Re: under the boot of the music industry

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/21/02 at 7:07 PM, pelagius pelagius <pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What kind of alternative economy are you expecting?  Giving
> away things for free seems to me to be an alternative TO the
> economy.  Don't you think that webcasters (or at least let's
> say non-commercial webcasters) should be able to broadcast
> music for free?  Or do you agree with the CARP in principal but
> only have a problem with the numbers?

I'm certainly not FOR the monopolistic slight-of-hand that the media
conglomerates engage in.

Free is OK up to a point, but shouldn't producers and distributors be
able to be compensated for their efforts? How does anything sustain
itself if it's based on a give-away model? Someone has to buy something
somewhere, otherwise cultural production becomes a vocation. (Although
there are alternatives, like State support.)

I don't think producers would be happy if the distributors were making
$$ on work they provided for free.

I also don't think producers would be too happy if the "free" outlets
were canibalizing their ability to get distribution through a paying
outlet.

This, of course, sounds like one side of the Napster argument, but I
think the difference is that the conglomerates, and the "artists"
they've created, think they're deserving of every penny of the millions
they rake in.

You can think of Napster as theft, but what about conventional Top 40
radio? It's a "free" model based on advertiser support and there's
nothing to prevent a listener from recording what they hear for free.
It's an old threat to the media monopolies that's long since been
assimilated into their business model.

The media conglomerates could also view Napster-like services as
promotional tools, by recognizing that it ENHANCES CD sales for acts
that don't get the exposure that J-lo or Britny get.

The sad part of our current media economy is that distribution and
promotion seem to fall to extremes: fantastic quantities of money for
the N'Syncs, or "give-aways" for the microsounders. There's not much
in-between that's life sustaining, largely because it's a threat to
monopoly.

> So are you saying that there is no real difference between a
> small label and a large corporation because the small label
> doesn't function under a fundamentally different economic
> model? I'm asking these questions not in a confrontational way
> but because I'm genuinely interested in understanding what
> you're saying.

I'm saying that a small label has to make it's accommodation to a system
that's run for the benefit of (I won't say large) a FEW corporations.

Naomi Klein's book _No Logo_ makes the point that Starbucks goes beyond
just competing with the local mom and pops, driving them out of
business. In many cases, Starbucks locations even compete against
themselves. They don't worry about the revenue in a single location
because the overall sales are good. How can an individual or small
company compete against that?

In addition to being monopolistic in nature, it's also conservative. You
see this in the music industry's promotional strategies. Clearly enough
promotion will create a taste for anything in the American public. So
when Maria is doing great, it's safer to spend more $$ to promote Maria
than to "waste" dollars on a relative unknown, who might actually
compete against the investment they've made in Maria.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond!

-Tad