Open letter to the music industry
October 20, 2009 – 10:20 amDear music industry,
Thank you for inviting me to be the opening speaker at your conference In The City in Manchester, UK. I am inspired by your courage to bring what must be seen as a threat into the midst of your ranks.
I must say it was an eye-opener to experience the industry’s reactions to the pirate perspective; some reactions of support in private, but mostly resentment, anger, and even fury in public. What piqued my interest was not the contrast; such contrasts can be found wherever new ideas gradually win ground, but rather, the immense value you attached to copyright as a concept.
Still, and this is what struck me, I don’t think you’ve ever considered where that value comes from. It comes from legislators. From people like me. The value you attach to copyright shows clearly that it has some form of value, and that value is created in an exchange.
That exchange, quite specifically, is with legislators. In this aspect, legislators are responsible before society for maximizing the culture available (somewhat simplified). The tool for accomplishing that has been to hand out an exclusive monopoly on duplication and public performance to people who create.
This agreement has been executed because you, the music industry, have convinced legislators that no music will be created otherwise.
What struck me is that I believe you fail to see or emotionally acknowledge the existence of this agreement. That you have not one set of intended customers, but two: first, the legislators who give you a monopoly in exchange for creating music to be put on the market, and second, the customers who give you money in exchange for music on that market.
The first transaction, the monopoly, is payment for the service of creating the goods in the first place; the second transaction, monetary, is payment for goods (CDs) or services (concerts, etc).
However, your agreement with legislators, where you used to be the only supplier, has recently come under quite a bit of competition. As it turns out, people are creating music like never before, and they are doing it not because of copyright, but despite copyright. Never before in history has there been as much music available to society. Creative Commons-licensed music and other types of artistic works, just to take one new easily-measured model where creators explicitly reject their already-awarded monopoly, is exceeding your cultural production by magnitudes.
This, of course, brings our agreement into question. If other providers are offering to perform the same service — creating music — without the cost that you have charged, in terms of a life-plus-70-years-monopoly, then we, as the legislators, are going to renegotiate the terms of that agreement.
We won’t be negotiating new terms with you, of course. No, we’ll be negotiating new terms with our new suppliers and just terminate the contract with you, as is the norm in any business.
Dear music industry, you’ve been underbid and outcompeted.
Outcompeted by millions of people who create music simply because they love to do so. They are not demanding any monopolies; in fact, they see them merely as obstacles that divert attention from what they want to do — create even more music — and reject them outright.
The proposal to shorten the commercial copyright term to five years from the date of publication is actually far more than our new suppliers are asking for. But in the name of simplicity, it is desirable to have the same term for all kinds of works, and there are some kinds that require heavy investments, without which that particular type of culture would not have been created. Hollywood blockbusters and computer games come to mind. But the ROI horizon of these are far shorter than five years, so five years of a commercial-only copyright monopoly would be safing on the overly generous side from us legislators.
(Oh and by the way, the exact same reasoning applies to the book publishing industry as to the music publishing industry. More is being written than ever before, not because of copyright, but despite copyright.)
I believe that’s why I found it so odd that some of you were angry with me at the convention. You don’t realize that I’m a customer, in my role as a lawmaker. Your first line customer that, in your model, enables your secondary, monetary market. While it is understandable that you may feel resentment, anger, and even fury at the notion that you won’t get as sweet a deal as before, the fact that you’ve come under competition is indisputable, and no strong emotion is going to save your business. Only a better offer than your (purposely unorganized) competition will do that.
After all, telling your customers to fuck off (to applause!) in a room full of reporters rarely brings you more of those customers’ business, does it?
(Add to this that you are now demanding a higher price from leglislators: the abolition or erosion of society’s civil liberties such as the postal secret, right to trial, right to communicate, messenger immunity, and more, just in order to safeguard the old monopoly at any cost, and the case for changing suppliers is even stronger. This higher price that you are now demanding aggressively is what we have mostly been focusing on; however, your previous offer is far outcompeted, too.)
This letter is free to republish in any shape, form, location or quantity, but please credit the author as such.
34 Responses to “Open letter to the music industry”
“in your model, eninto qables your secondary” … Va?
Sen slutar sista meningen mitt i och avslutar inte parantesen.
Annars oerhört välskrivet och välformulerat. Jag har ofta funderat på just det här.
By Breki Tomasson on Oct 20, 2009
“the abolition or erosion of”
Of what?
By Rikard on Oct 20, 2009
Never mind. The whole text is showing now.
By Rikard on Oct 20, 2009
Hi Rick,
your blog post is spot on!
I just wonder if you can tell a bit more about the conference you mention in the beginning of the post?
Cheers,
Grunde
By Grunde on Oct 20, 2009
Wow, that was right to the point. Very well described. I hope they read it, not with anger, but with the entrepreneurial curiosity they should have in their position.
By Tommy Jönsson on Oct 20, 2009
Hey Grunde, he said the name, it’s just not obvious to those who do not know it:
“In the City”
Website http://www.inthecity.co.uk
Regards,
René
By Ismirworscht on Oct 20, 2009
“This higher price that you are now demanding aggressively is what we have mostly been focusing on; however, your previous offer is far outcompeted, too.)”
That is so very true, the music industry have themselves raised the stakes of this game, fooled by their proper greed. And now they stand to lose it all.
I say, good riddance!
By RikMatts on Oct 20, 2009
Disingenuous to say the least. If it were true that the music biz have been underbid and outcompeted by new suppliers, then what’s the fuss about? If the market has already solved the problem, through creative commons and other means, then why do we need any changes to copyright law at all?
The reason of course is that the people doing the undercutting are the filesharers and not the amateur musicians. And they are sharing music industry product. Hence the resentment in the music biz.
Falkvinge — whose policies I generally agree with — would do well to dial down the antagonism a notch or two. At least if he wants to be taken seriously.
By PP supporter on Oct 20, 2009
PP supporter: You are confusing the two separate deals, that I describe in the blog post, with each other. It’s the deal between the music makers and the legislators I’m calling into question; not the monetary market.
File sharing is not relevant to that particular deal at all.
By Rick Falkvinge on Oct 20, 2009
Interesting and clear explanation about the copyright issue!
It is interesting to compare copyright and patents. When the two concepts first were introduced the time scale were similar. However over time the copyright time has increased to the current, absurd level, the patent time has stayed about the same. To me this indicates the asymmetry in the copyright case. We have a strong and vocal industry against “the public”. In the patent case we have buisnessies on both sides with more equal power of influence.
Thus the legislators has to turn back the comercial copyrigth into something that is more balanced between the two parties.
By Sten on Oct 20, 2009
Rick: My point is that if a new breed of creatives were really offering a better deal to the public, through the use of creative commons or otherwise, then we wouldn’t need any changes in policy. The problem would have solved itself, with no need for a new deal between music makers and legislators (i.e. the public).
But the activity on file sharing networks does NOT bear this out. People are still overwhelmingly sharing copyrighted works. I.e. they find them superior in quality to non-copyrighted works, all else being equal.
Therefore, your assertion that we no longer need the old supplier does not hold water. The truth is that the public has rejected BOTH the “old” deal and the “new” one, as evidenced by activity on these networks. We want the product of our old supplier at the price of our new.
IMO that’s not an unreasonable thing to ask for. But it’s a discussion that calls for more humility and less confrontation.
By PP supporter on Oct 20, 2009
Stavfel i början på näst sista stycket:
“price from leglislators:” borde vara “price from legislators:”
By Petter on Oct 20, 2009
“But the activity on file sharing networks does NOT bear this out. People are still overwhelmingly sharing copyrighted works. I.e. they find them superior in quality to non-copyrighted works, all else being equal.”
All else are certainly not equal.
More likely it shows what effect bombarding society with commercials in every place except your dreams have.
By K on Oct 20, 2009
Bra rutet!
By Mind on Oct 21, 2009
The more we learn about these entertainment industry dinosaurs, the more repulsion we feel. They’ve undermined their own cause and there’s no reason to waste time with them anymore. Ugh.
By Rick on Oct 21, 2009
Haha. Check out Martin Bryant’s own home page. This person has NFC when it comes to the Internet. He’s got TENS OF THOUSANDS of spam comments on his blog and he doesn’t do anything about them? Luser!
http://14sandwiches.com/about/
By Rick on Oct 21, 2009
@PP Supporter; the deal Rick talks about is simply this;
“We will not create music if you don’t give us this, this and that” from the old school industries. “This, this and that” have recently become a very big price to pay.
The deal that “the others” are offering (and far from all of them are acutally amateurs) is simply “we will create music, all you have to do is let us”.
And that is why the “second deal” is so more appealing.
By WysiWyg on Oct 21, 2009
WysiWyg: I understand that, and the point I am making is that this new fantastic deal is being offered DESPITE the current state of copyright law. So why do we need reform?
The answer is that we need reform because the PUBLIC DOES NOT AGREE with you. I never listen to CC music, and I don’t know anyone who does. So maybe this new deal isn’t so appealing after all.
By PP supporter on Oct 21, 2009
PP Supporter: Have you considered that the reason you don’t listen to CC music is because it doesn’t get the public exposure that copyrighted music gets? The music industry have worked with radio stations and the other main avenues of public music consumption to keep CC and other uncopyrighted music from gaining a foothold. This is a separate, but related issue that likewise needs to be addressed, and it seems to me that your point, namely that uncopyrighted music rarely becomes popular, only furthers the idea that something needs to change.
By Jalathas on Oct 21, 2009
PP supporter:
I could recommend that you browse sites like Jamendo.com, ccmixter.org (and even last.fm) to get an idea of the quality of free music.
Jamendo even provides a free API, so that you can make customized links that return whatever information about the music they host.
Here’s an example that returns a playlist (.pls) file with stream urls to 15 random songs from a selection of psy-trance artists on jamendo: http://tinyurl.com/yhhzrgo
By Skymt on Oct 21, 2009
@PP
“the point I am making is that this new fantastic deal is being offered DESPITE the current state of copyright law. So why do we need reform?”
You don’t seem to know how copyright is suppose to be legislated? Copyright is by definition suppose to be as short and weak as possible, while still giving just enough incentive to create.
And since more and more people today are creating with no copyright at all as incentive, there really shouldn’t be any copyright whatsoever any longer. The need for copyright is over. The 5 year commercial offer is more then enough.
But some, mainly big rights holders and those who like to collect money without doing any job, think that copyright should be as long as possible, and as strong as possible, simply because it’s possible to have it that way.
They seem to believe that copyright is a part of the creators or rights holders physical property and right to ownership, and that any reduction of their copyright or infringements on it, is theft or stealing?
But that’s not what copyright is about in any way.
Copyright isn’t about guaranteeing money to creators or rights holders for as long as possible out of principle or moral rights.
Copyright isn’t about letting creators and rights holders demand what business models they want to use to make money.
Copyright isn’t about equating intellectual property to physical property and ownership of it.
Copyright isn’t about the creators or rights holders interests at all.
Copyright is about the public’s interests.
Copyright is about maximizing the public’s access to content.
And the public decides what kind of maximization they want.
The public decides how much of their property and right to ownership that should be taken away from them, with copyright, for commercial, or non-commercial use.
On that note the public has already decided that no property should be stolen from them by copyright, as long as what they do is for non-commercial use, so filesharing should definitely be legal.
And the public decides how long and strong copyright is needed, to give a reasonable chance of ROI. There’s absolutely nothing today that indicates that more then 5 years commercial copyright is needed to make an ROI.
Yes of course it’s easier to make even more money after 5 years, with an extended copyright, but copyright isn’t about guaranteeing the creators or rights holders to alone make all the money that’s possible on their intellectual property, just because they created it or holds the rights to it.
The basic problem with anti-pirates and rights holders that call for harder legislation seems to be that they simply don’t know, or want to know, what copyright really is about, or who it’s suppose to benefit. Unfortunately neither does most politicians.
You as a PP supporter should already know all these fundamental facts about copyright.
By Fredrika on Oct 21, 2009
The fact is the internet is doing what it is suppose to do. “The information super highway” Because the new infrastructure is here to stay,. Things like music playable at home will have to become more or less free. Concerts will become more expensive as they have already, and artists will have to work on the road more to make millions, instead of sitting at home selling cds, and making music executives rich who cant sing for shit. A fair trade really , if you havent paid for the music , whats five hundred for a concert.
By David on Oct 21, 2009
Fredrika: I agree with most of that. We need reform because the public is no longer happy with the “old” bargain of copyright.
However, I simply don’t see any evidence that amateur or CC content is a driving force at all. Yet that is the point Rick makes in his letter (”Dear music industry, you’ve been underbid and outcompeted.”)
I DO believe that the traditional distribution models have been outcompeted. I DON’T believe that the traditional production models have been outcompeted.
Whether fairly or not, I believe that the public still prefers music industry product. I don’t blame them. I certainly haven’t seen a bona fide CC licenced masterpiece like, say, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”. But I will check out the sources suggested by Skymt above.
To sum up, I agree with the PP policy of legalising filesharing between private individuals. This is simply an issue of distribution. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of a 5 year limit to commercial copyright, as I believe it will make the creative industries even more risk averse than they already are.
I guess my main disappointment with the Pirate Party is its unwillingness to engage with these issues; issues of quality and incentive to create.
“Not our problem” is a very disappointing answer.
By PP supporter on Oct 21, 2009
very nice post, pretty much agree with Falkvinge’s points, however i feel like making a point about copyright.
as Fredrika said:
“Copyright is about the public’s interests.
Copyright is about maximizing the public’s access to content.”
however it also has the important role of providing an incentive, albeit monetary, to create.
So basically, copyrights have been used (so far typically by vertically integrated organizations) in order to cover the high cost and risk of “creation”, as well as to give a big profit to those who make it.
The “problem” (in my a opinion a good thing) as i understand it, is that technology and networks facilitate “cheaper” and easier” creative processes to take place, and this contradicts older hierarchical models, which lose out on profit and power.
It is interesting because history has shown that it is hard to let go of power peacefully, nor does it happen overnight.
However if we want to say that we are growing as a civilization going through the information age, then i hope we all know how it is going to end.
By vangelis on Oct 21, 2009
@Vangelis:
It is important to understand that this is the means, not the end. If means and end are confused, the role of copyright will shift sharply.
The purpose of copyright is to culturally maximize society.
The means of doing so has been to provide an exclusive monopoly for the creator, to enable monetary gains.
The purpose of copyright was never to further creators monetarily. No law like that exists for any profession.
By Rick Falkvinge on Oct 21, 2009
This letter should be on the desk of all copyright holders. It should also be read by every single Internet user on the planet. THAT’s how much spot on you are! Well done!
By Gustav Wetter on Oct 22, 2009
“The purpose of copyright is to culturally maximize society.”
but how to you maximize society’s culture by giving monopoly power to those who invest (not just money)in providing culture?
it’s an oxymoron. As long as people will work / invest for profit, you will need to have gains. Let alone enough incentive to take a very high risk sometimes… (i am thinking film industry, but you can also take for example a musicians “labor” and opportunity cost of choosing to practice an instrument!)
so the proposed model, may indeed work well in some cases (open source movement?) but in others, it poses the threat of decreasing cultural output.
I have yet to be convinced because I can’t see it work from a market perspective. Bargaining over copyright has the potential to adversely affect a well established market, one which is also being battered by a social movement led by advances in technology.
The big players had a chance (MTV > YouTube?) but their rigid structure could not adjust quickly to change and now they are paying for it. A new deal will probably mean further future deals as they reluctantly fail to adjust.
By vangelis on Oct 22, 2009
Hi, nice site! I’ll return for sure! I tryed to subscribe to your rss feed but it gave me an error! can you please check if it’s a problem from the site or my problem?
Thanks!
By Psytrance Forum on Mar 8, 2010