26th
More Billy Bragg
this is probably a bit disjointed and, because it was written sporadically over the past week, I probably repeat a couple of points but maybe it makes sense. I’ll also be adding to this as I slowly remember the other ideas I had for it that arrived in the process of waking up or falling asleep…
For almost the second time in a week, Billy Bragg has thwarted my attempts at not thinking about music licensing. This time it was in the op/ed pages of the New York Times:
“Last week at South by Southwest, the rock music conference held every year in Austin, Tex., the talk in hotel lobbies, coffeeshops and the convention center was dominated by one issue: how do musicians make a living in the age of the Internet?.”
Well, no, they weren’t. It seemed to me most the chatter was about concerts seen, concerts-yet-to-be-seen, concerts played, and concerts-yet-to-be-played. But, I wasn’t staying in Bragg’s hotel (though I might have snuck into its lobby restroom). And, of course, that’s one of the most striking things about all of these debates/hang-wringing sessions. The fretting about getting ripped-off by digital this and digital that is coming from industry folks and musicians like Bragg, that are already making a very good living off their music and seem, totally, to have forgotten that once upon a time they were playing shitty pubs for free beer with capitalization probably being a taboo, let alone a source of anxiety. Did Bragg (or Dave Allen or any of the other copyright speechifiers) really think about making a living as a musician then? Is that why he started playing music? Well, no. And I don’t buy that these folks fancy themselves advocates for the little guy, for the future of music and whatnot.
And I’m not saying that Myspace and other music-based networking sites aren’t abusing musicians. And, yes, I am suggesting that Bragg is – behind all of this – more concerned about his own pockets.
(at this point, you should have read the op/ed to really get some of what I’m talking about)
And Bragg is barking up the wrong tree. He’s advocating for some sort of paternal oversight (or something) that would make sure that any site making money off of music via page views and such, owes money to those musicians. He’s trying to liken it to other copyright situations where if the host is making money off the music, the artist is owed money, like a store or bar or radio station. But, the catch is that musicians are voluntarily entering in these contracts with Myspace et al. Bragg wants the government to play daddy. This makes me out to sound pretty right wing, I know. But, understand that Bragg’s wanting the government to play daddy isn’t quite the for-the-people kind of move he wants it to appear. He wants is for the social networking monopolies to stay intact.
That’s the problem. The reason band x clicks that box that says ‘yes’ to the Myspace terms and conditions is because there isn’t an alternative really. The market is cornered by only a very few social networking sites. They can keep all of their ad revenue to themselves because they don’t have to worry about artists jumping ship to another social networking site that does pay artists posting songs on their site. Why? Because there isn’t one. Why would there be? If there was, of course everyone would jump ship. But bands aren’t about to jump off the Myspace ship.
I don’t really know what the alternative would be. The ideal would be a non-ad supported site, I suppose. Maybe that’s something Bragg should be advocating – a networking site run by musicians outside the bounds of revenue concerns - instead of another nightmare PRO beaurecracy. Imagine what a site could if it strictly had the interests of musicians (and, thus, fans) in mind. We don’t know yet because it hasn’t happened.
And Bragg doesn’t care if it does happen. He just wants to get royalties from these companies that exist. For the little guy? The up-and-comer? Right. The money they would get would be token I’m sure because it would be per click/per listen. But Bragg would have another revenue stream successfully tapped for himself, which would be kicking out far more than nickels. And I think that’s the thing that really pisses me off: Bragg using the “little guy” card to further himself. He knows damn well the little guy isn’t going to be any closer to making a living off their music through getting royalties from social networking sites.
More problems:
The radio comparison is disingenuous. Radio is a promotions tool, yes, but for a limited amount of artists. People like Bragg, namely. And he should probably be aware that there are plenty of upstart musicians that do get radio play without getting paid for it, and are satisfied with the promotional value.
He should also be aware that “promotional value” means something entirely different depending on which end of the “success” spectrum you’re on. Bragg gets no promotional value from social networking sites. So this means something totally different from his perspective. Add to it that he came of age (became successful) when the internet was still meant for targeting missiles.
The other catch here is that radio isn’t an opt-in thing like social networking sites. Artists rely on ineffective PROs to get royalty money from radio stations. This makes me think more and more that Bragg is proposing establishing a PRO for the internet, a modern union…almost. Like modern unions and PROs, it’s the folks at the top of the ladder that reap the most benefits. Unlike unions, folks at the bottom rungs of PROs get absolutely no benefits.
Since Bragg doesn’t mention it in his editorial, I have to wonder if he’s referring exclusively of the PROs’ recent attempts to push into streaming/downloaded media. As in, a stream – like off a Myspace page — could potentially be classified as a small performance; the logic being that it’s being streamed for x>1, potentially, number of listeners. That seems like it would satisfy Bragg, but nowhere does he mention pre-existing PROs, leading me to think that he wants some above and beyond. So, we’d have social networking sites paying double royalties, one for small performance and one for whatever Bragg is suggesting.
In the case of downloads, this would actually be three royalties, two in addition to the one mechanical. Youch. You have to wonder if internet publicity won’t have a negative value in a few years.
