Yesterday I mentioned that BBC Radio 2 had been talking about my comments on Wednesday night, but I only found out on Thursday morning at work whilst “listening again” on the BBC web site. Here’s the whole story…
The 2 hour Great British Music Debate 2004 was aired on BBC Radio 2 on Wednesday night. I sent an email to the panelists asking about Copyright law and the Internet. I also asked about the regulation of Peer to Peer file sharing.
I’ve transcribed it from the listen again feature on the BBC web site which runs for a week after transmission and can be found on this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/events/greatdebate2004/
I can provide an mp3 of the show upon request.
My question was as follows. (Please note that this wasn’t the exact wording, I didn’t save my question at the time.)
QUESTION
I would like to ask the panelists, do they think that digital media and the Internet, which mean the cost of duplication of music is almost zero, have rendered archaic Copyright law obsolete? Are more liberal licenses like Creative Commons which offer greater freedoms the future of the music industry?
Could Peer to Peer file sharing networks be regulated by the music industry as a broadcast medium like radio, rather than them suing potential customers for using them?
—
Below is the response. Unfortunately Creative Commons wasn’t mentioned and I’m not sure if the question I was really asking got answered, but this is what I got.
ANSWER
Nice email here from Ben Francis, and I don’t want to get too technical about this, I think we should just get the principle that Ben is getting at.
“The Internet has rendered Copyright law obsolete and music companies should change so that Peer to Peer sharing and Napster and the like can some how be licensed and legislated rather than simply saying no, Copyright law must be upheld.” Do we have a feeling on that?
Two different issues. Can Peer to Peer activity be made legitimate? Probably, it will be. Quite soon.
We should say, by Peer to Peer we mean the old file sharing, Napster, file sharing, You have some of my records, I’ll have some of yours, or mp3s.
There’s a way of legitimizing it, I’m sure that will be achieved soon.
The other issue, Copyright, is an important issue, because if creatives aren’t going to be payed for their work, how are they going to make a living? I mean it’s a very simple question, why would a creator not be payed for their work? Let’s ask Mig, what is your take on that? Do you embrace it? Is it a frightening concept?
It’s a frightening concept for someone who is a creator, for someone who generates income from writing songs and hopefully people buying it. Because if every thing’s given away, every thing’s free and it’s all there. You have two hamburger places next to each other and one is charging the full price and one is giving them away, you’re going to go to the one that’s giving them away. The problem is, eventually you’re going to end up with old hamburgers, there’s no new stuff. There’s no more meat going in, no more vegetables going in, there’s no nothing. So eventually you’re going to end up with just old music up there, new stuff, not stuff that people will be able to go and find. Unless you’re out there doing it live and building up a live following from going out there and working and working and working. You will have no fan base, nobody’s going to buy something they’ve never heard of before.
Simon, what do you think?
Well I actually I think downloading is something you can do to find new music. I go back to this thing. There’s this current wave of things called MP3 blogs or audio blogs which are people putting up individual songs of artists they really like. They put them up for a week, they say take a look at this, I’ll take it down for a week and please buy the album because I rate this artist. They do it with old catalogue stuff. Actually, once you find these people you like it’s a great way of coming across new stuff.
Presumably it’s illegal?
I think what happens is it’s not done on the same mass scale that Napster was done and also the other thing is lots of artists have suddenly realised that if you want to get these people to put your music up it’s a great way of getting free promotion. In the US you’ve had Warner Brothers who’ve actually been stalking some of these bloggers to say put one of our new songs up because actually the cost of breaking an artist is so much that if there’s any way you can use something like this to get a bit of viral spread, they’ll love it.
That is the new marketing buzz word isn’t it because I know of people who will now lurk around on line communities, maybe lurk around say the Oasis community if you have a band that sound a bit like Oasis and find out who are the opinion formers in that community, pick them off and say to them, why don’t you tell the rest of the people in your gang as it were, about my new band The Whatevers. I guess that’s what you mean, Viral Marketing.
Also people will run an individual site and they’ll get a couple of emails from an artist saying we sound like the sort of thing you want, if you want to take a listen to our site that’s great. It’s a nice way of opening things up.
I think it’s a tragic thing though when bands are reduced to say we sound a little bit like them, you might like us. I think that they should stake their own ground a little bit, be a little bit more original, a bit more bold.
Also, it’s a bit like walking into a record store and saying I’ll just grab this because it might interesting. I’ll grab that and that might be interesting.
I’m a very very heavy record buyer, CD buyer and I used to buy a lot of rubbish, but since I’ve been sampling things on the net, the number of dud CDs I buy has gone to nothing. I find more and better stuff. So there is bad news for the record companies in this, yeah?
———-
I love that final comment. I think it was only said in jest, but I just think it sums thing up quite well. By using the Internet to sample music you can find “more and better stuff”. However, this means you spend less money buying albums you don’t want just to find something decent.
Good timing
There’s a bit of an amusing coincidence going on here as well.
“Can Peer to Peer activity be made legitimate? Probably, it will be. Quite soon… There’s a way of legitimizing it, I’m sure that will be achieved soon. ”
Then today this is announced. (Napster creator Shawn Fanning has spoken publicly about his new project – a licensed file-sharing service with an almost unlimited selection of tracks.)
It has the look of something that was nearly a good idea, until Universal got their hands on it and forced DRM down everyone’s throats.