Piracy or Promotion?
With RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) making headlines lately, suing single mothers, college students, and even dead people for file sharing and illegal music downloads, we need to start asking the question: Who are they really protecting? Not the artist, that’s for sure. In fact, many major label artists are speaking out against RIAA, arguing that these lawsuits are no more than a means to help keep dying labels afloat in an ever-changing industry. Wouldn’t their time be better spent working on a more up-to-date business model that embraces file downloads (i.e., iTunes)? Of course, we’re talking common sense. And being a lobbyist organization, they aren’t allowed to use any.
As unsigned artists, how does filesharing and downloading affect us and our potential income? Not as much as you might think. Even the biggest entertainers in the music industry will tell you that the bulk of their money is not from album sales and royalties. They make some money and for the rare few who sell bazillions of copies and have songs on the radio every hour – that can add up. But it’s still chump change compared to the money artists make on the road. Unfortunately, major labels are plagued by overstaffing and an excess of middlemen. By the time they pay their staff, there’s only a small fraction left for the band itself. So, returning to the question posed in my introduction: Who is the RIAA actually protecting?
I’m of the opinion that this new trend the RIAA is fighting can only help unsigned artists. Promotion is priceless and with the introduction of peer-to-peer software and social networks, unsigned artists can now get exposure that would have required millions of dollars worth of marketing to get a decade ago. Back then, if you wanted someone in California to hear your music, you either had to go there and play, know a friend out there and send him a cassette to blare from a boombox outside a Raiders game, or hijack a radio station so they would put one of your songs in their rotation. None of these options were very feasible, affordable, or legal. Nor would they have been very effective because without representation (a major label) and the associated funding, your efforts still wouldn’t have extended beyond the locale you just found a way to invade. On the flipside, this was part of the reason why the industry was less watered down, because the bands that “made it” really had to do something worthwhile to make it. I get sick to my stomach when I see a band that formed three weeks ago, posted a song on MySpace, used a bunch of bots to get four billion friends, and are instantly hailed as the next big thing. That’s cheating to me - but I’m also old-fashioned because I was playing live shows when MySpace was an inactive neuron in Tom’s pre-pubescent brain. Regardless how I feel about it though, it is possible to do that. Whether it’s right or not doesn’t matter. Just like a lot of amazing artists never got any recognition because their self-promotion was limited in the past and maybe they just didn’t know the right people to scratch the backs of. And after getting burned out, they gave up their dream and are now accountants, WalMart greeters, and single moms (possibly ones being sued by RIAA).
It’s not a perfect world…everything in life has its pros and cons. And the Internet, when discussed regarding the benefit to unsigned artists, has major pros. Maybe you disagree; maybe you think I’m right on the money. If you agree, get online and look at some petitions and actions that are being taken to try to put a stop to the new mob called RIAA. It won’t be easy, but eventually they’ll just have to realize that they’re defending a dead horse and it will then be up to them to decide if they want to beat it or not.
