|
This page: Copyright vs. the Net; The Empowered Artist
Copyright vs. the Net
'Music might end up with a dual life, one as private property in the material world, and the other being a non-proprietary 'vapor service' on the Internet.'
Artists must address the compensation dilemma posed by the Internet. Their future lies in the fact that the Net does not (because so far it technically can't) define art as primarily a business. This offers them an opportunity to rediscover their long-lost ability to enter work into a freely-shared culture rather than the privately-owned arena their hard goods must inhabit.
For most of history, cultural creation has been a shared phenomenon, marked by acts of spiritual sustenance and confirmation between maker and community. The Net's "look and feel" rekindles this generous tradition of art for its own sake, and will continue to do so as long as it stays open-access. Of course, this is no sure bet, since commercial interests will certainly collude with Congress to turn the Net into a vehicle for commercial control. Further complications stem from the chance that music production and marketing will continue to rely on hard-goods commerce, with that marketplace providing the primary source of income for music makers for the foreseeable future.
Music might end up leading a dual life: in its present status as private property, copyrighted and supply-controlled in the material world, and as a non-proprietary "vapor service" on the Internet. From my art-over-profit perspective, this distinction could counteract many of the dangers generated by capitalism's compulsion to change it all.
This dual music fantasy would not affect copyright law off-Net, but it would bar these laws from applying to any art or information that achieves fulfillment in digital form. As long as these works stayed in digitized form, they would be categorized as public domain. Individuals could copy these for their own use just as they can now, but they could not reproduce them as hard goods and market or distribute them. That would be copyright infringement -- again, just as it is now. But they could copy and transmit them over the net ad infinitum. This distinction would be clear: On the Net, music, text, and graphics are public domain; off the Net, they are subject to copyright controls.
Statistics so far indicate that exposure to free experiences on the Net promotes the sale of hard goods. CD sales are up as MP3 use increases. There are many possible reasons for this: the attractions and dependability of physical formats, the desirability of packaging, the touchable portability of personal objects, etc. Maybe it's just habit. All of this could change, but let's wait before rejecting the possibilities for off-Net profit-making from a Public Domain Internet.
What may be harder to swallow is that defining the whole Net as anything but a public domain appears bound to fail, anyway. All it will ever take to subvert control is for one individual to purchase access to a work; then it's potentially up for grabs elsewhere on the Net. This medium was designed to facilitate copying and spreading, and unless its basic nature is significantly altered, it will always do this very well.
There is, as yet, no indication that protective watermarks will ever be effective for more than the briefest of periods. There will always be hackers ready to penetrate them. And if embedded copy control technology ever \ work permanently, there will always be those who'll feel their work is more attractive without them.
The Empowered Artist
'Promotion and marketing will be served by new forms built around the artists' control over their own work.'
For many musicians, the Internet's appeal comes down to its usefulness as a self-distribution channel. Home recording studios -- where individuals can easily create their own master recordings -- are commonplace. But traditionally, an individual had nowhere to take the finished master except a label, which could get it distributed to stores. By adding a computer and a Net connection to that home recording studio, you've got your own distribution system as well.
The growing movement of musical self-sufficiency will change the nature of music. The Net could easily facilitate public awareness and access to new music. There will be directories to route traffic to genres and categories at individual musicians' sites, as well as sites where independent artists aggregate for exposure. Mechanisms for directing traffic will grow right along with these unaffiliated musical destinations. And our present cartel system's fixation with hit manufacturing, artist grooming, and exclusivity will likely be forgotten.
As this happens, labels will rely more on large production genres such as classical and other orchestral forms, which require their special ability to produce on that scale. And I suppose they will always be able to field a few more of those manufactured talents who need to be told what to sing, how to sing it, and what to wear while singing it. But most of our musical forms are small enough and cheap enough to survive without "help" from these factory operations. Promotion? Marketing? These needs can be served by new forms built around the artists' control over their own work. Once the artist creates a master without anyone's help, he or she can then control its commercial course, while all "support apparatus" become the hired help -- exactly the reverse of the relationship between the dominant labels and the disempowered musician.
Music is already thriving on the Internet without any sure form of remuneration or copyright control. As paranoia grows among the corporate owners of culture and content, the Net becomes more fascinating precisely because it just sits there, a profound enigma in the midst of our society so dependent on capitalist formulas for survival. The psychic and societal shifts implied by this paradox reach far beyond the arts to challenge the value of intellectual property ownership itself, but it is our music that is floating out there first to test these waters of change
|
