"Net neutrality regulations could, if the music industry gets its way, usher in more Internet surveillance and a crackdown on suspected pirates. This week, just about every music trade group called for broadband policies--which could include a new federal law--that would "encourage" Internet providers to crack down on suspected piracy by their customers. "The current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators," the groups, including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), said Wednesday in a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "Our businesses are being undermined, as are the dreams and careers of songwriters, artists, musicians, studio technicians, and other professionals."
The ironic thing about the RIAA's claims is that they themselves have been "not working for America's creators" for some time now. Sure there's an element of their business that still does cater to the artists at the top, that ensures that there are plenty of cross-promotional opportunities for a hand-full of their acts to take advantage of. Sure, the artist-of-the-moment does have an array of things to look forward to, courtesy of their record label: TV documentaries about their lives, corporate sponsorships from major companies, mainstream magazine covers, access to designers and managers who can help launch a clothing or fragrance line...
Unfortunately none of that works for anyone but top-tier mainstream celebrity-artists. Long past are the days of diversification in label's rosters...long past are the days when a major label would invest time and clout in groups based solely on their potential. The reward vs. risk quotient is irreversibly skewed... because they're terrified. Companies that invest in art can't be terrified, they have to be fearless and bursting at the seams with uncommon foresight. Ask yourself why Eminem's last few horrible albums are still a huge deal...the answer is simple: because there's no one to replace him.
The RIAA and it's member-companies waived their white flag in the internet fight around 2001, when Napster proved more of a foe than they cared to match wits with. Sure, they threw lawyers at the problem, but at no point did they actually choose to fight economics with economics. They chose to fight economics with lawsuits. They just gave up, and took up the role of victim/complainer. It doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to figure out that playing the role of "victimized corporation" doesn't help you sell products, it makes you more susceptible to theft. People steal from people who have no defense, people especially steal from those who they find pathetic, and they double-especially steal from those who they feel dont deserve what they have. The RIAA and it's members have lost so much respect in the past 10 years, that their reputation is actually poison to the industry they represent. Artists and bands now have to contend their music with an ever-increasing public perception that "the music industry is not worth supporting."
So, here in 2010, we face a growing "threat" of internet traffic regulation, where our service providers can potentially spy on us and crack down on our illegal tendencies. Naturally, the RIAA is for this, because it can possibly help them, without a personal cost to them. If this goes down, Google and Verizon will take the flak, not the RIAA. They can just speak out in favor of this, and then they may reap some benefit somewhere down the line. Again, it doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to know that this, in no way, will fix their business. We're a long, long way from Verizon handing out "automatic infringement tickets" for a detected illegal download...like a red-light camera sending you a traffic ticket in the mail. To me, that's the only way this could have any measured effect on illegal downloading, because how many Verizon employees could potentially monitor their user's activities? It would have to be automated...and even then, the legal ramifications of that system would be staggering. Something tells me there's no real legitimate desire for Verizon, Google, et al. to actually engage in several million legal transactions with their customers, customers who can leave their services on a whim.
Music will continue to be on the downloading chopping block until it's too much trouble to get. Inconvenience is the antidote for internet thievery. Make hurdles and people will choose to not jump. Manufacture empty threats, and people will not only recognize them as empty, but they'll also be more inclined to not respect future threats. And if a threat fails to instill fear, the threat is useless. RIAA has no ammunition at this point, yet they keep pointing the gun at millions of people thinking that they'll be scared. Moreover, what's the good of threatening your consumers? Art exists at the permission of the public, not at the permission of it's investors, and I think the RIAA is in dire need to understand that, and cater to that fact.
The ironic thing about the RIAA's claims is that they themselves have been "not working for America's creators" for some time now. Sure there's an element of their business that still does cater to the artists at the top, that ensures that there are plenty of cross-promotional opportunities for a hand-full of their acts to take advantage of. Sure, the artist-of-the-moment does have an array of things to look forward to, courtesy of their record label: TV documentaries about their lives, corporate sponsorships from major companies, mainstream magazine covers, access to designers and managers who can help launch a clothing or fragrance line...
Unfortunately none of that works for anyone but top-tier mainstream celebrity-artists. Long past are the days of diversification in label's rosters...long past are the days when a major label would invest time and clout in groups based solely on their potential. The reward vs. risk quotient is irreversibly skewed... because they're terrified. Companies that invest in art can't be terrified, they have to be fearless and bursting at the seams with uncommon foresight. Ask yourself why Eminem's last few horrible albums are still a huge deal...the answer is simple: because there's no one to replace him.
The RIAA and it's member-companies waived their white flag in the internet fight around 2001, when Napster proved more of a foe than they cared to match wits with. Sure, they threw lawyers at the problem, but at no point did they actually choose to fight economics with economics. They chose to fight economics with lawsuits. They just gave up, and took up the role of victim/complainer. It doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to figure out that playing the role of "victimized corporation" doesn't help you sell products, it makes you more susceptible to theft. People steal from people who have no defense, people especially steal from those who they find pathetic, and they double-especially steal from those who they feel dont deserve what they have. The RIAA and it's members have lost so much respect in the past 10 years, that their reputation is actually poison to the industry they represent. Artists and bands now have to contend their music with an ever-increasing public perception that "the music industry is not worth supporting."
So, here in 2010, we face a growing "threat" of internet traffic regulation, where our service providers can potentially spy on us and crack down on our illegal tendencies. Naturally, the RIAA is for this, because it can possibly help them, without a personal cost to them. If this goes down, Google and Verizon will take the flak, not the RIAA. They can just speak out in favor of this, and then they may reap some benefit somewhere down the line. Again, it doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to know that this, in no way, will fix their business. We're a long, long way from Verizon handing out "automatic infringement tickets" for a detected illegal download...like a red-light camera sending you a traffic ticket in the mail. To me, that's the only way this could have any measured effect on illegal downloading, because how many Verizon employees could potentially monitor their user's activities? It would have to be automated...and even then, the legal ramifications of that system would be staggering. Something tells me there's no real legitimate desire for Verizon, Google, et al. to actually engage in several million legal transactions with their customers, customers who can leave their services on a whim.
Music will continue to be on the downloading chopping block until it's too much trouble to get. Inconvenience is the antidote for internet thievery. Make hurdles and people will choose to not jump. Manufacture empty threats, and people will not only recognize them as empty, but they'll also be more inclined to not respect future threats. And if a threat fails to instill fear, the threat is useless. RIAA has no ammunition at this point, yet they keep pointing the gun at millions of people thinking that they'll be scared. Moreover, what's the good of threatening your consumers? Art exists at the permission of the public, not at the permission of it's investors, and I think the RIAA is in dire need to understand that, and cater to that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment