“I’ve had the experience more than once of having
someone come up to me and — completely pure of heart — excitedly tell me they
bought copies of my CDs when I was last in town and they enjoyed them so much
they made copies for 15 or so of their friends,” said Carothers.
There goes the revenue stream. The unauthorized
copying and downloading of music has been a hot topic since the 1999 launch of
Napster, the peer-to-peer file-sharing service, and neither prosecution nor
legislation has meaningfully stemmed the tide. The failure of the Stop Online
Piracy Act and a companion anti-piracy bill months ago knocked the
entertainment industry back on its heels, raising questions about whether
Congress has the political will to pass legislation.
Virtually every entertainment and media company has
been buffeted by the digital revolution, but the music industry was the first
to see major economic consequences and a dramatic shift in the buying habits of
a new generation. Despite growth in iTunes and other digital sales, many young
people continue to see “free” as the appropriate price tag on music.
Column sets off debate
That was illustrated by the online debate ignited in
June by an intern at National Public Radio’s “All Songs Considered.” In a
column titled “I Never Owned Any Music to Begin With,” Emily White admitted
that she has more than 11,000 songs in her iTunes library yet has only bought
15 CDs in her lifetime. “I’ve come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing
means to musicians I love,” she wrote. “I can’t support them with concert
tickets and T-shirts alone, but I honestly don’t think my peers and I will ever
pay for albums.”
There was a swift backlash on the Web, where David
Lowery, of the bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, gently chided White:
“You must live with the moral and ethical choice that you are making to not pay
artists. And artists won’t be paid.”
Predictably, that column ignited its own backlash,
including this less-gentle retort to Lowery from Gang of Four bassist Dave
Allen: “The Internet doesn’t give a damn about musicians or your mediocre
band.”
Noah Webster would not have been amused. Primarily
known for his early and influential dictionary, Webster campaigned in the 1780s
for copyright laws to protect American authors from theft of their content by
printers. The printers of the 1780s were not large corporations. They were
small shops that made their living largely by stealing the content of books
published in Europe. Webster wanted to make sure his work would not be
published without compensation.
Sept. 5 marks the 225th anniversary of the drafting
of the Constitution’s copyright clause. Advocates argued that ensuring authors
were paid would encourage literary arts, lead to a body of truly American
literature, unify the nation and demonstrate that the U.S. could be a leader in
creativity. This notion of building a haven for creative people was so
important that it was ratified as part of the Constitution in 1789, two years
before ratification of the First Amendment, which gave us freedom of
expression.
Two key principles
In a two-year span, this nation adopted two major,
interlacing principles: Americans were free to write whatever they wanted and
had every right to be compensated for their work. The First Amendment
encouraged creativity, and the copyright clause guaranteed compensation.
So often, the debate over illegal downloading focuses
on technology. Those who defend the unauthorized sharing of music say that
critics are living in the past and had better get used to the new reality. But
that new reality is taking a toll. “Over the past decade, America has lost a
staggering number of professional songwriters and composers, primarily due to
the impact of illegal music downloading,” says Bart Herbison, executive
director of the National Songwriters Association. “Those that remain in the
profession are struggling to earn even a minimal income.”
Rutgers law professor Stuart Green argued in The New
York Times recently that we’re framing unauthorized downloading in the wrong
way. “People who work hard to produce creative works are entitled to enjoy
legal protection to reap the benefits of their labors,” Green wrote. “But
framing illegal downloading as a form of stealing doesn’t, and probably never
will, work.”
Fair enough. The recording industry’s attempt to
prosecute individuals was a public relations fiasco. But the fact remains that
the original justification for copyright law — the flowering of a creative
community — is being undermined by those who won’t pay for the music they
download.
Most illegally downloaded songs come from major
stars and labels, but the food chain surrounding major artists includes
songwriters, producers and musicians who are trying to get by in a ravaged
industry.
Unauthorized downloading is a global challenge, and
no one nation will provide the solution, but America’s origins suggest we
should care more than most.
In the end, this is not about business models or
emerging technology. It’s about living up to the promise we made to Webster and
the first generation of Americans who believed that art should be free, but not
necessarily free of charge.
About the author: Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
This article was published by the First Amendment Center.
This article was published by the First Amendment Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment