Originally written for Performing
Songwriter Magazine, May 2002
* Shortly after this
article was turned in, Michael Greene resigned as president of NARAS.
Read Janis' follow up to this article: FALLOUT
- a follow up to The Internet Debacle
"The Internet, and downloading,
are here to stay... Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to
end up on the slagheap of history." (Janis Ian during a live European radio interview,
9-1-98) *Please see author's note at end!
When I research an article,
I normally send 30 or so emails to friends and acquaintances asking for opinions
and anecdotes. I usually receive 10-20 in reply. But not so on this subject!
I sent 36 emails requesting
opinions and facts on free music downloading from the Net. I stated that I
planned to adopt the viewpoint of devil's advocate: free Internet downloads are
good for the music industry and its artists.
I've received, to date,
over 300 replies, every single one from someone legitimately "in the music
business."
What's more interesting
than the emails are the phone calls. I don't know anyone at NARAS (home of the
Grammy Awards), and I know Hilary Rosen (head of rhe Recording Industry
Association of America, or RIAA) only vaguely. Yet within 24 hours of sending
my original email, I'd received two messages from Rosen and four from NARAS
requesting that I call to "discuss the article."
Huh. Didn't know I was that
widely read.
Ms. Rosen, to be fair,
stressed that she was only interested in presenting RIAA's side of the issue,
and was kind enough to send me a fair amount of statistics and documentation,
including a number of focus group studies RIAA had run on the matter.
However, the problem with
focus groups is the same problem anthropologists have when studying peoples in
the field - the moment the anthropologist's presence is known, everything
changes. Hundreds of scientific studies have shown that any experimental group wants
to please the examiner. For focus groups, this is particularly true. Coffee
and donuts are the least of the pay-offs.
The NARAS people were a bit
more pushy. They told me downloads were "destroying sales",
"ruining the music industry", and "costing you
money".
Costing me money? I
don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one
thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda
because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet…and check it
after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing.
Am I suspicious of all this
hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am
I concerned about losing friends, opportunities, my 10th Grammy nomination by
publishing this article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong,
and when they're that wrong, they have to be addressed.
The premise of all this
ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free
downloading.
Nonsense. Let's take it
from my personal experience. My site (www.janisian.com ) gets an average of
75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When
Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people
who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then
decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only
the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not huge
sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But…
that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money in my book. And that
doesn't include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows.
Or take author Mercedes
Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores and libraries. As she said
herself: "For the past ten years, my three "Arrows" books, which
were published by DAW about 15 years ago, have been generating a nice, steady
royalty check per pay-period each. A reasonable amount, for fifteen-year-old
books. However... I just got the first half of my DAW royalties...And suddenly,
out of nowhere, each Arrows book has paid me three times the normal
amount!...And the only change during that pay-period was that
I had Eric put the first of my books on the Free Library. There's an increase
in all of the books on that statement, actually, and what it looks like is what
I'd expect to happen if a steady line of people who'd never read my stuff
encountered it on the Free Library - a certain percentage of them liked it, and
started to work through my backlist, beginning with the earliest books
published. The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen
books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than
'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works." I've found
that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available on my website,
sales of all the CDs go up. A lot.
And I don't know about you,
but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd
be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise.
Now, RIAA and NARAS, as
well as most of the entrenched music industry, are arguing that free downloads
hurt sales. (More than hurt - they're saying it's destroying the industry.)
Alas, the music industry
needs no outside help to destroy itself. We're doing a very adequate job of
that on our own, thank you.
Here are a few statements
from the RIAA's website:
Let's take these points one
by one, but before that, let me remind you of something: the music industry had
exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape
recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos ("Why buy
the record when you can tape it?"), MTV, and a host of other technological
advances designed to make the consumer's life easier and better. I know because
I was there.
The only reason they didn't
react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD's
were uncopyable. I was told this personally by a former head of Sony
marketing, when they asked me to license Between the Lines in CD format
at a reduced royalty rate. ("Because it's a brand new technology.")
Realistically, why do most
people download music? To hear new music, or records that have been deleted
and are no longer available for purchase. Not to avoid paying $5 at the
local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can't
find anywhere else. Face it - most people can't afford to spend $15.99 to
experiment. That's why listening booths (which labels fought against, too) are
such a success.
You can't hear new music on
radio these days; I live in Nashville, "Music City USA", and we have
exactly one station willing to play a non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can
even tune it in. The situation's not much better in Los Angeles or New York.
College stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most of
us can't get them.
One other major point: in
the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist
becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows,
no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love.
Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've
created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a
royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of
my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own
show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my
website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me
exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes
and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten
curious, I am thrilled!
Who gets hurt by free
downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We
only get helped.
But not to hear Congress
tell it. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee
studying this, said "When Congress sits idly by in the face of these
[file-sharing] activities, we essentially sanction the Internet as a haven for
thievery", then went on to charge "over 10 million people" with
stealing. [Steven Levy,
Newsweek 3/11/02].
That's what we think of consumers - they're thieves, out to get something for
nothing.
Baloney. Most consumers
have no problem paying for entertainment. One has only to look at the success
of Fictionwise.com and the few other websites offering books and music at
reasonable prices to understand that. If the music industry had a shred of
sense, they'd have addressed this problem seven years ago, when people like
Michael Camp were trying to obtain legitimate licenses for music online.
Instead, the industry-wide attitude was "It'll go away".
That's the same attitude CBS Records had about rock 'n' roll when Mitch Miller
was head of A&R. (And you wondered why they passed on The Beatles and The
Rolling Stones.)
I don't blame the RIAA for
Holling's attitude. They are, after all, the Recording Industry
Association of America, formed so the labels would have a lobbying group in
Washington. (In other words, they're permitted to make contributions to
politicians and their parties.) But given that our industry's success is based
on communication, the industry response to the Internet has been abysmal.
Statements like the one above do nothing to help the cause.
Of course, communication
has always been the artist's job, not the executives. That's why it's so scary
when people like current NARAS president Michael Greene begin using shows like
the Grammy Awards to drive their point home.
Grammy viewership hit a
six-year low in 2002. Personally, I found the program so scintillating that it
made me long for Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White, which at least was so bad
that it was entertaining. Moves like the ridiculous Elton John-Eminem duet did
little to make people want to watch again the next year. And we're not going to
go into the Los Angeles Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Greene and
NARAS, where they pointed out that MusiCares has spent less than 10% of its
revenue on disbursing emergency funds for people in the music industry (its
primary purpose), or that Greene recorded his own album, pitched it to record
executives while discussing Grammy business, then negotiated a $250,000
contract with Mercury Records for it (later withdrawn after the public flap).
Or that NARAS quietly paid out at least $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment
suit against him, a portion of which the non-profit Academy paid. Or that he's
paid two million dollars a year, along with "perks" like his
million-dollar country club membership and Mercedes. (Though it does make one
wonder when he last entered a record store and bought something with his own
hard-earned money.)
Let's just note that in his
speech he told the viewing audience that NARAS and RIAA were, in large part,
taking their stance to protect artists. He hired three teenagers to spend a
couple of days doing nothing but downloading, and they managed to download
"6,000 songs". Come on. For free "front-row seats" at the
Grammys and an appearance on national TV, I'd download twice that amount!
But…who's got time to download that many songs? Does Greene really think people
out there are spending twelve hours a day downloading our music? If they are,
they must be starving to death, because they're not making a living or going to
school.
This sort of thing is
indicative of the way statistics and information are being tossed around. It's
dreadful to think that consumers are being asked to take responsibility for the
industry's problems, which have been around far longer than the Internet. It's
even worse to think that the consumer is being told they are charged with
protecting us, the artists, when our own industry squanders the dollars we earn
on waste and personal vendettas.
Greene went on to say that
"Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established
artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our
business." Right. Any "new" artist who manages to make the
Grammys has millions of dollars in record company money behind them. The
"real" new artists aren't people you're going to see on national TV,
or hear on most radio. They're people you'll hear because someone gave you a
disc, or they opened at a show you attended, or were lucky enough to be
featured on NPR or another program still open to playing records that aren't
already hits.
As to artists being
"marginalized out of our business," the only people being
marginalized out are the employees of our Enron-minded record companies, who
are being fired in droves because the higher-ups are incompetent.
And it's difficult to
convince an educated audience that artists and record labels are about to go
down the drain because they, the consumer, are downloading music. Particularly
when they're paying $50-$125 apiece for concert tickets, and $15.99 for a new
CD they know costs less than a dollar to manufacture and distribute.
I suspect Greene thinks of
downloaders as the equivalent of an old-style television drug dealer, lurking
next to playgrounds, wearing big coats and whipping them open for wide-eyed
children who then purchase black market CD's at generous prices.
What's the new industry
byword? Encryption. They're going to make sure no one can copy CDs, even
for themselves, or download them for free. Brilliant, except that it flouts
previous court decisions about blank cassettes, blank videotapes, etc. And it
pisses people off.
How many of you know that
many car makers are now manufacturing all their CD players to also play DVD's?
or that part of the encryption record companies are using doesn't allow your
store-bought CD to be played on a DVD player, because that's the same
technology as your computer? And if you've had trouble playing your own
self-recorded copy of O Brother Where Art Thou in the car, it's because
of this lunacy.
The industry's answer is to
put on the label: "This audio CD is protected against unauthorized
copying. It is designed to play in standard audio CD players and computers
running Windows O/S; however, playback problems may be experienced. If you
experience such problems, return this disc for a refund."
Now I ask you. After three
or four experiences like that, shlepping to the store to buy it, then shlepping
back to return it (and you still don't have your music), who's going to bother
buying CD's?
The industry has been
complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their
dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. (BMG has a
strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per
CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much;
the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them.
What actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.) NARAS and RIAA
are moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of business;
no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted
every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to
Target and WalMart et al for stocking CDs. The Internet has zero to do with
store closings and lowered sales.
And for those of us with
major label contracts who want some of our music available for free
downloading… well, the record companies own our masters, our outtakes, even our
demos, and they won't allow it. Furthermore, they own our voices for the
duration of the contract, so we can't even post a live track for downloading!
If you think about it, the
music industry should be rejoicing at this new technological advance! Here's a
fool-proof way to deliver music to millions who might otherwise never purchase
a CD in a store. The cross-marketing opportunities are unbelievable. It's
instantaneous, costs are minimal, shipping non-existant…a staggering vehicle
for higher earnings and lower costs. Instead, they're running around like
chickens with their heads cut off, bleeding on everyone and making no sense. As
an alternative to encrypting everything, and tying up money for years
(potentially decades) fighting consumer suits demanding their first amendment
rights be protected (which have always gone to the consumer, as witness the
availability of blank and unencrypted VHS tapes and casettes), why not take a
tip from book publishers and writers?
Baen Free Library is one success
story. SFWA is another. The
SFWA site is one of the best out there for hands-on advice to writers,
featuring in depth articles about everything from agent and publisher scams, to
a continuously updated series of reports on various intellectual property
issues. More important, many of the science fiction writers it represents have
been heavily involved in the Internet since its inception. Each year, when the
science fiction community votes for the Hugo and Nebula Awards (their
equivalent of the Grammys), most of the works nominated are put on the site in
their entirety, allowing voters and non-voters the opportunity to peruse
them. Free. If you are a member or associate (at a nominal fee), you have
access to even more works. The site is also full of links to members' own web
pages and on-line stories, even when they aren't nominated for anything.
Reading this material, again for free, allows browsers to figure out which
writers they want to find more of - and buy their books. Wouldn't it be nice if
all the records nominated for awards each year were available for free
downloading, even if it were only the winners? People who hadn't bought the
albums might actually listen to the singles, then go out and purchase the
records.
I have no objection to
Greene et al trying to protect the record labels, who are the ones fomenting
this hysteria. RIAA is funded by them. NARAS is supported by them. However,
I object violently to the pretense that they are in any way doing this for our
benefit. If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of
artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the
real issues facing us:
Additionally, we should be
speaking up, and Congress should be listening. At this point they're only
hearing from multi-platinum acts. What about someone like Ani Difranco, one of
the most trusted voices in college entertainment today? What about those of us
who live most of our lives outside the big corporate system, and who might have
very different views on the subject?
There is zero
evidence that material available for free online downloading is financially
harming anyone. In fact, most of the hard evidence is to the contrary.
Greene and the RIAA are
correct in one thing - these are times of great change in our industry. But at
a time when there are arguably only four record labels left in America (Sony,
AOL/Time/Warner, Universal, BMG - and where is the RICO act when we need it?)…
when entire genres are glorifying the gangster mentality and losing
their biggest voices to violence…when executives change positions as often as
Zsa Zsa Gabor changed clothes, and "A&R" has become a euphemism
for "Absent & Redundant"… well, we have other things to worry
about.
It's absurd for us, as
artists, to sanction - or countenance - the shutting down of something like
this. It's sheer stupidity to rejoice at the Napster decision. Short-sighted,
and ignorant.
Free exposure is
practically a thing of the past for entertainers. Getting your record played at
radio costs more money than most of us dream of ever earning. Free downloading
gives a chance to every do-it-yourselfer out there. Every act that can't get
signed to a major, for whatever reason, can reach literally millions of new
listeners, enticing them to buy the CD and come to the concerts. Where else can
a new act, or one that doesn't have a label deal, get that kind of exposure?
Please note that I am not
advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. I am not
saying copyrights are meaningless. I am objecting to the RIAA spin that they
are doing this to protect "the artists", and make us more money. I am
annoyed that so many records I once owned are out of print, and the only place
I could find them was Napster. Most of all, I'd like to see an end to the
hysteria that causes a group like RIAA to spend over 45 million dollars in 2001
lobbying "on our behalf", when every record company out there is
complaining that they have no money.
We'll turn into Microsoft
if we're not careful, folks, insisting that any household wanting an extra copy
for the car, the kids, or the portable CD player, has to go out and
"license" multiple copies.
As artists, we have the ear
of the masses. We have the trust of the masses. By speaking out in our concerts
and in the press, we can do a great deal to damp this hysteria, and put the
blame for the sad state of our industry right back where it belongs - in the
laps of record companies, radio programmers, and our own apparent inability to
organize ourselves in order to better our own lives - and those of our fans. If
we don't take the reins, no one will.