Billy Bragg: Let us decide how to exploit our own music

Sometimes there are words that really reverberate with people. What Thomas Jefferson wrote in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is one. I think Barack Obama's disquisition on race in America is another. I'm curious to know how the smackdown Billy Bragg delivered to the social-networking moguls is going to be received.

If history's any guide, his New York Times op-ed on Saturday called "The Royalty Scam" will fall on deaf ears. Still, it's worth a serious hearing.

Best as I can tell, Bragg isn't a technophobe trying to turn back the clock. Rather, he's concerned about the livelihood of his profession and he wants to know how musicians will make a living in the cyberage.

"The musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise. Their investment is the content provided for free while the site has no liquid assets. Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.

What's at stake here is more than just the morality of the market. The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it.

The claim that sites such as MySpace and Bebo are doing us a favor by promoting our work is disingenuous. Radio stations also promote our work, but they pay us a royalty that recognizes our contribution to their business. Why should that not apply to the Internet, too?"

He doesn't answer the questions he raises. But Bragg does recommend the creation of rules of the road to let artists "decide how our music is exploited and by whom." Rules? Consensus? Hoo boy, I can already hear the outrage, punctuated by dismissive peals of laughter. Too bad. He deserves a serious hearing. Now it's your turn.

Update 12:50 p.m. PDT: Over at Rough Type, Nick Carr has a good take on the topic that's worth reading. Especially this zinger toward the end:

"Exploitation is exploitation, no matter how lovingly it's wrapped in neo-hippie technobabble about virtual communities, social production, and the gift economy."

[enovikoff]

Like any issue there are two sides to it: the online social networking sites wouldn't exist if their customers were nickel-and-dimed to death with micropayments for redistributing music or videos. Would the world be a better place if all artists were "fairly" compensated by the RIAA and the MPAA, and nobody shared their love of an enthusiasm for their accomplishments by sharing ithem? (I put "fairly" in quotes because the 1-3% of selling price that artists get from the media distribution system is in and of itself exploitation. Sorry, Nick, but you can't criticize one form of exploitation if you don't go after the other ones.) Clearly, a new royalty or payment model has to be developed - ideally without including the RIAA and MPAA in the discussions at all, since they're so eagerly trying to make dinosaurs of themselves. It certainly isn't "fair" that social networking founders cart off millions of dollars based on free contributions by artists. But weighing the social networking sites down with payments isn't an alternative.

I think the answer is to share *metadata* rather than media. I've been trying to get people interested in this for a while, but it scares them since the RIAA will be coming after anyone that tries it - until they see that it's a fair way for music and video fans to get together and share their passion. The media could remain on a few (or many) services that charged for downloads or hi-def listening, but not for trial (say, 64Kbps or less) and those services would be responsible for royalty payments. People would share song titles, links to songs, any any other information about the artist or anything in their personal collection - but not the source of the music. A service similar to Kazaa could be built on this basis, with no risk of copyright violations by individual users or the service itself.

This would truly bring the age of virtual communities to maturity.

-Eric

[John Suave]

What an idiot this Billy Bragg guy is.... people who post their music at those sites are well aware that they're doing so without the possibility of financial compensation. It's hardly exploitation when YOU'RE the one posting your music there. Nobody HAS to use these sites, there's no guns to our heads. There are plenty of options for artists, so if social networks aren't appealing as an advertising platform, then don't use them. Simple as that.

[ggrs34]

The social sites make money from the content, what wrong with a fair share?

[dillholio]

There was once a man who bought a new refigerator. The old one still worked well, so he put it in his front yard in hopes it would find a new home & not wind up in a landfill. For five days, he wached people drive by slowly and eye it with suspicion. People would come up to it, look at it, and then take off. Fed up with this behavior, the man finally put a sign on the fridge that said "Good fridge, $50.00 or best offer." Somebody stole the fridge by the next day. Moral of the story? As an unsigned and unknown music artist, I would love to have enough enough public interest in my music to worry about having it stolen. That way I could sit around and worry about a new pricing model in the digital age that works for me, whilst trying to make a living off of prricey merch and touring. Until that day comes, all I have is myspace as an outlet, where 98% of my "fans" are fellow bands looking to network and plump out thier friend lists. Every time I hear a voice like this crying from the tar pit, my only saving grace is to remind myself that evolution does exist & one day I won't have to hear from fossils like this.

[Travis Ernst]

Couple of points... The artists that post their music post low res (128 or less) on these sites. Either low res or incomplete trx if the songs are high res. This allows them promotion, and the person to "sample" the artist before buying the platter or buying the tracks online and DLing them.

I have no issues when artists post low res versions of their songs. This helps increase sales, and allows people that have never heard of them to get to know their style and who the heck they are. You have people like me that refuse to listen to broadcast radio the way it has changed.

ERIC, as for sampling it at 64k; thats VOX only. If it's a narration you'll be in the clear. If it's music it'll sound worse than a scratchy worn out warped record with a bad needle. Seriously.

If the indies want to put out samples like I have seen LET THEM. It helps sales. I have never seen an artist post the entite song when they habve the new album listed. Usually it's 3 songs you can "try out" and then decide if you want to buy. Others have a broader sharing policy and you can check out each song for about 30 seconds.

What the computer and music community needs to do is get the monkey off our backs (RIAA) and keep them from being the bully in the schoolyard. YES enforce songwriter and royalty rights. However don't go after Granny if you think her IP address is being used to DL hard core rap (as they did). You don't get rid of a fly with a bazooka (but RIAA does).

[wango2007]

I'm constantly amazed at the "free-loader" society spawned by the Internet. Everyone seems to think the "free-sample" model is the only one that's worthwhile. But the joke is on the artists... people don't want a sample of the music, they generally just want a free ride. Then they cry like little girls when someone like the RIAA steps in and holds theives accountable for stealing. The problem is not with the artists, the law or the RIAA. The problem is with irresponsible and immoral people who don't pay for the music they download and listen to. If there was ever a black and white issue, this is it.

[The_Decider]

You are very wrong.

People who download illegally are copyright infringer's, not thieves. The RIAA are the thieves.

Secondly, Trent Reznors experiment with offering music online for free and charging for it has generated him more money then he would have if he had gone through thew thieves den(RIAA).

Not only that, he released his music under a creative commons license which allows redistribution as long as you don't charge for it.

Stop shilling for the RIAA, no on believes their BS.

[dafuller]

It's the experience, stupid. Just as Marshall McLuhan so famously said "the media is the message" people will pay for the experience. Look at what Trent Reznor has done with his release. He made mad cash by giving away his stuff and creating a richer experience for those who want to pay.

The myspace experience is very low-grade. So is bebo. People will pay for a higher-level experience. If low-grade is all they want then let 'em drink from the communal well. If they want something a little better then it's probably worth something.

Bragg reminds me of the people who made props for airplanes or coal furnaces and ignored jet engines and natural gas. As Peter Gabriel (another media innovator) said "Like a fly waiting for a windshield to come."

At the end of the day, artists are subject to the whims of the people. If people don't think as often of Bragg than before and he wants to make money off his art in the here and now then he needs to create like a madman and let folks try to catch up to him. If he wants to leave a legacy and die poor as so many of the Impressionists did, then it's his decision too.

[dafuller]

It's the experience, stupid. Just as Marshall McLuhan so famously said "the media is the message" people will pay for the experience. Look at what Trent Reznor has done with his release. He made mad cash by giving away his stuff and creating a richer experience for those who want to pay.

The myspace experience is very low-grade. So is bebo. People will pay for a higher-level experience. If low-grade is all they want then let 'em drink from the communal well. If they want something a little better then it's probably worth something.

Bragg reminds me of the people who made props for airplanes or coal furnaces and ignored jet engines and natural gas. As Peter Gabriel (another media innovator) said "Like a fly waiting for a windshield to come."

At the end of the day, artists are subject to the whims of the people. If people don't think as often of Bragg than before and he wants to make money off his art in the here and now then he needs to create like a madman and let folks try to catch up to him. If he wants to leave a legacy and die poor as so many of the Impressionists did, then it's his decision too.

[jmmejzz]

I don't understand what Bragg is complaining about. The musicians post of their own free will, knowing there is no compensation but also knowing it is a free outlet for their work and maybe enough people will notice or the right people will notice. FWIW, the Obama speech will be forgotten by next month, what Jefferson wrote, people have died for.

[Balfor]

The entire strawman so rabidly promoted as the new digital millennium of 'sharing and caring' falls apart like the naive, ill-conceived babble it is when considering anything that cannot be digitally reproduced. A sculptor is free from worry in this domain, as are any artists whose choice of media is non-recordable, as are automobile manufacturers and drug companies. This new-world ideology is *entirely* based upon a medium wherein normally compensated-for-works can easily be obtained for free, and it's not just music that is the victim of its me, me, me, klepto-euphoria, but anything that can be digitized, from software to movies to photographic works.

So let's now break into the sculptor's studio, steal his statues and build a business model around doing it again and again!

Between the lines of all this hackneyed, bright-eyed, new-age commentary is the same tired argument in support of ideals whereby someone's effort is made freely available to all with not even the slightest intention or desire to compensate the creator, and that is the simple reality, no matter how wonderfully you dress it up.

People simply will not pay a cent for anything that they can get for free, and the so called 'new business model' -- a 'business model' in name only that survives exclusively through gossip, hearsay and immature idealism rather than by intelligent, considered design-- has no real business substance or effect except a profoundly negative one upon the artist.

It is indeed true that most artists are unfairly taken advantage of--many to the point of destruction--by big media like RIAA, so let's go ahead and make sure we help to kill them off even further by attacking from the other, usually more trusted, side of 'we the people'.

Witness the comments here about Trent Reznor's supposed 'success'. His not-so-recent statements to the contrary, that he was shocked and saddened by peoples' blatant disregard of his efforts and his pleas for meager, non-RIAA style compensation, while they gleefully went about downloading his work, appear to have been selectively canceled out by the usual crowd of suspects and anxious idealists.

This sort of 'scheme' is deemed legitimate by many because it is born of the natural human habit to take and horde as much as possible for as little as possible, so it is approved and promoted as something virtuous, when in fact it's not only wrong, it's reprehensible, and the antithesis to creativity, and in each new generation this insidious selfishness respawns from the same root as do all forms of socialist ideals--that 'ideal realm' where there are never more than two types of cars, two styles of houses, and the only music available on the store shelves is that made by government-paid, government-inspired musicians.

By the way, Radiohead also regrets their RAINBOWS project after a similarly sad showing and will never again repeat the mistake.

As a musician, I want the choice and the legal rights to manage the path and use of my work, but all my choices are disappearing. Perhaps we are all destined to follow the 'Chinese Model', where it is nearly impossible now to find a legitimate copy of anything on the shelves (the sad, real, truth)--where it's gone even further to not only steal and copy, but dangerously forge and fake medications and other critical products, and sadly, where all of our greatest contemporary musical works are used routinely to back locally movies and TV shows, royalty-free...

Best,
B

[mikalg]

Mad cash? I will assume that you are saying that Trent profited from his "experiment". he did not, and publicly states that this "experiment" was a failure if you consider profit as a success model. Most of us would. Google the information if you don't believe that what I say is true.

This FACT does not make your argument mute. However, it does show that this model was not a success that you claim it to be.

[sachman1]

The artist is exploited no matter what...

http://tinyurl.com/ys4ekc

[thestanleys1123]

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution. While it's hard to attribute the Constitution in general, or the preamble specifically, to just one person, it is James Madison who is considered the "Father" of the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris is generally considered to have composed most of the language in the final draft, including the preamble.

[Len Bullard]

The social networks are sharecropping fields for the artists. YouTube is the best bet of them all for musicians in general.

Otherwise, we are getting accustomed to having to give away our recordings to feed the kids who model their success on Steve Jobs. As the quality plunges and it becomes an amateur ghetto, they will continue to celebrate bad and mob good.

I'd love to hear Obama explain exactly why musicians have to be the new under class to his hip-hop contributors who compete a bit more ferociously than Bragg's band.