Posted 03 August 2009 - 04:34 PM
August is "Ban Major Record Labels Month"
In the past decade, have you downloaded music from a peer-to-peer service like LimeWire? Or shared files on the original Napster? Once? Twice? Lots? If so, you might want to hire a good lawyer, or consider moving to another country. Lately, major record labels—specifically, the "Big Four" (EMI, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and their many subsidiaries)—have been looking for folks like you.
You may not immediately recognize the names Jammie Thomas-Rasset or Joel Tenenbaum, but you should. Ms. Thomas-Rasset is the Minnesota single mother who, in June, was sued by the major record labels and ordered to pay roughly $1.9 million for downloading and sharing 24 songs. Mr. Tenenbaum, 25, was just successfully sued by subsidiaries of Universal, Warner, and Sony for sharing what he admitted in court last week were hundreds of songs over Napster and Kazaa, starting around 1999.
Here's a snippet from a BBC News story last week that focused on Tenenbaum's trial:
Under U.S. law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. However, the jury can raise the amount to $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were wilful.
In the [Thomas-Rasset] case, the jury awarded $80,000 per song.
Tenenbaum got off easy; on Friday he was ordered to cough up a measly $675,000, a decision he'll appeal. If he loses again, he'll file for bankruptcy. Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Neeson, argued that major record labels have not adjusted to the age of the Internet, and that his client was simply "a kid who did what kids do." Now, his second argument wouldn't hold up in court if Tenenbaum had, say, stolen someone's cell phone. But as for the first point about record labels not accepting the new business models necessary to succeed in the digital age: Um, you think?
Here's an example of how smart record labels are operating these days. At some point in the last few years, the independent labels noticed a trend: Of those who were still actually paying for music, very few people were buying CDs anymore, some people were still buying vinyl, and most were downloading music via iTunes or other sources. So the independent labels have started making better-looking packages and higher-quality pressings of vinyl releases, and including coupons for free digital downloads of the full records. Are they nuts? Why on earth would they give irresponsible consumers, the Joel Tenenbaums and Jammie Thomas-Rassets of the world, files that aren't protected, that can be passed on from friend to friend or traded on the Internet?
Because they like making money.
One thing about Joel Tenenbaum: He admits to "swapping" several hundred files over the past ten years, but he also bought more than $100 worth of CDs during that time. Tenenbaum represents a stereotype: someone who swaps songs online, and is—duh—a music lover. Not all of the people like this are rich, so there are only so many CDs—or digital downloads—they can afford. Make no mistake: Music lovers still purchase songs, even full albums. But the Internet has made it easier for enthusiasts to get their hands on music they might not have otherwise bought.
A funny thing can happen when someone listens to a free album and really likes it: That person may become a fan, or what record companies have come to know as "the only thing that keeps us employed." So, wisely, the indie labels realized that maybe they should keep those folks happy.
I imagine the thought process probably went something like this: If they're willing to buy vinyl, let's reward them with a free digital download, so they can also listen to the record on their iPods. They may decide to share these files, but let's be rational: At worst, there's nothing we can do about it; at best, it's free advertising. Someone who might have never heard this record may become—what's that term again?—oh, yes, a fan. Or even someone who goes to live shows, buys merchandise, and coughs up for future records.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the major labels revert to selling only vinyl and offering free digital downloads. These are just some ways smart companies have adapted to the new way music is consumed, instead of fighting it. And to be fair, Nonesuch Records, which is owned by Warner, offered a free CD—forget the download—with the vinyl package for Wilco's latest record. Nonesuch, however, is a rare breed: a label with independent spirit and artists that also has major-label backing.
In general, the major labels are afraid of digital files—look at how long it took them to remove DRM (digital-rights management, or copy-protection coding) from their iTunes offerings. The Big Four have all been loath to adapt to the Internet and develop lucrative business plans, though file-sharing and the Web have been popular for well over a decade now.
What's a multi-billion dollar industry to do? Well, for starters, it could develop a new way of thinking about file-sharing and copy protection, as the indie labels have. Or it could sue the pants off some kid who is just about as guilty as most of us. After all, they already succeeded in getting millions out of a single mom, right? It's a Pyrrhic victory at best—they're unlikely to collect, and now they're facing a public backlash.
Kind reader, I implore you to send the brain trust of the Big Four a message and make August "Ban Major Record Labels Month." Is there a record you really want to buy that's being released on a major label in the next four weeks? Wait until September to buy it. I bet you can stream it for free from the band's Web site or MySpace page. Or just suck it up for the next 29 days. And if you bought music this weekend, just extend the ban until September 2.
Let's also make August "Support the Indies" Month. I recognize not everyone is into indie rock, rap, jazz, or electronic music, but I promise you there's some really great stuff out there. Web sites like OtherMusic.com (which is also a brick-and-mortar record shop in New York City), Insound.com, eMusic.com, and iTunes itself all offer a wide variety of independent music. And Web sites like Bandcamp.com allow artists to sell music directly—and you can stream an entire song or album before you buy it, as many times as you want. Some of the downloads are even free!
Hopefully, if enough people ban the major labels, it will offset the profit (er, compensation) these companies make from the Joel Tenenbaums of the world. This may sound cruel—after all, major label employees want to pay their bills just like the rest of us—but it's actually just tough love. A message sent by the public in the form of a horrid August might finally make these companies realize the error of their ways, and that instead of suing so-called criminals, they'd do better to focus on improving their business plan for the Internet era. After all, when cassettes were popular, people shared songs all the time, but you never really heard about lawsuits—dual-cassette deck boomboxes and mix-tapes were the rage. Companies tend to not sue their customer bases when things are going well.
Although the details are still sketchy, Apple is working on a project involving the Big Four called "Cocktail," which is basically a plan to change and improve the way major labels sell music on the Web. Even if it doesn't work, it's a step in the right direction.
I'll close with this challenge to the Big Four: Forgive the "debt" owed by Ms. Thomas-Rasset and Mr. Tenenbaum, publicly apologize for pursuing litigation against the people you should be wooing instead of suing, and I'll write a column imploring people to buy your records because, for once in the last decade, you did the right thing.
BarbieGirl2# 
Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:45 PM
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
