Music Piracy 101

THE MUSIC PIRATES OF THE CAWEBEAN
By James W. Higgins

At the risk of harping on a dead issue, we ring in the New Year with a continuation of the debate on the file-sharing menace. Particularly the “pirating” of the music our beloved musicians labour so hard to provide us with. Trying to maintain an unbiased point of view on the matter is difficult considering public opinion is divided for and against as widely and openly as the public opinion on Gulf War Part Deux. However, I will try to endure professionally in order to provide for the layman a clear understanding of the facts to date. Incidentally, “public” opinion on the issue is apparently on the back burner in the priorities of the mass media and those it openly caters to.

We have already assessed the problem in a concise manner, and it is very easy to understand: people are stealing. Well, that’s no good. People are also stealing satellite signals, too. The crucifixion of the arguments against file sharing lies within the means by which these dastardly thieves are acquiring their merchandise: via the world-wide web. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the web spawned from The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project DARPANET in 1949 to protect U.S. Intelligence from the Red Threat. The picture that begins to form has two different sides; those clever devils have the web completely under their thumb; or, those clever devils are the proverbial child playing with gasoline and matches, only to watch consequently as the house burns down around him. To give DARPA the benefit of the doubt is to assume that they have sat back and watched this trend of internet piracy evolve into the plague it has become today. It would also then be safe to assume that there is some hidden agenda at work when the U.S. Recording Industry (which is apparently a represented government branch) hands out subpoenas to those caught with file sharing software. To take the responsibility of the internet away from its founding fathers helps to illustrate a more realistic perspective: they’ve created a monster they cannot control. That seems to be the routine of the world’s leading powers. With the constant battles between the law makers and hackers, the latter of which always appear to be one step ahead of the game, this picture is really all you’re left with. This of course is provided one isn’t into secret government agendas.

So now that we have finished with the dry stuff, we can move along to discuss the public mouth pieces that apparently exist only to rally sympathy for their respective cause. No point in delaying the inevitable any longer; when the subject of stealing artists’ labour comes up, Metallica is not very far away. Taking their stance of heavy metal forefathers and mutating it into the loft apartment above a really great party (thank you Robin Williams), Metallica have effectively split there fan base by their actions against over three-hundred thousand Napster users in early May of 2000, and countless others since. What exactly are their comments regarding the issue? Well, to say “they” is a misappropriation, drummer Lars Ulrich is the one seen speaking on behalf of his band mates in nine interviews out of ten. To paraphrase a recent comment of his “The idea of taking song seven isn’t really what we had in mind… poor little song.” This is a very suspect phrase. Since when do the thoughts and opinions of a corporate musical group really matter? Don’t get me wrong, musicians obviously have some input on what goes on tape, but does their input really go much further than that? When Gene Simmons was asked why he’s still doing his thing, he made no secret about the money to be made by investing his time in the KISS franchise. Simmons goes further to criticize rap artists parading around in BMWs and Lexus, going on a rant about how tough it was in “tha ghetto”. And that’s exactly what becomes of a band or solo artist when the papers are signed they go from musician to franchise. The sooner we all accept that, the easier it will be. Taken straight from the pages of http://www.sneakerpimps.com is this handy little quote (author unknown) “All music is manufactured. Never believe anyone who talks about ‘keeping it real’”. I firmly believe you would remain far more artistically satisfied being an independent recording artist. I suppose some more well to do musicians would chastise you for financially crippling yourself; but look at the price they paid for their Jaguars and BMWs.

Back to file sharing and Lars Ulrich; when probed of his corporate meanderings and their latest release St. Anger (which has yet to catch on with the bulk of Metallifans) Mr. Ulrich said he “wasn’t worried at all about money” and “you can tell from how we made the album”. If not concerned with the financial loss that was inevitable due to St. Anger, what does Metallica really stand to lose from some kid putting Enter Sandman on his mix CD? I think we can rule out the probability of there being thousands of kids putting Enter Sandman on their mix CDs for obvious reasons that are due only to the actions of the band and their “representatives”. One could understand if there was an outbreak of fraudulent concert tickets going around; a musician could start to get desperate, especially if your ticket prices range from $89.50 to $110.00 Canadian.

Another situational discrepancy regarding the battle for the music is who exactly is fighting. It would seem that Shawn Fanning, the creator of the infamous Napster, would have been a likely candidate to lead the battle for file sharing, but it was apparent where his allegiances lay when he started showing up at MTV Music Awards and the like to announce awards, wearing Metallica swag no less. Who else? Well, some faces in recent days regarding the matter were The Dixie Chicks, Alicia Keys, and, well, Metallica. Some others that have made their opinions known are Britney Spears, P. Diddy, Type O Negative, and the list goes on. All of their arguments are the same: music copying harms the artist. However, with the exception of Type O Negative, what else do the aforementioned artists have in common? Could it be the fact that they are all worth more money than most of us real people will ever see in a life time? Honestly, it is companies like the RIAA and others that suffer directly from this “crime” and they don’t suffer all that much. They own the entire recording industry. They are the recording industry. Now, if you ask a band who’s record sales are significantly lower than Britney’s what music sharing does to them, you may get a significantly different response. Ask some small bands around your home town how they feel about people sharing their tunes online. Coming from a city with a budding independent music scene, I can assure you that these bands aren’t all that disappointed about free publicity. A quick-witted soul could jump up and ask you what you think a particular band would say once they’ve “made it”. A very valid point that is; once X-band have gained enough steam, a label gets wind of the band, signs the band, and then owns the band only to put their faces in Pepsi commercials; I would be glad to hear what X-band has to say once they have sold themselves to a label. I am sure that they would be royally pissed to find someone stealing the songs that they (X-band) deserve money for. At one point, you want to make music, and at the next point you want to make money. If these guys want every dime they can get, they better start taking requests for songs people want them to play.

Finland’s Nightwish, signed (I will admit) to Spinefarm Records, have gone double platinum at home for their latest release Century Child. In Finland, you have hit the double platinum status by selling over 20,000 copies. You have to sell over two-million copies in Billboardland to go double platinum. And if one were to say that the lower requirements for platinum status are to make it easier to achieve said status, damn right. That beats signing over creative control to someone else. So, no I don’t think it’s the file sharing that is crippling Nightwish’s sales. What are Ravi Shankar’s thoughts on file sharing? How about Cannibal Corpse? Peter Gabriel, a man who has stayed his course for the entirety of his career could probably offer some valuable insight on the matter. I have one more of these: when campaigning for their Diabolus In Muisca album, Slayer made continuous favourable references to the file sharing community. If you check out http://www.diabolus.net, you would surely find their video clip showing off some Diabolus-era tour footage and vocalist Tom Araya saluting “you guys down there runnin’ around in a circle” and “you guys at home clicking away”. These artists are on varying degrees of popularity; however, none of them hold a match to those in a huff about the copying of music. They aren’t making as much money either. So, it really doesn’t matter if they are for, or against, music sharing.

So now we gaze into the fray from the other side. A musician decides (moreover, is given the opportunity) to start paying bills via his/her creative leg. In order to take this away from a musician, one must take it away from every last working individual that has ever lived since the beginning of time. I believe in supporting creativity, I even believe in supporting it with money. To take any and all earnings away from a musician is like having your carpet cleaned and then not paying the cleaner. Except you don’t have to figure out how you are going to get the musician out of your house after refusing to pay him. These people, whatever the thought on their directions in life, deserve to make a living. So where is the happy medium? Some say it would be nice to be able to buy the specific song that you like in the music store. In the store you could form a compilation, maybe even create a neat cover design, and whosever songs you compiled would collect. This is practiced online, but by only the most honest users. It’s kind of like putting up a graffiti wall to curb tagging. It has no chance of working to the point of being worth its while.

One other sub-category that I find is being ignored regards the “burning” of a disc. For those who just tuned in, this is the practice of copying the music/file on to another medium. If a musician makes seventeen cents on a CD that Joey bought, wouldn’t that musician be put off to lose the eighty-five cents he/she could have made off of the five friends Joey burnt the disc for? This argument begins to illustrate the responsibility meter shifting into the direction of those who have created these CD-Rs, CD-RWs, the software, and the burning machines. Leaning dangerously close to the “hidden agenda” conspiracy again, what exactly was the purpose of creating these discs, software, and machinery anyway? It seems to me that we would never have had this problem in the first place if we were never introduced to this particular brand of mass-produced technology. Isn’t this always the case though? Is it beginning to look like the wrong people are being blamed here? On the other hand, if someone shows me an individual willing to step toe-to-toe with Microsoft and its cronies, I will show them a Koala doing the salsa. Finally, someone once said that a portion of the funds from every purchase of blank CDs goes to the musicians. Was somebody actually paid to think that garbage up? I can wholly understand why the musicians aren’t the least bit interested in hearing about that. You can buy a pack of blank discs for anywhere from six to thirty dollars depending on quality and quantity. What exactly are you going to give the musicians? While I am at it, are these funds divided equally into, say, four-millionths-of-a-cent each, or do those in charge of payroll kind of quietly divide the money to a select group of musicians? So many questions and so little chance for answers.


So, until we find out what the computer industry’s thoughts are, I can only hope that this tripe about the music stealing battle has worn thin all desire to continue bitching about a musician who lost fourteen cents for a record from which someone only liked one song. But that’s it isn’t it? I can only hope.

The whole issue boils down to priorities. Some can talk about their desire to make music; and some will tell you to buy their CDs or they’ll stop making music. Somehow that isn’t nearly as effective as “Gimme yer lunch money or I’ll beat you up!” I suppose it is of the same effect though. However, considering the age of “It’s not what you know, but who you know”, I guess Metallica should consider them selves lucky that they jumped into the race when they did. Otherwise, they would be singing an entirely different tune about Napster and its equivalents. Britney Spears, Alicia Keys, and P. Diddy would probably be changing their tone as well if it wasn’t for hanging with the right crowd.

Someone may come to my door to hand me my subpoena tomorrow, now that I think of it. I will not hide the large collection of burnt CDs in my possession. They can also take a good gander at the four or five grand I have sunk into real CDs over the years as well. Trouble is I would have to sell them to pay off the lawsuit. And that would suck because I favour bands who would hate to hear that, rather than bands that would gladly accept a cheque for my sins in lieu of my loyalty. This cheque being on top of the money they made off of me in the first place. And I wouldn’t get that much for them anyway.

Well, so much for professionalism eh?