts the markets of today and tomorrow in the context of the paradigm shift that began already in the 90s. While originating in the “wealth for everyone” ideal of the pre-90s situation, the business became progressively more restrained, and this continues to characterize today’s situation in many ways. People in the business tried to adapt to the new post-90s way of business making by moving in different directions, in particular by looking abroad to reach larger and larger audiences and find new ways of selling music as a product. Michael Cole, for example, created the idea of worldwide touring. Canada, Donald said, maintained the leadership in this process of renewal of the music business all the way through the 90s (for example, Live Nation and Ticketmaster were created in Canada in response to this paradigm shift) and continues to do so.
As a result of this paradigm shift, a new and challenging future for the music business has dawned. Subscription services and the need to prevent loss incurred from illegal downloading (mainly by making products more accessible to people) have been highlighted by Donald as two of the major issues the music business has to face today.
Complementary to Donald’s talk was Dan Seligman’s talk on the festival Pop Montreal. Seligman focused mainly on the circumstances surrounding today’s live shows, describing how Pop Montreal works and how it constitutes a successful model; as a non-profit organization, re-designed year by year, the festival is always in the process of evolving (incidentally, evolution was a point on which both speakers strongly agreed). Reaching out for broader audiences by means of the combination of both more and less well-known artists is a key element for Seligman and his festival.
Donald’s started off in the music business as a DJ back in the 60s. Founder of a number of large-scale rock festivals in Montreal and Toronto, he soon understood (even as early as the 60s) that it is necessary to plunge into the culture that immediately surrounds you in order to attract the attention and sympathy of audiences; he also quickly understood the importance of approaching and communicating with Montreal’s bilingual audiences in both French and English.
After his first experiences as an events creator, he became a record producer in the 70s, founding his first record company, basing his business on the concept that “everything is about personal connections with producers and agents.”
By the 90s, he was one of the most prominent and influential figures in the music business in Canada, mostly working in the Montreal and Toronto areas. Thanks to his almost 50 years of experience as a record producer, founder of small and large-scale events, PR and artist agent, Donald possesses a very clear vision of the evolution of the music market from the 60s up until to today. This vision puts the markets of today and tomorrow in the context of the paradigm shift that began already in the 90s. While originating in the “wealth for everyone” ideal of the pre-90s situation, the business became progressively more restrained, and this continues to characterize today’s situation in many ways. People in the business tried to adapt to the new post-90s way of business making by moving in different directions, in particular by looking abroad to reach larger and larger audiences and find new ways of selling music as a product. Michael Cole, for example, created the idea of worldwide touring. Canada, Donald said, maintained the leadership in this process of renewal of the music business all the way through the 90s (for example, Live Nation and Ticketmaster were created in Canada in response to this paradigm shift) and continues to do so.
As a result of this paradigm shift, a new and challenging future for the music business has dawned. Subscription services and the need to prevent loss incurred from illegal downloading (mainly by making products more accessible to people) have been highlighted by Donald as two of the major issues the music business has to face today.
Complementary to Donald’s talk was Dan Seligman’s talk on the festival Pop Montreal. Seligman focused mainly on the circumstances surrounding today’s live shows, describing how Pop Montreal works and how it constitutes a successful model; as a non-profit organization, re-designed year by year, the festival is always in the process of evolving (incidentally, evolution was a point on which both speakers strongly agreed). Reaching out for broader audiences by means of the combination of both more and less well-known artists is a key element for Seligman and his festival.
Jenna on Gomery
It was very interesting to hear Justice Gomery’s explanation of copyright law. Understanding that not everybody in this class is a lawyer, one area that I would have liked to hear him discuss in greater detail is the division between federal and provincial jurisdiction over copyright law. Although Justice Gomery highlighted that copyright law is Federal jurisdiction, one may be able to argue that copyright law forms part of intellectual property. If it can be successfully argued that intellectual property is considered “property” (and this is debatable for reasons beyond the scope of this reflection paper), then it could be argued that the provincial government is capable of legislating on intellectual property. This is because “property and civil rights” is subject to provincial jurisdiction (see s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867).
To me, this idea is potentially quite important because Justice Gomery spent much of his lecture discussing the Federal government’s various delays in properly adjudicating copyright law. Some examples include the first enactment of copyright law almost 60 years after the introduction of the Constitution, another 60 year delay to amend the original Copyright Act, the 10 year delay in properly setting up the Copyright Appeal Board and most importantly, the continual dissolutions of Parliament thwarting any opportunity to update existing Copyright law.
Without engaging in a full discussion of constitutional law, a principle of constitutional interpretation called “the double aspects” doctrine may successfully be employed if intellectual property were considered property. The double aspects doctrine tells us that laws at both levels of government that regulate a similar subject matter could be upheld. Often, the double aspects doctrine is overtaken by the “paramountcy doctrine” which gives precedence to federal law when laws at two levels of government are in dispute. That said, the double aspects doctrine could usefully be employed to fill some legislative gap until the other level of government decides to act.
The reason that I raise these constitutional law principles is because Justice Gomery’s discussion of copyright law made it very clear to me that the federal government is doing a very poor job in keeping copyright law up-to-date with changes in technology. While I side with others in this class that the copyright bills that died on the order paper were hugely flawed, the status quo is not the answer to the copyright issues with which we are faced. For this reason (notwithstanding our own governmental instability in Quebec), I think it may be possible for provincial governments to start to do something about copyright law. While the provincial governments may not be able to enact a sustainable solution if the federal government ever does pass a new copyright bill, it may still be a worthwhile exercise for to undertake. I say this because as mentioned, the federal approaches to copyright to date have been deficient. Perhaps, a well-reasoned provincial position can be influential on whatever modifications are to be made to existing copyright law in the future.
To me, this idea is potentially quite important because Justice Gomery spent much of his lecture discussing the Federal government’s various delays in properly adjudicating copyright law. Some examples include the first enactment of copyright law almost 60 years after the introduction of the Constitution, another 60 year delay to amend the original Copyright Act, the 10 year delay in properly setting up the Copyright Appeal Board and most importantly, the continual dissolutions of Parliament thwarting any opportunity to update existing Copyright law.
Without engaging in a full discussion of constitutional law, a principle of constitutional interpretation called “the double aspects” doctrine may successfully be employed if intellectual property were considered property. The double aspects doctrine tells us that laws at both levels of government that regulate a similar subject matter could be upheld. Often, the double aspects doctrine is overtaken by the “paramountcy doctrine” which gives precedence to federal law when laws at two levels of government are in dispute. That said, the double aspects doctrine could usefully be employed to fill some legislative gap until the other level of government decides to act.
The reason that I raise these constitutional law principles is because Justice Gomery’s discussion of copyright law made it very clear to me that the federal government is doing a very poor job in keeping copyright law up-to-date with changes in technology. While I side with others in this class that the copyright bills that died on the order paper were hugely flawed, the status quo is not the answer to the copyright issues with which we are faced. For this reason (notwithstanding our own governmental instability in Quebec), I think it may be possible for provincial governments to start to do something about copyright law. While the provincial governments may not be able to enact a sustainable solution if the federal government ever does pass a new copyright bill, it may still be a worthwhile exercise for to undertake. I say this because as mentioned, the federal approaches to copyright to date have been deficient. Perhaps, a well-reasoned provincial position can be influential on whatever modifications are to be made to existing copyright law in the future.
Guillaume on Gomery
When Bryson prompted Gomery to supply some justifications as to how and why
copyright functions in the way it does, Gomeryʼs response was revealing: given an
alternative model, “what do [the artists] live on?”. Thus, we may conclude, according toGomery, the need to monetize artistic works is the principal justification upon which copyright should exist. Itʼs worth nothing that a discussion of the moral rights of artists was conspicuously absent from his discussion. For Gomery, the duty of copyright may well be to “protect the creative expression of ideas,” but in this case the verb “to protect” may well be synonymous with “to compensate.”
This viewpoint led me to consider some of the problems that arise when “law and
economics” drive our “moral” justifications for copyright policy and the realm of artistic creation. I came to two main conclusions. First (and perhaps more obvious), this view places the financial aspects related to the production of art ahead of the art itself. We already see some of the consequences of this tacit philosophy within society: a clampdown on sampling and remix culture; ridiculous claims of musical copying being taken to and allowed to stand in court (a recent example: http://tinyurl.com/yhn6omc); a corporate fixation with analyzing the technical details in othersʼ art to prove unlawful copying (to monetize damages from it) at the expense of looking at the bigger picture.
The possibilities for what might qualify as art and for protection are practically restricted, due to looming lawsuits; in some very meaningful way, new forms of artistic expression are limited in favour of “originality” based on the old models.
Second, yet also more worrisome for the future of art, the lenses of compensation reduce our common ability (and sometimes, even our obligations) to think about the creative process collaboratively, as collaborations necessarily render the legal
questions of ownership and payment significantly more complex. Rather, this model
encourages a simple view where composers apparently compose independently in a
vacuum (or if they do not, cannot state so publicly) in order to keep a payment system - already very complex in and of itself - as simple as possible. The growing use of “ghost” composers/writers/etc. who derive only a highly limited benefit from their work, because they are paid “up front” to sign over all rights to their work to a bigger and more marketable name, is a symptom of these legal complications and the desire to avoid them for financial interests. Yet by doing so, we sacrifice some of the very principles we originally sought to defend with copyright. In all, an ever-growing amount of rights that are supposed to protect intellectual property are concentrated into fewer peoplesʼ hands, and those people are less often the artists/creators/inventors.
Thinking about copyright through the lenses of normative law and economics
might make good business and/or legal sense, but it does not make good artistic sense, that very same intangible characteristic that copyright was originally supposed to encourage and protect.
copyright functions in the way it does, Gomeryʼs response was revealing: given an
alternative model, “what do [the artists] live on?”. Thus, we may conclude, according toGomery, the need to monetize artistic works is the principal justification upon which copyright should exist. Itʼs worth nothing that a discussion of the moral rights of artists was conspicuously absent from his discussion. For Gomery, the duty of copyright may well be to “protect the creative expression of ideas,” but in this case the verb “to protect” may well be synonymous with “to compensate.”
This viewpoint led me to consider some of the problems that arise when “law and
economics” drive our “moral” justifications for copyright policy and the realm of artistic creation. I came to two main conclusions. First (and perhaps more obvious), this view places the financial aspects related to the production of art ahead of the art itself. We already see some of the consequences of this tacit philosophy within society: a clampdown on sampling and remix culture; ridiculous claims of musical copying being taken to and allowed to stand in court (a recent example: http://tinyurl.com/yhn6omc); a corporate fixation with analyzing the technical details in othersʼ art to prove unlawful copying (to monetize damages from it) at the expense of looking at the bigger picture.
The possibilities for what might qualify as art and for protection are practically restricted, due to looming lawsuits; in some very meaningful way, new forms of artistic expression are limited in favour of “originality” based on the old models.
Second, yet also more worrisome for the future of art, the lenses of compensation reduce our common ability (and sometimes, even our obligations) to think about the creative process collaboratively, as collaborations necessarily render the legal
questions of ownership and payment significantly more complex. Rather, this model
encourages a simple view where composers apparently compose independently in a
vacuum (or if they do not, cannot state so publicly) in order to keep a payment system - already very complex in and of itself - as simple as possible. The growing use of “ghost” composers/writers/etc. who derive only a highly limited benefit from their work, because they are paid “up front” to sign over all rights to their work to a bigger and more marketable name, is a symptom of these legal complications and the desire to avoid them for financial interests. Yet by doing so, we sacrifice some of the very principles we originally sought to defend with copyright. In all, an ever-growing amount of rights that are supposed to protect intellectual property are concentrated into fewer peoplesʼ hands, and those people are less often the artists/creators/inventors.
Thinking about copyright through the lenses of normative law and economics
might make good business and/or legal sense, but it does not make good artistic sense, that very same intangible characteristic that copyright was originally supposed to encourage and protect.
Maxime's Reflections on Collins
Karen Collins’ research explores music semiotics, or the way music can be conceived as a language. She argues that interactivity between users and music increases music symbolism by providing a different experience to users, who are usually passive listeners. For example, sound effects in a slot machine may induce players to believe they are winning, when in fact they are losing by getting less money than they are betting. Interactivity in this case comes from the relation between the sound produced by the machine and the players’ input. Furthermore, Karen Collins also seems to argue that interactivity may cure the music industry modern ailments and that artists should embrace this new trend.
Interactivity may indeed enhance user’s experiences with media or their environment more generally. It has the potential to create a unique soundtrack for each individual in a particular space and time, adapted to their actions and their (often unconscious) needs or desires. Karen Collins insisted on the importance of interactivity in the video games industry, but I think it could go beyond this area. For example, museums may embrace interactivity and create technical devices which would provide visitors with a musical experience adapted to their perambulations. The Montreal Fine Arts Museum has already taken steps in this direction by creating a music soundtrack for its exhibitions, but it could go further and implement an integrated interface between visitors, music and pieces of arts through movement detectors and ingenious composition.
However, I don’t agree with Karen Collins views that the future of music lies in interactivity. I think interactivity between music listeners and musicians will stay a marginal trend, as it already is. A handful of musicians may be ready to integrate their fans' input during the creative process or even when their final piece is completed, as AIR has done, but I think most musicians would not agree to relinquish their control over their creation. Musicians who primarily live from their art tend to see music as an expression of their intimate self that they reveal to their public. They may accept to enter in a dialogue with the public over the quality of their creation, but letting the public modify it, even slightly, is a completely different matter.
The emphasis on interactivity advocated by Karen Collins involves a transformation of our conception of music: from a self-standing art, it becomes a mere tool that accompanies and enhances other experiences. But music is an experience in itself and I think that its complete dilution with other sensorial experiences would be a loss for musicians and for their public. As a music listener, I do not necessarily feel an urge to be involved in the music I am listening to, as I would not want to change a book that I like, even if I feel that I would have done things differently. Therefore, although interactivity may change our interaction with different activities, I do not think it will change our relation to music itself on the long term.
Interactivity may indeed enhance user’s experiences with media or their environment more generally. It has the potential to create a unique soundtrack for each individual in a particular space and time, adapted to their actions and their (often unconscious) needs or desires. Karen Collins insisted on the importance of interactivity in the video games industry, but I think it could go beyond this area. For example, museums may embrace interactivity and create technical devices which would provide visitors with a musical experience adapted to their perambulations. The Montreal Fine Arts Museum has already taken steps in this direction by creating a music soundtrack for its exhibitions, but it could go further and implement an integrated interface between visitors, music and pieces of arts through movement detectors and ingenious composition.
However, I don’t agree with Karen Collins views that the future of music lies in interactivity. I think interactivity between music listeners and musicians will stay a marginal trend, as it already is. A handful of musicians may be ready to integrate their fans' input during the creative process or even when their final piece is completed, as AIR has done, but I think most musicians would not agree to relinquish their control over their creation. Musicians who primarily live from their art tend to see music as an expression of their intimate self that they reveal to their public. They may accept to enter in a dialogue with the public over the quality of their creation, but letting the public modify it, even slightly, is a completely different matter.
The emphasis on interactivity advocated by Karen Collins involves a transformation of our conception of music: from a self-standing art, it becomes a mere tool that accompanies and enhances other experiences. But music is an experience in itself and I think that its complete dilution with other sensorial experiences would be a loss for musicians and for their public. As a music listener, I do not necessarily feel an urge to be involved in the music I am listening to, as I would not want to change a book that I like, even if I feel that I would have done things differently. Therefore, although interactivity may change our interaction with different activities, I do not think it will change our relation to music itself on the long term.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Alex's Reflections on Gomery
What an unusual treat to meet a TV celebrity of sorts at McGill. John Gomery, who could seemingly be anyone’s grandpa, provided an interesting overview of the copyright board at a level that even musicians could understand. Some thoughts are as follows:
Gomery firstly demonstrated the opposition of interests – industry versus heritage – which, in a very clinical and departmental way, reflect the larger condition: a yawning gap of purpose between producers of art as a commodity (which it is, of course) and producers of art that is exclusively self-purposed and non-economic. Of course, most good art is a bit of both. Similarly, from the most judicial standpoint, both of these sides have merit which thus leads the design of public policy to a grinding stalemate.
What I would call a “minor solution” or even just a treatment for the problem of unlicensed media-sharing came to Canada at one point in the form of a levy on blank cassettes which was then distributed to artist collectives. Any amplification of this to address issues in digital media is evidently a parliamentary concern and more openly subject to the will of the people. The unresolved issues of this wider application are related to its “open-endedness”: all users pay for an untraceable problem that not everyone causes, and artists collectives don’t necessarily represent everyone that deserves to be compensated, not to mention that verification of the records involved is an extremely arduous and no doubt expensive task which funnels money away from being properly distributed to creators. What’s interesting about royalties is that artists seem to appreciate them, and that royalty payments do their job without crippling the media industries that make them possible. Such an idea that is basically efficient for much of the time probably has enough merit to stay put.
Conversely, it surprises me that the idea of supporting artists via an updated levy system has not come up or has not been strongly voiced by the community. My prediction is that when the wounds of Big Music’s collapse heal in earnest, assuming still-further growth of populist, non-commercial or independent representation of artists, a new or renewed voice for a levy model may indeed appear with the necessary strength and public respectability for a vote of democratic confidence (certainly compared to the last proposed copyright reform in Canada and assuming that a version of “Google Music” doesn’t magnetize public will away from this).
What I want to caution against is the idea that the law can solve any problem. Indeed we should remind ourselves that, with a toolbox full of hammers, not every objective is a nail. When a large number of people have strong and different viewpoints on an issue – the creation of art versus its unlicensed distribution – the wisest thing can be to do nothing during the period of “populist regress,” that is, until a clear direction of opinion emerges. Excessive regulation to ensure a seemingly “fair” deal for artists may not actually contribute to art in the end, presenting a matter of significant ethical complication into the discussion as Gomery alluded to on discriminating between “creators who do and creators who don’t want to be paid for their work.” While collective-based royalties and levies on internet services should be explored to the fullest extent the public will allow to the advantage of artists, a cautious approach should be taken on more direct public funding, again in Gomery’s words, because artists “should not become employees of the state.”
Lastly, regulatory steps to remedy copyright violations endemic at today’s levels will have to be small and segmented, rather than intrusive and overbearing. An example would be a small fee charged through your internet service provider to be distributed to content creators (not just music, but books, newspapers, etc.) as a hybrid of the way that 911 fees are charged on your cellphone bill and levies were collected on blank copying media. The question is in what proportion levies like this should be distributed to creators and on what basis these proportions are determined. If an answer is practicable, the solution that results could be an interesting and appropriate response to the problems presented. From there, the challenge lies in international agreements with countries that have even poorer copyright protection environments (like China) or more strange (like the USA), in which Canadian innovations will hopefully, one day, find an ear.
Gomery firstly demonstrated the opposition of interests – industry versus heritage – which, in a very clinical and departmental way, reflect the larger condition: a yawning gap of purpose between producers of art as a commodity (which it is, of course) and producers of art that is exclusively self-purposed and non-economic. Of course, most good art is a bit of both. Similarly, from the most judicial standpoint, both of these sides have merit which thus leads the design of public policy to a grinding stalemate.
What I would call a “minor solution” or even just a treatment for the problem of unlicensed media-sharing came to Canada at one point in the form of a levy on blank cassettes which was then distributed to artist collectives. Any amplification of this to address issues in digital media is evidently a parliamentary concern and more openly subject to the will of the people. The unresolved issues of this wider application are related to its “open-endedness”: all users pay for an untraceable problem that not everyone causes, and artists collectives don’t necessarily represent everyone that deserves to be compensated, not to mention that verification of the records involved is an extremely arduous and no doubt expensive task which funnels money away from being properly distributed to creators. What’s interesting about royalties is that artists seem to appreciate them, and that royalty payments do their job without crippling the media industries that make them possible. Such an idea that is basically efficient for much of the time probably has enough merit to stay put.
Conversely, it surprises me that the idea of supporting artists via an updated levy system has not come up or has not been strongly voiced by the community. My prediction is that when the wounds of Big Music’s collapse heal in earnest, assuming still-further growth of populist, non-commercial or independent representation of artists, a new or renewed voice for a levy model may indeed appear with the necessary strength and public respectability for a vote of democratic confidence (certainly compared to the last proposed copyright reform in Canada and assuming that a version of “Google Music” doesn’t magnetize public will away from this).
What I want to caution against is the idea that the law can solve any problem. Indeed we should remind ourselves that, with a toolbox full of hammers, not every objective is a nail. When a large number of people have strong and different viewpoints on an issue – the creation of art versus its unlicensed distribution – the wisest thing can be to do nothing during the period of “populist regress,” that is, until a clear direction of opinion emerges. Excessive regulation to ensure a seemingly “fair” deal for artists may not actually contribute to art in the end, presenting a matter of significant ethical complication into the discussion as Gomery alluded to on discriminating between “creators who do and creators who don’t want to be paid for their work.” While collective-based royalties and levies on internet services should be explored to the fullest extent the public will allow to the advantage of artists, a cautious approach should be taken on more direct public funding, again in Gomery’s words, because artists “should not become employees of the state.”
Lastly, regulatory steps to remedy copyright violations endemic at today’s levels will have to be small and segmented, rather than intrusive and overbearing. An example would be a small fee charged through your internet service provider to be distributed to content creators (not just music, but books, newspapers, etc.) as a hybrid of the way that 911 fees are charged on your cellphone bill and levies were collected on blank copying media. The question is in what proportion levies like this should be distributed to creators and on what basis these proportions are determined. If an answer is practicable, the solution that results could be an interesting and appropriate response to the problems presented. From there, the challenge lies in international agreements with countries that have even poorer copyright protection environments (like China) or more strange (like the USA), in which Canadian innovations will hopefully, one day, find an ear.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Maxime's Reflections on Sandy Pearlman
In his presentation, M. Pearlman presented two theses: the first concerns the collision of two technological trend lines, while the second relates to a new business model for the music industry. I will examine these two theses successively.
1. The Cloud v. The Paradise of Infinite Storage
Pearlman argues that two opposite technology trend lines are evolving in the same time and will soon collide.
The first trend is the Cloud Computing, which describes a new model for IT services based on internet rather than on personal hardwares. Applied to music, this model would lead to the storage of digital music in the Cloud. Users would therefore access music directly on the Cloud and would not have to store them on their personal computers. Streaming on You Tube or Music Me is a good example of this trend. Pearlman criticizes this model because it leads to the concentration of information on corporate servers, which are behind the cloud, at the expense of users’ autonomy and anonymity. This concentration would also facilitate the enforcement of IP rights over the internet, which Pearlman sees as a threat since he conceives contemporary IP rights as an archaic artifact of the 18th century.
Pearlman calls the second trend “The Paradise of Infinite Storage”. This trend is based on innovation in engineering which leads to the development of small material devices that have the potential to store the totality of the music ever made. This trend makes the cloud useless because all users will eventually have the possibility to store everything they need on a single device, the size of a guitar pick. It also reinforces autonomy and anonymity, at the expense of the enforcement of IP rights.
2. Recommendation Engines and the 5 Cents Solution
Pearlman proposed a new model for the music industry. His idea is that songs should be sold over the internet for 5 cents rather than 99 cents. Pearlman argues that most consumers of free and illegal music would be ready to pay 5 cents for their music just to ensure that their download is safe and reliable. The economic value would therefore lie in the guarantees of reliability and safety rather than on the music itself.
To support this proposal, Pearlman also militates for the creation of powerful recommendation engines which would “lead anyone in the world to all the music in the world they would love if only they knew it existed”. This engine would in theory exponentially increase music’s demand, a necessary prerequisite to sustain the industry if it adopts the 5 cents model which needs a huge amount of music consumption to be profitable. But this model is based on the assumption that music consumers are, in their vast majority, eager to discover new music. The actual situation of the music industry indicates, however, that demand is often concentrated on a very small number of artists and songs. The viability of this model for marginal artists with a small fan base is therefore highly questionable.
1. The Cloud v. The Paradise of Infinite Storage
Pearlman argues that two opposite technology trend lines are evolving in the same time and will soon collide.
The first trend is the Cloud Computing, which describes a new model for IT services based on internet rather than on personal hardwares. Applied to music, this model would lead to the storage of digital music in the Cloud. Users would therefore access music directly on the Cloud and would not have to store them on their personal computers. Streaming on You Tube or Music Me is a good example of this trend. Pearlman criticizes this model because it leads to the concentration of information on corporate servers, which are behind the cloud, at the expense of users’ autonomy and anonymity. This concentration would also facilitate the enforcement of IP rights over the internet, which Pearlman sees as a threat since he conceives contemporary IP rights as an archaic artifact of the 18th century.
Pearlman calls the second trend “The Paradise of Infinite Storage”. This trend is based on innovation in engineering which leads to the development of small material devices that have the potential to store the totality of the music ever made. This trend makes the cloud useless because all users will eventually have the possibility to store everything they need on a single device, the size of a guitar pick. It also reinforces autonomy and anonymity, at the expense of the enforcement of IP rights.
2. Recommendation Engines and the 5 Cents Solution
Pearlman proposed a new model for the music industry. His idea is that songs should be sold over the internet for 5 cents rather than 99 cents. Pearlman argues that most consumers of free and illegal music would be ready to pay 5 cents for their music just to ensure that their download is safe and reliable. The economic value would therefore lie in the guarantees of reliability and safety rather than on the music itself.
To support this proposal, Pearlman also militates for the creation of powerful recommendation engines which would “lead anyone in the world to all the music in the world they would love if only they knew it existed”. This engine would in theory exponentially increase music’s demand, a necessary prerequisite to sustain the industry if it adopts the 5 cents model which needs a huge amount of music consumption to be profitable. But this model is based on the assumption that music consumers are, in their vast majority, eager to discover new music. The actual situation of the music industry indicates, however, that demand is often concentrated on a very small number of artists and songs. The viability of this model for marginal artists with a small fan base is therefore highly questionable.
Jen's Reflections on Heward
Lyn Heward’s ‘Seven Doors to Creativity’ presentation was both eye-opening and inspiring; particularly from a performer’s perspective. I am at a point in my development as an artist that I am on the cusp of being able to incorporate much of what Ms. Heward speaks of into my own development as an artist.
I have also been reading her book ‘The Spark’, which covers the same elements she discussed in-class, but in a more narrative format. The book is geared more towards a ‘traditional’ business person – perhaps unhappy with their work, one who has lost their youthful enthusiasm, and probably feels trapped by their particular industry. I went through a similar questioning of my life-direction when I finished my first under-graduate degree and had been working as a secretary for nearly 2 years. Upon asking the question of myself ‘Who Am I?’, I answered it by knowing that I would not be doing office work for the rest of my life. Within six months of beginning singing training, I decided on a career in singing and music. As Ms. Heward mentions, risk is a necessary element of creativity, so in the spirit of risk and pursuit of music, I talked to my employer and was able to transfer my secure, full-time job down to part-time.
For the past 8 or 9 years I have been very focused on technique and ‘learning the ropes’ so to speak, of my craft. Now that I have an excellent handle on the more technical aspects of singing, I can focus on the more ‘creative’ sides of my craft. Every job, task, or position has constraints on it that are unique to the thing itself. Just as a project or an organization has deadlines, guidelines, and outlines; musicians and performing arts companies, particularly singers and opera houses, must work within the poetic, musical, and stylistic constraints of a particular piece. What I have learned as a performer is this: one cannot be truly, creatively, free, until one has the entire piece, including the poetry, the music, and the stylistic demands, under technical control and ideally memorized. The constraints of the piece define it, but also allow the performer to be creative in delivery. This guideline also applies to opera companies and directors where repetitive repertoire is the norm.
When one has creative ownership of a piece, a performance is more interesting to the audience. Probably the single most difficult aspect of my craft (on a personal level) is taking a risk and sharing from the inside-out. Yet, this is precisely where the greatest creative rewards lie. Just as an employee sees a leader putting in the extra hours (or not) for a project, the audience knows when they are being cheated of an honest and generous performance.
Ms. Heward’s ‘Seven Doors to Creativity’ made it apparent that creativity in the arts can be applied to any business, but can also be applied to growth as an individual performer. I very much look forward to personally developing my own seven doors to creativity.
I have also been reading her book ‘The Spark’, which covers the same elements she discussed in-class, but in a more narrative format. The book is geared more towards a ‘traditional’ business person – perhaps unhappy with their work, one who has lost their youthful enthusiasm, and probably feels trapped by their particular industry. I went through a similar questioning of my life-direction when I finished my first under-graduate degree and had been working as a secretary for nearly 2 years. Upon asking the question of myself ‘Who Am I?’, I answered it by knowing that I would not be doing office work for the rest of my life. Within six months of beginning singing training, I decided on a career in singing and music. As Ms. Heward mentions, risk is a necessary element of creativity, so in the spirit of risk and pursuit of music, I talked to my employer and was able to transfer my secure, full-time job down to part-time.
For the past 8 or 9 years I have been very focused on technique and ‘learning the ropes’ so to speak, of my craft. Now that I have an excellent handle on the more technical aspects of singing, I can focus on the more ‘creative’ sides of my craft. Every job, task, or position has constraints on it that are unique to the thing itself. Just as a project or an organization has deadlines, guidelines, and outlines; musicians and performing arts companies, particularly singers and opera houses, must work within the poetic, musical, and stylistic constraints of a particular piece. What I have learned as a performer is this: one cannot be truly, creatively, free, until one has the entire piece, including the poetry, the music, and the stylistic demands, under technical control and ideally memorized. The constraints of the piece define it, but also allow the performer to be creative in delivery. This guideline also applies to opera companies and directors where repetitive repertoire is the norm.
When one has creative ownership of a piece, a performance is more interesting to the audience. Probably the single most difficult aspect of my craft (on a personal level) is taking a risk and sharing from the inside-out. Yet, this is precisely where the greatest creative rewards lie. Just as an employee sees a leader putting in the extra hours (or not) for a project, the audience knows when they are being cheated of an honest and generous performance.
Ms. Heward’s ‘Seven Doors to Creativity’ made it apparent that creativity in the arts can be applied to any business, but can also be applied to growth as an individual performer. I very much look forward to personally developing my own seven doors to creativity.
Genevieve's Reflections on Heward
Ce bref essai porte sur la présentation de Lyn Heward, directrice du contenu créatif du Cirque du soleil. Cette présentation m’a étonnamment inspirée en raison de son message fondamental: la créativité est un plat qui se cuisine. La recette est parfois complexe et nécessite l’intervention de plus d’un chef. On s’imagine que tout créateur est un artiste torturé par son besoin de création alors que la créativité serait plutôt une énergie fluide présente en chacun de nous. Il suffit de savoir comment l’apprivoiser, comment la nourrir, comment la concrétiser.
Il n’est pas étonnant que Heward considère que les attentes considérables (great expectations) constituent le principal moteur de la créativité. Un ami réalisateur serbe me confiait récemment qu’il se sentait en panne d’inspiration créative car il considérait que le milieu montréalais était « accommodant à la médiocrité». Il sentait que les attentes du public et des médias étaient nivelées vers le bas par rapport aux industries de l’Europe de l’Est, que les subventions actuelles aux artistes étaient « une forme d’assurance sociale déguisée ». Bien que je ne sois pas entièrement d’accord avec son propos, j’ai quand même pu déceler chez lui une lassitude crée par l’absence de great expectation. Même son de cloche chez un autre ami musicien qui s’est étonné qu’une première maquette musicale envoyée à son client (un « broullion mélodique » pour une publicité) se retrouve sur la bande sonore de cette publicité sans aucune retouche préalable ni préavis. Le chèque fut reçu par la poste la semaine suivante…
Heward m’a éveillé à l’une des sources de ces « attentes considérables » : les créateurs ont besoins de « guides » qui les stimulent, qui les poussent à aller plus loin, qui voient en eux le talent et le potentiel que ces mêmes créateurs ne voient pas eux-mêmes. Surtout, Heward m’a éclairée sur le rôle que je devais jouer en tant qu’avocate de coulisse et m’a responsabilisée face à cette réalité : « Some people design, some people make it happen ». Au-delà de nos rôles de brasseurs de paperasse légale, il nous faut également participer au processus créatif des artistes, trouver notre « Zoomanity » à nous. Notre travail a également une composante créative qui peut et doit être explorée à fond. L’appropriation psychologique du produit créatif fera de nous des professionnels inspirés et inspirants, stimulés et stimulants. Voir la créativité chez les autres nous amène à voir notre propre créativité en nous-mêmes, et vice-versa.
Il existe une nécessité d’exploiter nos sens, souvent engourdis à force de lire des jugements. Être à l’affût de sa propre créativité et de celle des autres, c’est aussi cultiver tous ses sens, concevoir de nouveaux modes de résolution de problème plus participatif et moins hiérarchiques. Les nouveaux modèles de processus et d’environnements créatifs émergent tranquillement dans les plus grosses entreprises (Cirque du soleil, Google, etc.). Il reste à savoir de quelle façon ces modèles peuvent être transposés à plus petite échelle lorsque les ressources sont limitées.
Il n’est pas étonnant que Heward considère que les attentes considérables (great expectations) constituent le principal moteur de la créativité. Un ami réalisateur serbe me confiait récemment qu’il se sentait en panne d’inspiration créative car il considérait que le milieu montréalais était « accommodant à la médiocrité». Il sentait que les attentes du public et des médias étaient nivelées vers le bas par rapport aux industries de l’Europe de l’Est, que les subventions actuelles aux artistes étaient « une forme d’assurance sociale déguisée ». Bien que je ne sois pas entièrement d’accord avec son propos, j’ai quand même pu déceler chez lui une lassitude crée par l’absence de great expectation. Même son de cloche chez un autre ami musicien qui s’est étonné qu’une première maquette musicale envoyée à son client (un « broullion mélodique » pour une publicité) se retrouve sur la bande sonore de cette publicité sans aucune retouche préalable ni préavis. Le chèque fut reçu par la poste la semaine suivante…
Heward m’a éveillé à l’une des sources de ces « attentes considérables » : les créateurs ont besoins de « guides » qui les stimulent, qui les poussent à aller plus loin, qui voient en eux le talent et le potentiel que ces mêmes créateurs ne voient pas eux-mêmes. Surtout, Heward m’a éclairée sur le rôle que je devais jouer en tant qu’avocate de coulisse et m’a responsabilisée face à cette réalité : « Some people design, some people make it happen ». Au-delà de nos rôles de brasseurs de paperasse légale, il nous faut également participer au processus créatif des artistes, trouver notre « Zoomanity » à nous. Notre travail a également une composante créative qui peut et doit être explorée à fond. L’appropriation psychologique du produit créatif fera de nous des professionnels inspirés et inspirants, stimulés et stimulants. Voir la créativité chez les autres nous amène à voir notre propre créativité en nous-mêmes, et vice-versa.
Il existe une nécessité d’exploiter nos sens, souvent engourdis à force de lire des jugements. Être à l’affût de sa propre créativité et de celle des autres, c’est aussi cultiver tous ses sens, concevoir de nouveaux modes de résolution de problème plus participatif et moins hiérarchiques. Les nouveaux modèles de processus et d’environnements créatifs émergent tranquillement dans les plus grosses entreprises (Cirque du soleil, Google, etc.). Il reste à savoir de quelle façon ces modèles peuvent être transposés à plus petite échelle lorsque les ressources sont limitées.
Allen's Reflections on Heward
When Lyn Heward began describing her “seven doors” she used to outline the principles that are used to manage Cirque de Soleil’s creativity and creative talent, I was immediately struck by the similarities to my own work. As Vice-President of Plank, a web design company, I am put in the position of managing creative people all the time. I was pleased to hear that a lot of what makes the Cirque successful in this regard is also being practiced at Plank on a regular basis.
One of the most important elements at Cirque and at Plank is finding great people. Ms. Heward described the third door of “treasure hunting and creative transformation” when referring to recruiting and human resource management. Treasure hunting is something Plank takes to heart. When looking for employees, we are looking for potential, and the hidden talents of individuals. Web design employees fall into three categories – designers, programmers, and integrators. A key to a good employee is someone who applies for a job in one area but has some skills or knowledge in one of the other areas – these are the hidden talents that get exploited to the benefit of the company as a whole.
This last point also relates to one of Ms. Heward’s points about creative transformation – the need to work outside your comfort zone. At Plank, we ask our programmers about design all the time; they are working outside of their comfort zone. Some of what a programmer does in the sphere of design can get incorporated into the final product. Working outside their comfort zone has helped the overall project and stimulated creativity from unexpected places.
Ms. Heward’s described the fourth door of nurturing the creative environment through collective creativity. This was something that was recently brought to light at Plank. Whereas in the past only the designers were involved in the creative process at the beginning of a website design, recently we have initiated a system where the other groups of employees – integrators and programmers – have a say in the creative development of a website from the beginning. By adding their voices and concerns, the entire creative process has been dramatically improved, and the final product is a much better one.
Finally, providing the nurturing environment is perhaps the most important principles of creative management at Plank. Our office is designed as an open concept, and everyone, from the President to the most junior employee, with the same desk and chair. This translates to an egalitarian environment where open discussion and dialogue are encouraged and fostered. Furthermore, numerous non-work related group activities provide a sense of collectivity for all employees, which helps foster a sense of team, and again, a better product in the end. While fostering a sense of team may sound like flaky management BS, it works. I was pleased to see the Cirque and Plank sharing this philosophy.
There were numerous other parallels between Cirque’s techniques and Plank’s, yet space prevents examining them all.
One of the most important elements at Cirque and at Plank is finding great people. Ms. Heward described the third door of “treasure hunting and creative transformation” when referring to recruiting and human resource management. Treasure hunting is something Plank takes to heart. When looking for employees, we are looking for potential, and the hidden talents of individuals. Web design employees fall into three categories – designers, programmers, and integrators. A key to a good employee is someone who applies for a job in one area but has some skills or knowledge in one of the other areas – these are the hidden talents that get exploited to the benefit of the company as a whole.
This last point also relates to one of Ms. Heward’s points about creative transformation – the need to work outside your comfort zone. At Plank, we ask our programmers about design all the time; they are working outside of their comfort zone. Some of what a programmer does in the sphere of design can get incorporated into the final product. Working outside their comfort zone has helped the overall project and stimulated creativity from unexpected places.
Ms. Heward’s described the fourth door of nurturing the creative environment through collective creativity. This was something that was recently brought to light at Plank. Whereas in the past only the designers were involved in the creative process at the beginning of a website design, recently we have initiated a system where the other groups of employees – integrators and programmers – have a say in the creative development of a website from the beginning. By adding their voices and concerns, the entire creative process has been dramatically improved, and the final product is a much better one.
Finally, providing the nurturing environment is perhaps the most important principles of creative management at Plank. Our office is designed as an open concept, and everyone, from the President to the most junior employee, with the same desk and chair. This translates to an egalitarian environment where open discussion and dialogue are encouraged and fostered. Furthermore, numerous non-work related group activities provide a sense of collectivity for all employees, which helps foster a sense of team, and again, a better product in the end. While fostering a sense of team may sound like flaky management BS, it works. I was pleased to see the Cirque and Plank sharing this philosophy.
There were numerous other parallels between Cirque’s techniques and Plank’s, yet space prevents examining them all.
Bryson's Reflections on Sandy's Talk
In his discourse on the opposing paradigms of "the cloud" and "the paradise of infinite storage," Mr. Pearlman aptly identifies the profound implications of this dichotomy on the music community in an economic as well as social context. To be sure, this duality represents nothing less than the very nature of our modern reality: the forces of centralization are under pressure from the forces of decentralization and autonomy. Through enabling the unfettered flow of all kinds of IP on a wide scale, the internet has catalyzed a major shift in consumer consciousness. Individuals have the power to give and receive IP from each other, circumventing The Company altogether. The corporate hierarchy that dominates the culture of the consumer stands to lose a lot of ground if file sharing and idea sharing continue in an unregulated and grassroots fashion. Products that once only had value in fixed form (the LP or the newspaper, for example) today exist digitally, ephemerally. This trend shows no sign of slowing down. Add to this the precipitously falling cost of the storage of digital information (and don't forget the "anarchic gearheads!"), and information autonomy seems like a sure thing. This has the added effect of upending traditional production and distribution models, causing everybody to reassess what actually constitutes a given 'industry.'
An element of cloud rhetoric that particularly troubles me is the notion that once information is in the cloud, it essentially belongs to everybody. In fact, only one (or a small handful) of companies will control this information, and everybody's access to it. As IP is asymptotically accumulated by those few cloud-owners (e.g. Google, Amazon), alternate means of access will likely be squeezed out of the market. This will force all users to depend on a publicly-owned company (whose responsibility to the shareholder of maximizing profits is paramount). Be not lulled by Google's dulcet strain of "don't be evil" (an actual tenet of company policy). We live in an economically unregulated and cutthroat business society. The acid rain monsoon from the digital cloud is just beginning. Beware of digital cholera.
Traditionally, clouds conjure images of a bountiful harvest, rolling soft and wan against the noon sky. In heaven, angels will strum lutes while we, the dead, snuggle playfully with a plush cumulonimbus. Lying on our backs in the park, gazing skyward, we ask ourselves, "is it a bunny, or a moose?" As any marketing guru can tell you, the most effective way to sell a product that is bad for you is to think up a really nice name for it (think "Celexa," not "Coke"). Were the digital version of 'the cloud' more appropriately labeled, snorting black horses and truculent goons would instantly replace the daisies-in-meadows hallucination that currently represents those forces who seek to build an omnipotent system of unfree information. Just as art itself tends to filter the human experience by casting vastly unique and divergent assessments of the human psyche, those mechanisms responsible for the creation, communication, and propagation thereof must tend away from centralization and hierarchical organization.
An element of cloud rhetoric that particularly troubles me is the notion that once information is in the cloud, it essentially belongs to everybody. In fact, only one (or a small handful) of companies will control this information, and everybody's access to it. As IP is asymptotically accumulated by those few cloud-owners (e.g. Google, Amazon), alternate means of access will likely be squeezed out of the market. This will force all users to depend on a publicly-owned company (whose responsibility to the shareholder of maximizing profits is paramount). Be not lulled by Google's dulcet strain of "don't be evil" (an actual tenet of company policy). We live in an economically unregulated and cutthroat business society. The acid rain monsoon from the digital cloud is just beginning. Beware of digital cholera.
Traditionally, clouds conjure images of a bountiful harvest, rolling soft and wan against the noon sky. In heaven, angels will strum lutes while we, the dead, snuggle playfully with a plush cumulonimbus. Lying on our backs in the park, gazing skyward, we ask ourselves, "is it a bunny, or a moose?" As any marketing guru can tell you, the most effective way to sell a product that is bad for you is to think up a really nice name for it (think "Celexa," not "Coke"). Were the digital version of 'the cloud' more appropriately labeled, snorting black horses and truculent goons would instantly replace the daisies-in-meadows hallucination that currently represents those forces who seek to build an omnipotent system of unfree information. Just as art itself tends to filter the human experience by casting vastly unique and divergent assessments of the human psyche, those mechanisms responsible for the creation, communication, and propagation thereof must tend away from centralization and hierarchical organization.
Alex's Reflections on DKD & Seligman
Dan Seligman and Donald K Donald together provided a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Both provided a perspective of having thrived immediately in the music business, certainly in different ways, by hitting a key break early on with limited experience and knowledge.
This got me thinking first about the luck required to make it “big” in music, which seems to be very high initially, and quickly drops off after your “break.” This is when your brand starts to self-perpetuate and the influence of viral marketing gives you a boost, assuming you don’t do anything to screw it up. In that way, Tuesday’s analogy to a “labour of love” is appropriate for the reason that success in music is like falling in love – you have to reap the fruits of the relationship without trying too hard to control it (because music will always refuse to be controlled) and, above all, without screwing it up. Don’t we all know that creativity, like love, is imprecise?
In today’s fragmented music market, Donald sees the subscription model as reigning supreme at some point in the future. How I would love to see Sandy Pearlman’s response to this – the cloud versus the paradise of infinite storage. I see the point in Donald’s perspective, and a certain degree of wishful thinking that consumers might stop caring about their ability to “own” music as property, or that a first-world democratic government would cede to industry lobbyists – presumably against the will of many of its people – on the legalization of a tax/levy model for internet file sharing. This seems to be a denial of the fact that industries, no matter how great their glory days gone by, can and do collapse from time to time. As a renewable cultural derivative, music will additionally probably go through it again at some point in the future. That is, when the whole world stops heaping money on an industry, entropy takes over and the collapse self-perpetuating until the industry develops new modalities. Is the Phoenix yet in sight, say, in the form of iTunes, or a subscription service? We won’t know until one of these still better captures the world’s attention.
What Donald does capture well is the desirability right now for an “all-you-can-eat” model of distribution. Free downloading is what gives people the means to own a lot of music, and the popularity of this leads me to speculate that people may enjoy “owning” music even more than they like listening to it. That’s part of the reason I’m not an iTunes user – I’m a collector and my illegitimate habit would be far too costly to legitimize. To illustrate, the value of my music collection (at $0.99/track) is on four orders of magnitude, and maybe only 1/3 of it comes from CDs that have actually been purchased. If I’ve been collecting music online for 10 years (since my first 64MB Rio MP3 player) and continue at my present (fairly low) rate of acquisition, I should have expected to spend another $30,000 on music downloads, not accounting for inflation (or deflation) in the next 40 years.
What Seligman shows by contrast is growth of independent artists rising from the ashes of Music Industry 1.0. In fact, I would like to think that the “old” or “conventional” music industry which had it’s greatest hurrahs in the 1980’s was like a non-committal beta version of an industry whose greatest use now is to demonstrate the market potential – or the essentialness – of music. People’s interests since then haven’t changed – they’ll find the commodities they want to satisfy them. In the meantime, CBC Radio 3 (independent music) has more registered users than the populations of several Canadian capitals, and New Music Canada is approaching 20,000 registered bands in a country of just over 30M. The old industry’s collapse will have its share of victors and victims, but has ultimately pushed people to work harder and more creatively for a completely new set of success-benchmarks based on measurable benchmarks of popularity and not just on album sales.
This got me thinking first about the luck required to make it “big” in music, which seems to be very high initially, and quickly drops off after your “break.” This is when your brand starts to self-perpetuate and the influence of viral marketing gives you a boost, assuming you don’t do anything to screw it up. In that way, Tuesday’s analogy to a “labour of love” is appropriate for the reason that success in music is like falling in love – you have to reap the fruits of the relationship without trying too hard to control it (because music will always refuse to be controlled) and, above all, without screwing it up. Don’t we all know that creativity, like love, is imprecise?
In today’s fragmented music market, Donald sees the subscription model as reigning supreme at some point in the future. How I would love to see Sandy Pearlman’s response to this – the cloud versus the paradise of infinite storage. I see the point in Donald’s perspective, and a certain degree of wishful thinking that consumers might stop caring about their ability to “own” music as property, or that a first-world democratic government would cede to industry lobbyists – presumably against the will of many of its people – on the legalization of a tax/levy model for internet file sharing. This seems to be a denial of the fact that industries, no matter how great their glory days gone by, can and do collapse from time to time. As a renewable cultural derivative, music will additionally probably go through it again at some point in the future. That is, when the whole world stops heaping money on an industry, entropy takes over and the collapse self-perpetuating until the industry develops new modalities. Is the Phoenix yet in sight, say, in the form of iTunes, or a subscription service? We won’t know until one of these still better captures the world’s attention.
What Donald does capture well is the desirability right now for an “all-you-can-eat” model of distribution. Free downloading is what gives people the means to own a lot of music, and the popularity of this leads me to speculate that people may enjoy “owning” music even more than they like listening to it. That’s part of the reason I’m not an iTunes user – I’m a collector and my illegitimate habit would be far too costly to legitimize. To illustrate, the value of my music collection (at $0.99/track) is on four orders of magnitude, and maybe only 1/3 of it comes from CDs that have actually been purchased. If I’ve been collecting music online for 10 years (since my first 64MB Rio MP3 player) and continue at my present (fairly low) rate of acquisition, I should have expected to spend another $30,000 on music downloads, not accounting for inflation (or deflation) in the next 40 years.
What Seligman shows by contrast is growth of independent artists rising from the ashes of Music Industry 1.0. In fact, I would like to think that the “old” or “conventional” music industry which had it’s greatest hurrahs in the 1980’s was like a non-committal beta version of an industry whose greatest use now is to demonstrate the market potential – or the essentialness – of music. People’s interests since then haven’t changed – they’ll find the commodities they want to satisfy them. In the meantime, CBC Radio 3 (independent music) has more registered users than the populations of several Canadian capitals, and New Music Canada is approaching 20,000 registered bands in a country of just over 30M. The old industry’s collapse will have its share of victors and victims, but has ultimately pushed people to work harder and more creatively for a completely new set of success-benchmarks based on measurable benchmarks of popularity and not just on album sales.
Allen's Reflections on Tarlton & Seligman
Donald Tarlton and Dan Selgiman provided a unique insight into the past and present of Montreal concert promoters. They also provided a stark contrast into a dichotomy of music and the music business, in their numerous comments about making money, and not making money.
Mr. Tarlton did mention that he didn’t get into concert promoting for the money, but for the love of spectacle. I will take him at his word, but while that may have been true at the beginning of his career, many of his other comments would indicate that in fact money was a very important part of the music business for him. This was evident when he concluded his presentation with the following statement: “the music industry has never been black and white, but still can be very very green.” He repeatedly lauded Michael Cohl and the way he revolutionized the concert promoting business by signing the first $100 million contract. His future business model for the music industry was all about making money – flat-rate subscription streaming services. He added that there are all sorts of opportunities for us and “the entrepreneurial spirit,” with stress on the entrepreneur part.
Mr. Seligman, on the other hand, seemed to embody the independent music spirit, being much more about the music and less about the money. While he accepts that money is part of the equation (“it’s a business at the end of the day. You have to make it work somehow.”), it was clear that the money is only the means to an end. He clearly stated that starting up Pop Montreal was about more than making money. In fact, Mr. Tarlton’s statement that he got into the business for the love of the spectacle was in direct response to this comment. Mr. Seligman was all about making Pop Montreal “a community event.” He has gone so far as to make Pop Montreal a non-profit organization. While this was done in part to benefit from the many grants available to non-profits, there is no way that if Mr. Seligman was in it for the money he would have done that. Pop Montreal, he said, is all about grassroots and collaboration, which is the key for indie culture and the indie spirit.
I do not purport to pass judgment on which position is “correct” or which view of the music industry and concert promotion is preferable. I am a pragmatist (not to mention a lawyer and MBA) so I can see the business side of things, yet there is something to the position that music should be independent and free. Whatever my position, it was fascinating to see the two sides on display.
Mr. Tarlton did mention that he didn’t get into concert promoting for the money, but for the love of spectacle. I will take him at his word, but while that may have been true at the beginning of his career, many of his other comments would indicate that in fact money was a very important part of the music business for him. This was evident when he concluded his presentation with the following statement: “the music industry has never been black and white, but still can be very very green.” He repeatedly lauded Michael Cohl and the way he revolutionized the concert promoting business by signing the first $100 million contract. His future business model for the music industry was all about making money – flat-rate subscription streaming services. He added that there are all sorts of opportunities for us and “the entrepreneurial spirit,” with stress on the entrepreneur part.
Mr. Seligman, on the other hand, seemed to embody the independent music spirit, being much more about the music and less about the money. While he accepts that money is part of the equation (“it’s a business at the end of the day. You have to make it work somehow.”), it was clear that the money is only the means to an end. He clearly stated that starting up Pop Montreal was about more than making money. In fact, Mr. Tarlton’s statement that he got into the business for the love of the spectacle was in direct response to this comment. Mr. Seligman was all about making Pop Montreal “a community event.” He has gone so far as to make Pop Montreal a non-profit organization. While this was done in part to benefit from the many grants available to non-profits, there is no way that if Mr. Seligman was in it for the money he would have done that. Pop Montreal, he said, is all about grassroots and collaboration, which is the key for indie culture and the indie spirit.
I do not purport to pass judgment on which position is “correct” or which view of the music industry and concert promotion is preferable. I am a pragmatist (not to mention a lawyer and MBA) so I can see the business side of things, yet there is something to the position that music should be independent and free. Whatever my position, it was fascinating to see the two sides on display.
Jenna's Reflection Essay on Massenburg Panel
As a former business student and a current law student, two aspects from the presentation on classical recording were of interest to me. The first was the notion that recent increases in vinyl sales may suggest that current music listeners have realized the poor sound quality of today’s music and have decided to do something about it.
If this is the case, then is a return to vinyl is part of a sustainable business model for the music industry? I posit that vinyl will follow a traditional product life cycle, peaking in the near future and then declining. A brief google search on the current vinyl market revealed three important facts. First, most vinyl consumers can be segmented into three categories: audiophiles, collectors and disc jockeys. Second, mainstream record companies are producing new vinyl albums. Finally, the price point of new vinyl albums ranges from average to expensive.
To me, the combination of these factors dooms the music industry to committing the mistakes of the past. While it can be argued that the vinyl trend has begun to and will continue to penetrate larger groups of consumers than the three mentioned, this success will not be sustained. Music consumers will find themselves in a similar situation as in the past: a medium in the hands of a few record labels, which in turn, can and likely will exert upward pressure over prices. These companies will be motivated to price these albums high because of their novelty value and because they are desperate for revenue. This in turn will push this larger group of consumers back towards familiar habits of downloading free mp3s.
The second aspect of the presentation that I wanted to reflect on was its central message that the future of the music industry is the artist. This conclusion has become a growing consensus in our class as all the student presentations made some variation of the same claim. With increases in recording technology and decreases in price, the vertically integrated musician is a reality. This trend represents a full circle that started with artist controlled content, which increasingly shifted towards record industry control and has now come back around to the artist. With the return to artist control in mind, I think that the role of lawyer in the music industry may also revert back to an earlier stage.
The vertically integrated artist may be able to record, produce and distribute his or her record, but may not know how to do this in a way that minimizes outsourcing costs. This may suggest a greater role for contract lawyers within the music industry. If this were the case, then it would be a welcome change as the current emphasis on IP has at times put lawyer and musician at odds with one another. It is my thought that this new paradigm will create a real opportunity for lawyers and musicians to act as partners in contract law and perhaps extend this collaborative attitude to IP law.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Bob Lefsetz Comments
There's a war going on in the music business and rights holders are afraidthey're going to lose.
The public is clueless, it barely sees the battles while it steals music. But the future is subscription, which doesn't involve only music, but products ancillary thereto, maybe even completely virtual.
If you've been following the Amazon/Macmillan story you know that the wholee-book pricing system has been affected by the iPad. There's a shift to the agency model, wherein Apple gets 30% and renders the remaining 70% to publishers. Unlike Amazon, Apple doesn't really care what price books are sold for, they're in the hardware business. In other words, they want to sell iPads. Whereas Amazon wanted to sell e-books below cost to increase the company's market share, hopefully into a dominant position.
That game's up.
But the fascinating conclusion is that the winner is Apple. You need an iPad to read that book. You're not going to buy a Kindle, certainly if the books cost the same, the Kindle just isn't a good deal. As long as e-books are not priced exorbitantly, Apple wins. And the publishers, smiling triumphantly, don't even know what hit them.
What hit them? Well, a writer can make the same 30/70 deal directly with Amazon, the online merchant already announced that. And with publishers signing fewer authors, conceding the landscape to upstarts, it appears to be just like the music business, wherein the major labels lost control.
The labels feel they've lost control to Apple. And they don't want that to happen again. So they're fighting Spotify, not even knowing what this platform and other similar companies are selling. They're not selling music, that's just the come on, they're selling the accoutrements, not only concert tickets but social networking, they're creating an ecosystem, that will rain down dollars.
There's a fascinating story in today's "Los Angeles Times" entitled "Free Online Games Moving Up A Level" (entitled "Digital Sales Poised As Game Changer" online):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-games9-2010feb09,0,5565866.story
Two video game publishers are contrasted. One that sells discs and another that gives the games away for free. The seller of physical media went out of business. The virtual goods company is thriving.
Don't think about this as giving away music for free. Think bigger. If you can get someone hooked, what else can you sell them?
Start with a subscription. To an online video game service. Maybe $15 a month for World Of Warcraft. That's just like your ten dollar a month subscription to Spotify. Or your five dollar a month subscription to MOG.
But let's start with Spotify. In every market the company has launched, the service is free. But if you want it on your mobile device, you've got to pay. Not everybody wants this portability, but you'd be surprised how many do. And will in the future. Because by paying the monthly fee, you don't only get the ability to tote your tracks around, but knowledge of what your friends are listening to, access to the band, a first crack at concert tickets, maybe even virtual concerts.
You start with free. That's the come on. Just like with video games. Then you sell bits and pieces, not music, but items ancillary to music, the ability to go to a party, maybe even virtual. What works is unknown, but the first step is getting people hooked. If you saw how much money is made in virtual items online, clothes for avatars, ability to unlock doors for exclusive access, you'd be stunned. This barely exists for music, because rights holders are afraid. They believe in selling physical music, an album at a time. And they're so busy protecting that model, they're going out of business. Hell, just ask EMI. Instead of realizing it starts with the music, and instead of focusing on people stealing it, the question is how can you entice them to pay for it?
Certainly not by castigating them for theft, by threatening them with prosecution for copyright infringement. Instead, you entice people, giving them a free taste, just like a drug dealer, and then sell them everything surrounding the music. You can't steal an experience. And if we make your life easier...
That's Apple's plan. To get you to overpay for what you didn't even know you wanted. In the future, it won't be about owning music, it will be about being a member of the club, of the tribe. With evidence of how long you've been a fan, what shows you've gone to, the number of times you've spun each and every track. People will PAY to play in this arena, to publish evidence of their devotion, to compare and bond with others.
This is the future.
But the rights holders abhor the future.
Techies, people of the age the labels have fired or never hired, know all this. But they won't get involved in music because they just can't get the rights.
The future of music will look nothing like it does today. It won't be about ownership, it will be about belonging. You can play the video game at home, alone, or you can go online, where you're a member of the club, connecting with millions. You've got to pay for this experience. Which gamers do gladly.
The future is imminent. But only if the rights holders get out of the way. Only if innovation is unlocked. Copyright shouldn't be abandoned, but it's blocking the future. Just like rap blew up by stealing old tracks, new music platforms will be built on sampling the wares of rights holders. And like the owner of those old sampled records, the key is to say YES, to get on the bandwagon, to collect some of that new money. Instead of arguing with Activision over Guitar Hero license rates as the franchise fades away and doesn't radiate. Stay two steps ahead. Or face extinction.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
The public is clueless, it barely sees the battles while it steals music. But the future is subscription, which doesn't involve only music, but products ancillary thereto, maybe even completely virtual.
If you've been following the Amazon/Macmillan story you know that the wholee-book pricing system has been affected by the iPad. There's a shift to the agency model, wherein Apple gets 30% and renders the remaining 70% to publishers. Unlike Amazon, Apple doesn't really care what price books are sold for, they're in the hardware business. In other words, they want to sell iPads. Whereas Amazon wanted to sell e-books below cost to increase the company's market share, hopefully into a dominant position.
That game's up.
But the fascinating conclusion is that the winner is Apple. You need an iPad to read that book. You're not going to buy a Kindle, certainly if the books cost the same, the Kindle just isn't a good deal. As long as e-books are not priced exorbitantly, Apple wins. And the publishers, smiling triumphantly, don't even know what hit them.
What hit them? Well, a writer can make the same 30/70 deal directly with Amazon, the online merchant already announced that. And with publishers signing fewer authors, conceding the landscape to upstarts, it appears to be just like the music business, wherein the major labels lost control.
The labels feel they've lost control to Apple. And they don't want that to happen again. So they're fighting Spotify, not even knowing what this platform and other similar companies are selling. They're not selling music, that's just the come on, they're selling the accoutrements, not only concert tickets but social networking, they're creating an ecosystem, that will rain down dollars.
There's a fascinating story in today's "Los Angeles Times" entitled "Free Online Games Moving Up A Level" (entitled "Digital Sales Poised As Game Changer" online):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-games9-2010feb09,0,5565866.story
Two video game publishers are contrasted. One that sells discs and another that gives the games away for free. The seller of physical media went out of business. The virtual goods company is thriving.
Don't think about this as giving away music for free. Think bigger. If you can get someone hooked, what else can you sell them?
Start with a subscription. To an online video game service. Maybe $15 a month for World Of Warcraft. That's just like your ten dollar a month subscription to Spotify. Or your five dollar a month subscription to MOG.
But let's start with Spotify. In every market the company has launched, the service is free. But if you want it on your mobile device, you've got to pay. Not everybody wants this portability, but you'd be surprised how many do. And will in the future. Because by paying the monthly fee, you don't only get the ability to tote your tracks around, but knowledge of what your friends are listening to, access to the band, a first crack at concert tickets, maybe even virtual concerts.
You start with free. That's the come on. Just like with video games. Then you sell bits and pieces, not music, but items ancillary to music, the ability to go to a party, maybe even virtual. What works is unknown, but the first step is getting people hooked. If you saw how much money is made in virtual items online, clothes for avatars, ability to unlock doors for exclusive access, you'd be stunned. This barely exists for music, because rights holders are afraid. They believe in selling physical music, an album at a time. And they're so busy protecting that model, they're going out of business. Hell, just ask EMI. Instead of realizing it starts with the music, and instead of focusing on people stealing it, the question is how can you entice them to pay for it?
Certainly not by castigating them for theft, by threatening them with prosecution for copyright infringement. Instead, you entice people, giving them a free taste, just like a drug dealer, and then sell them everything surrounding the music. You can't steal an experience. And if we make your life easier...
That's Apple's plan. To get you to overpay for what you didn't even know you wanted. In the future, it won't be about owning music, it will be about being a member of the club, of the tribe. With evidence of how long you've been a fan, what shows you've gone to, the number of times you've spun each and every track. People will PAY to play in this arena, to publish evidence of their devotion, to compare and bond with others.
This is the future.
But the rights holders abhor the future.
Techies, people of the age the labels have fired or never hired, know all this. But they won't get involved in music because they just can't get the rights.
The future of music will look nothing like it does today. It won't be about ownership, it will be about belonging. You can play the video game at home, alone, or you can go online, where you're a member of the club, connecting with millions. You've got to pay for this experience. Which gamers do gladly.
The future is imminent. But only if the rights holders get out of the way. Only if innovation is unlocked. Copyright shouldn't be abandoned, but it's blocking the future. Just like rap blew up by stealing old tracks, new music platforms will be built on sampling the wares of rights holders. And like the owner of those old sampled records, the key is to say YES, to get on the bandwagon, to collect some of that new money. Instead of arguing with Activision over Guitar Hero license rates as the franchise fades away and doesn't radiate. Stay two steps ahead. Or face extinction.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)