Re: More on the straw man (burning issues?)

[Adam Kessel <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 10:57:58AM -0700, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
> > In fact, file sharing advocates rarely claim that file sharing
> > increases retail CD sales, 
> I don't know if anyone speaks for all file-sharers. 

Certainly, no one speaks for all file-sharers, and I admit I have heard
the claim that file sharing increases CD sales from some. There was, in
fact, a recent study suggesting that file sharing *does* boost CD sales:

"Internet file-sharing boosts music sales, report says"
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/3192442.htm

The study is problematic as it was based entirely on self reporting.

I'm not sure it matters which claim is more prevalent among file-sharing
advocates, but it seems to me that the claim involving increased
exposure is far more compelling and perhaps provable. This claim
challenges the assumption that the recording industry will continue to
be a vital link in music distribution. I would have found the original
article more germane if it had addressed this claim.

> Even if file-sharing is a good marketing tool, shouldn't the record
> labels have the right to control their own marketing and promotion?  

Of course, we can ask the question many ways, to get different results.

- Should the state invest substantial resources in policing the Internet
  to limit unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works?  Should
  people serve prison terms for this activity? What are the priorities
  of our criminal (and civil) justice systems?

- Should the Betamax doctrine be overturned? If P2P networks prove to
  have substantial non-infringing uses, should they be shut down by
  courts?

- Should we squelch a new means of distributing creative works in its
  infancy? Does the fact that a new technology threatens existing
  business models necessarily mean it should be limited?

> It seems most likely that widespread file-sharing will put a premium
> on live acts and pretty much stamp out the studio type.  It's a shame
> that the artists themselves are being denied the opportunity to make
> this decision.  
> [...and related arguments about studio vs. live...]

It's possible that file sharing will shift this balance.  Certainly,
other technologies have had disruptive effects on music industry
business models before.  Phonographic recordings and their progeny
pretty much killed player piano music rolls.  I'm not terribly concerned
that things might end up different than they are.

At the same time, there are many alternative business models that might
provide sufficient compensation (or incentives) for recording artists
who don't do live performances.  Especially in the case where
distribution costs are minimal (e.g., file sharing networks), works
financed by the street performer protocol
(<http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/>) might compensate
artists better than the current regime.  Other options include
donations, government funding, foundation funding,
advertisements/product placement.  

Furthermore, a lot of art is created voluntarily without funding.
Compare the success of the free software movement (as well as the
extensive wealth that's been created, even absent limited distribution
mechanisms).

Often, people argue that the existence of the status quo proves that
these alternatives won't work. They ignore the fact that economic,
techonological, and social parameters are dynamic. Past technological
revolutions have destroyed some business models and created others, and
the effect in the realm of artistic creation has been profound.

Even if the uncertain proposition that file-sharing decreases retail
CD sales is proved, this doesn't mean that the final outcome will
necessarily be negative. There are too many factors at play. But it's
quite dangerous to rely on the doomsday predictions of those industries
which prosper under the current regime, where those predictions could
stifle future innovation.

> > 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.
> Accurate?  How about comprehensive to begin with?

Comprehensive sounds good to me!

--Adam Kessel