THE FUTURE OF MUSIC MANIFESTO BY Future of Music Coalition
The History of the Music Industry vs The Future of Music
June 1, 2000
The history of the American Music Industry is a disheartening one,
which largely details the exploitation of artists and musicians by
opportunists and those without the musicians' best interests at heart.
For too long musicians have had too little voice in the manufacture,
distribution and promotion of their music on a national and international
level and too little means to extract fair support and compensation for
their work.
Manufacturing and distribution monopolies concentrate the power of over
90% of music sold into the hands of five labels. With huge media mergers
continuing to consolidate the decisions of what to play and promote, it
becomes more and more difficult for artists to gain exposure through the
few remaining coveted radio spots.
Historically, musicians have had one of two unattractive choices:
-
Align themselves with major label exploiters and agree to unfair
compensation in the hopes of one day reaching a national audience; or
-
Resign themselves to working with indies and a life in the
shadows.
The Good News
Recent advances in digital music technology are loosening the
stranglehold of major label, major media, and chain-store monopolies.
Digital download and online streaming technology offers musicians a chance
to distribute their music with minimal manufacturing and distribution
costs, with immediate access to an international audience. Songs that
would never be programmed through currently-existing narrow commercial
channels are slipping through the radio industry programming stranglehold
and gaining exposure, thanks to the new breed of file-sharing
programs.
[ Top ]
The Bad News
As these technologies advance, their very accessibility threatens many
of the traditional revenue streams (like mechanical royalties) which
compensate musicians, often without substituting new payment
structures.
The Media and Policymakers
Most media attention to this issue polarizes discussion, focusing
either on the exploitation of artists by the major labels or on the
exploitation of the artists by Internet applications that encourage
unauthorized copying. Artists are presented with a false and unnecessary
choice, support traditional notions of artists' rights and be called a
money-grubbing luddite; or support new technology solutions and be accused
of ignoring the plight of those artists left behind. This rhetoric
pretends to speak for the artists, but in effect just continues to promote
the viewpoints of moneyed interests like The Record Labels or The
Technology Companies while it obscures some of the more promising new
possibilities.
The Future of Music
We build this organization as an attempt both to address pressing
music-technology issues and to serve as a voice for musicians in
Washington, DC, where critical decisions are being made regarding
musicians' intellectual property rights without a word from the artists
themselves.
-
No longer will corporate media and big money be able to frame the
discussion of music solely in terms of their industries, as we draw
together the strongest voices in the technology and independent music
communities to address questions of music in the marketplace with a
clear-eyed focus on the interests of the artists.
-
No longer will business interests or lobby groups for business
interests drown out the voices of the musicians on whose art they have
built an industry.
-
No longer will idealistic techies and idealistic musicians find
themselves locked into opposing sides of an issue that profoundly
affects both of our communities.
[ Top ]
We begin this organization with the intention of addressing three
pressing areas of concern.
-
Piracy / Technological Innovation
The Future of Music Organization is founded on the belief that
creation is valuable and should be compensated. Here we are speaking of
both musical creation and technological creation. By drawing together
advocates for musicians' rights and innovators in Internet technology,
we will work to move the discussion away from the narrow privacy vs.
piracy discussions that dominate the general media, toward practical
solutions leveraging the strengths of digital download technology on
behalf of the artists. Our work will encourage the development of
innovative Internet music business models to guard the value of
musicians' labor and ensure that artists will continue to be paid for
their compositions and performances despite drastic changes in methods
of distribution.
-
The RIAA's Conflict of Interest
The Recording Industry Association of America is a special interest
group that claims from time to time to lobby on behalf of musicians, but
it is funded by, and represents the interests of, the major record
companies - the same corporations traditionally known to be the primary
exploiters of the musicians that the RIAA claims to represent. The RIAA
simply cannot be trusted to serve two distinct masters - the record
companies and the artists. An important example is the "work for hire"
issue: the RIAA pushed legislation that gives major labels the right to
own musicians' master tapes in perpetuity, changing an existing law that
allowed some artists to regain the rights to their masters after 35
years. By advocating for this language, even while claiming to have the
artists' interests at heart, the RIAA made it clear that it is
compromised, and cannot be left to its own devices in the policy-making
arena.
In a more frightening development, the RIAA is attempting to step
beyond its traditional lobbying role in order to enter the
music-licensing business by collecting and distributing royalties from
webcasts. While there is clearly a need for an organization to manage
these royalties (webcasting royalties could result in more money than
currently collected by BMI and ASCAP combined), the Future of Music has
no confidence in the RIAA's ability to represent the voice of musicians
or to collect and distribute artists' royalties from the major labels
who fund the RIAA.
The Future of Music therefore advocates for an impartial and
accountable organization to guard the value of artists' webcasting
royalties. By standing in opposition to the RIAA we hope to give voice
to the concerns of musicians who are simply not represented by an
organization whose core mission is promotion and protection of the
record industry agenda.
[ Top ]
-
SDMI
The Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), spearheaded by the RIAA,
was an attempt to pull together a limited group of powerful consumer
electronics manufacturers; PC manufacturers, and record labels to
develop a copyright-enabled alternative to the MP3 format. It is viewed
by many as a misguided and desperate scramble by those in the existing
music business monopoly to maintain their stranglehold on the channels
of distribution through the application of a standardized encryption or
watermarking program.
As with most technologies that are conceived and developed in a
no-feedback vacuum, without the desires of potential consumers in mind
(not to mention an understanding of the limits of encryption
technology), it was destined to fail. As much has been said by Executive
Director Leonard Chiariglione, whose comments at the May 2000 SDMI
meetings revealed a combination of infighting between competing business
interests and fatal flaws in the group's structure, which requires all
decisions to be made by consensus. While SDMI members bicker and veto
proposals based on the personal financial interests of their
multi-national corporations, consumers are presented with narrow,
confusing options that alienate them and thus do more to promote piracy,
which becomes the only viable mode of digital transfer for the great
majority of the world's existing music.
The Future of Music believes SDMI is a perfect example of what
happens when industry attempts to legislate technological advances
without the crucial input of musicians and programmers.
[ Top ]
|
