Future of Music 2010: The wild, wild West's new sheriff has a tough job ahead of her
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The wild, wild West of Internet anarchy that was the first decade of the new century has a new sheriff. And she paid a visit to the 10th annual Future of Music Policy Summit with a badge bearing a 33-point strategy for restoring law and order.
The summit concluded Tuesday after three days of presentations and spirited dialogue among tech heads, policy makers, artists and recored-label executives plotting a new future for the music industry. But it was a visit by President Barack Obama’s new copyright czar, Victoria Espinel, that was the talk of the conference.
Espinel was appointed by Obama earlier this year as the nation’s first-ever U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator. A few months ago she introduced a strategy for dealing with Internet file-sharing (or “smash and grab” as it was described by Vice President Joe Biden), which has been linked to a 50 percent decline in music-industry revenue over the last decade.
The music industry’s implosion has become a cause that even the federal government can't ignore because the same issue – unfettered exchange of Internet files – has bled into the movie and publishing industries. Now any intellectual property that can be digitized can also be shared/stolen/cannabalized within seconds of hitting the Internet, and multibillion-dollar businesses -- most of them with roots firmly planted in the pre-digital 20th Century -- are crying foul.
At the Future of Music summit, Espinel waxed rhapsodic about the artistic community, echoing the Obama adminstration line that American innovation and intellectual property are key to its economic recovery. But without directly indicting consumers, she outlined a strategy for containing file-sharing that suggested that many digital music fans will need to alter their behavior or else risk being cut off from the Internet at the very least.
Espinel noted that 95 percent of file-sharers consume music "illegally" -- that is, they traffic in copyrighted music files that are readily available on the Internet. Does that mean tens of millions of Americans are technically "criminals" by federal standards? Espinel didn't directly answer.
When questioned about the apparent disconnect between government policy and the way many American citizens behave when using their computers or cellphones, she merely insisted that there is "no inherent conflict" and that "the majority of consumers don't want to engage in illegal content."
She added that the administration would focus its crackdown on Web sites distributing illegal content, particularly those attempting to profit from it via advertising or subscriptions. But that's a small percentage of the problem.
The rest of the conference took a more conciliatory approach, attempting to engage the way ordinary citizens/music consumers actually behave (regularly downloading music in their homes without checking into the nuances of copryight) and searching for ways to turn that behavior into a revenue stream that could eventually trickle down to artists.
"Everyone here is a file sharer," said David Touve, a professor at Washington and Lee University. To restrict people from sharing files would compete against the basic design of the Internet -- "and good luck with that," he added.
"The last thing we need is more sticks" to beat down file sharers, said Eddie Schwartz, president of the Songwriters Association of Canada. "We need to find legal ways to file-share."
The most popular trend is to insist the Internet service providers become part of the solution. A number of European countries have enlisted service providers to police their customers; those who engage in illegal file-sharing have their Internet access restricted or cut off.
"You can't get revenue until you get the ISP's to the table, by force if necessary," said David Basskin, president of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Association. His agitation was palpable, reflecting the attitude of many license holders and content providers tiring of seeing certain technology companies profit from music without cutting in content providers on their profits. Among the many examples derisively cited were the Google search engine that leads consumers to an illegal music file, or the Apple iPod that stores countless music files of dubious origin.
"If you are making money off artist content you have to ask yourself whether you are helping that artist pay his mortgage," said Jesse von Doom of CASH Music, a nonprofit that creates tech tools for artists.
Steve Marks of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major labels, said, "It's not a secret that all content holders are interested in pursuing deals with ISP's that make sense."
That could mean the imposition of additional fees on Internet users, which opens up another set of issues: Who would collect the fees and who would distribute them not only to license-holders but to the artists themselves -- often the bottom of any revenue food chain? Those questions are crucial, said Jim Griffin, a longtime tech consultant.
"Until we know how to properly distribute the money, is it even worth doing?" he asked.
These reasonable doubts clamored for space with anxious content creators and license holders who want to see revenue streams open up as soon as possible. No one questioned that music still has considerable value -- more people are listening to more music than at any time in history. But how to turn that stream into a river of green for artists remains unresolved.
Wading into the middle of this decade-long debate is Victoria Espinel, copyright czar. Though she wields considerable power, she has a daunting job ahead of her reconciling a legion of business interests all looking for a stake in the new digital money pool and a nation of consumers who are used to getting their music for free.
greg@gregkot.com
The recording industry's attempts to address the problem of illegal song downloading is like a broken record. The Internet has changed many industries and not all of them for the better. But they have a better chance at succeeding by modifying their approaches and business plans to fit in the world they now find themselves in than inventing a time machine to return us all to the way it was. Nobody but them wants to go back to those days anyway.
Posted by: Jon | October 07, 2010 at 01:42 AM
ISPs charging users a tax to support the media companies what a load of crap.
Subscribtions is the way to go, offer it at a fair price and everything will work out for the media scumbags. The problem is they been way to slow to react to market changes.
Funny the complain about being ripped of by "illegal" copies, but have no problem ripping off artist.
Posted by: getalife | October 07, 2010 at 07:35 AM
This implies that ALL internet users share/steal copyrighted music. There are plenty of legal methods, iTunes, Amazon, etc. Personally I think it's fair to pay for downloaded music - someone created/recorded it, they should be compensated. My entire collection is legal.
Posted by: Josh | October 07, 2010 at 08:56 AM
Man, my entire collection is ILLEGAL. You see these MP3's? Well, you can't get these, cuz they belong to the Pirate Bay Posse. Shuttin' us down? Like I said to Columbus...good luck.
Posted by: brabbit | October 07, 2010 at 10:20 AM
I don't remember asking for a copyright czar. The whole concept of copyright is outdated and needs serious revision -- the means of creating and distributing media has drastically changed in the past twenty years, and neither the industry nor the government has done anything to address that. I'm not saying it's right, but no matter what mechanisms are put in place by the industry or law enforcement, there will be a sizable group of people working very hard to circumvent it. Frankly, the whole paradigm needs to change; it should be crystal-clear by now that the old models are dead and gone. The industry will continue to hemmorhage cash until they come up with new and better ideas for collecting on their content, instead of attempting to come up with draconian methods to control consumers. That arguably is one of the biggest reasons that people pirate content -- simply out of sheer spite against Big Bad Business.
Incidentally, look at a content distribution system like Steam in the gaming world -- many of the same people who pirate movies and music have absolutely no problem paying for content via Steam. Ask yourself why that is.
Posted by: AngelofDeath | October 07, 2010 at 10:48 AM
The success of the ipod is 100% linked to so called "illegal" music so perhaps Apple should be sued too!
Posted by: Alan | October 07, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Good look shutting down sneaker net.
Posted by: Jowe | October 07, 2010 at 05:24 PM
Ah, meant "Good luck" shutting down the sneaker nets.
Posted by: Jowe | October 07, 2010 at 05:24 PM
Until ISPs can find a way to scan the music with an algorithm that can detect and cross check libraries uploaded to a copyright database.. then all else would fail.
They should be talking to people that run music algorithm systems like pandora.. they have a key to what scanning music genomes can mean to technology and piracy.
Posted by: Rodrigo Garcia | October 07, 2010 at 10:01 PM
BTW, i fully support people applying their copyrights. Just don't make it so easy for people to do it. We will find a way if its available. Create new systems, crack codes and make it happen. All we need is a reason not too, and i think that has alot to do with content as well. If you had quality artists under bigger labels, then they wouldn't be as pressed to find ways to stop sharing since people are more likely to buy an album as a hard copy when they know its worth it. Alot of them are pressing cds of artists they will chuck to the 2 dollar bins in less that a year since they served their purpose for the moment.
So its starts with them and they way they do business. You see a lot of smaller lables doing a good job. Artists posts their songs for sharing on soundlocud (with a limit on downloading) because its a great promotional tool. So how about sharing some of the content with the people that are gonna give good reviews and push the proliferation of the popularity of an album.
Has anybody from the business industry ever ask someone like me or the posters above about why we get our content for free? Maybe, but its come to a point where i rather listen to Pandora than download or even buy anything at all.
Posted by: Rodrigo Garcia | October 07, 2010 at 10:09 PM
I think Pandora is the way of the future. Advertisers pay artists for the songs people listen to. Advertising is the way the internet functions.
Posted by: John | October 14, 2010 at 09:44 AM
I'm trying to figure out why we need to support a dying industry. The RIAA/MPAA should adapt or gtfo.
Stop trying to bring the internet and all it's progress down with you.
Posted by: laLaLa | October 29, 2010 at 02:17 PM