Ben Weasel Speaks for Me
Published June 21, 2003
(From time to time, I'll even receive mail that goes something like: "hey, dude, I downloaded all your kewl punk rawk tunez for free! When are you guys coming to Iowa City?" Not realizing that, to some degree, there might be a connection between his decision not to purchase CDs and the band's disinclination or inability to buy enough gas to drive all the way to Iowa.)
On the other hand, I see lots of exciting possibilities in the technology and in the digital culture (despite the bloody-mindedness of some of its advocates). And I even kind of like the idea of fans sharing recordings with each other as part of an ongoing discussion about my greatness [hah! --ed.]-- though I wish it could happen in such a way that enough people still buy enough records that I can still have a prayer of convincing someone to let me make another one. When anyone asks for permission to post mp3s, I almost always say yes. As I've mentioned before, "democracy, whisky, sexy" entered the fan consciousness instantaneously-- something I've never experienced. That wouldn't have been possible before, and I think it's really cool. Sharing/hawking my works-in-progress over the net has been a tremendous, useful experience, and I really believe it will help draw attention to the "real" album when it comes out and perhaps help make it more successful than it might otherwise have been. I intend to do more of it in the future.
However, it seems to me that the decision of whether to make songs available for free really ought to rest with the writer, the artist, the copyright owner. And there is a general feeling on the part of Free Music advocates that this is an outrageous, unreasonable, scandalous expectation. I admit that it may be an unrealistic expectation, but that's hardly the same thing.
When I wrote the little, unassuming piece I mentioned above, I received tons of email, overwhelmingly negative. Ben's email to me about it, in fact, was only one of two positive ones. A lot of it was along the lines of "boo hoo, poor baby, why don't you stop whining and get a day job?" (Profanity and scatology omitted from this example for aesthetic reasons.) But the general thrust of the angry mail was that the very idea that writers ought to have a right to control their own work was illegitimate, beneath contempt. I was genuinely shocked by the hostility that arose with regard to this simple, to me unassailable, proposition.
- Ben Weasel Speaks for Me
- Published: June 21, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Writer: Dr. Frank
- Dr. Frank's BC Writer page
- Dr. Frank's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
An internet license? Hmmm....I wonder if in the future we'll see "internet detector vans" and portable internet detectors (there is an annual TV license fee in the UK, and it is illegal to watch TV w/o paying the license fee, and to make sure unlicensed people are not watching TV over there, the TVLA [TV Licensing Authority] has TV detector vans going up and down the roads to see if unlicensed people are watching TV, and in suspected cases, the TVLA enters the offender's home and uses a portable TV detector to see if the TV has been recently used).
They won't need to worry about individual users - this would work at the ISP level. You can't get on the Internet without an ISP.
So in other words, the ISPs will have to raise their prices. I think that would suck ass. A $5/month tax would be my limit...anything higer would piss me off (and since this is the U.S. gubmint, they would probably institute a $10/month internet tax plus and annual $100 internet license fee).
Hey wait a minute...what if your only internet access is going to places that have hotspots (provided you have a wireless notebook PC) which do not charge you for wireless access? That has to be taxed someway...either the place of business starting up an hourly usage fee or annual internet license fees. So it won't be up to the ISPs...it will be up to the government. Chances are that when there is an annual internet license fee, mere ownership of a computer requires payment of the internet license fee (with the penalty being either confiscation of your computer, a fine, prison, two of these, or all three).
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/6393)
I entirely agree that the "all free all the time" model can't and will not work. What I rail against here most of the time are the foolish methods deployed by the RIAA and their government toadies to enforce the unenforceable. And, as you mention, there are legitimate consumer issues about price and flexibility. I believe the industry can compete with free with reasonable pricing, excellent service and ease of use, education, etc.
But I also know that an entire generation has now come to music as an entitlement, and the only way to really solve the issue is probably some kind of blanket Internet license fee.
As the wise Jim Griffin writes: "The world never has and will not long tolerate purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge and creativity. Copyright is our expression of purpose in this regard. Tougher and more draconian laws will be the result of a failure to address the issue in some manner, and purely voluntary isn't on the list during our lifetimes. Our choice: Voluntary blanket agreements or imposition by government? I'm for the former, but read Steven Cherry closely and you will see that the latter has been our past and will continue to be the preferred policy absent a cogent alternative."
So the government is going to have to step in - when will the industry stop fighting this?