Re: Straw man argument

[Adam Kessel <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The author of the paper (Alek Malik) claimed:

> "Supporters of content file sharing use a number of justifications and
> rationalisations to defend their activities. One of these
> justifications is that the trading of files on the internet promotes
> the sale of music by promoting the artists concerned ... However, while
> on the face of it, this seems like a logical argument, it is flawed and
> is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of popular
> music."

I responded that this was a straw man argument in the sense that Malik
mischaracterizes "supporters of [...] file sharing."  Malik contends that
file sharing advocates claim file sharing increases sales of retail CDs,
and attacks that claim. In fact, file sharing advocates rarely claim that
file sharing increases retail CD sales, but instead that it increases
visibility and popularity of artists. Artist revenue increases
proportionately to attendance at live shows, not to retail CD sales.

Retail CD distribution is one way recording artists have historically
boosted their visibility and popularity. I accept your claim that
revenue from superstars subsidizes CD production/sales for smaller
artists, but that is beside the point.  The goal, from the smaller
artist's point of view, is not increased CD sales, but rather greater
visibility and dissemination of their music.

File sharing is an alternative to CD sales as a means of increasing
artist visibility and popularity. In fact, many smaller artists
distribute their works freely online in the hope that they can boost live
concert attendance, which is the only way they actually make money.

If file sharing decreases sales of superstar albums and consequently
provides the recording industry with less revenue to "subsidize" smaller
artists, file sharing also provides an alternative means of dissemination
of creative works for those artists, offsetting any loss from the
industry "subsidy."

If Malik wants to critique the position of file sharing advocates, he
should start with an accurate characterization of their position, rather
than an untenable one.

--Adam Kessel

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:19:25AM -0700, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
> Well, not really. It's not just the artists who make money from bestselling
> CDs. The bulk (in some cases, all) the profit of recording companies comes
> from a small number of bestsellers. The profit on those titles goes to
> subsidize the rest of the list. It's the same in trade books: One
> bestseller by Hillary Clinton or J.K. Rowling underwrites a huge amount of
> the overhead for the entire publishing program. The money to explore and
> develop new artists essentially is a subsidy from the established major
> artists. The current system thus tends to redistribute income from the
> bestsellers to the smaller titles. This is the precise opposite of the
> popular perception, but the popular perception is wrong.
>
> At risk in file-sharing is the research and development money for new
> artists. That's the real price. Prince and Madonna (and Courtney Love) can
> thumb their noses at record labels, but the unknown artists have a tougher
> time. Clearly many people now believe that that is a price they are willing
> to pay.
>
> Joe Esposito

[***** removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]