chastise the artist

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails continues his business model redesign by releasing the band's latest album as a completely free download.

And unlike his last attempt at this kind of thing, he's being much more careful about what he says about the release, presumably to avoid the kind of criticism he came in for after expressing an all too human disappointment when the "market" priced his last creative effort closer to free than to five bucks.

"This one's on me," was his simple message to fans on the release of the latest album. No ambiguity about whether or not folks might or might not pay, and no look at the balance sheet to reveal just how the band intended to pay for the recording. Presumably, they wouldn't make this move if it was going to be a straight loss for them.

All good. Fans don't need to worry about whether or not a band's models are sustainable to enjoy the music.

And how is this news being greeted? The comments following the cbc.ca story are predictably much more complimentary to Reznor, who is generally congratulated on a good album and a generous giveaway. And then there's this:

"Nice to see that some bands are not afraid to work for a living. Bands should release their recorded music for free to promote their sound and make their money by touring."

Do the acts of conceiving, writing, arranging, rehearsing, performing, recording, mixing, editing and producing music now no longer belong under the heading working for a living?

*****

Quick note on CopyCamp 2

Last week's Toronto conference on copyright, the second annual CopyCamp was a great success as far as I could tell. I had many really informative conversations, and learned a lot. My impression -- and I heard many others express the same sentiment -- is that the widely separated solitudes that came together for CopyCamp 1 in 2006, have drawn much closer together in just a year and a half. We can now hear each other across the divide without having to shout.

That's progress and more evidence, I think, of a melting cold war on copyright.

****

... and in other news, apparently a proposal conceived by goodhearted songwriters like Trent Reznor is now described as an "extortion scheme" intended to keep fatcat "record executives in cigars and the finest silks." Read the full Slate article at this link. It comes to an interesting conclusion, after toying with the joyous rhetoric of anti-corporatism.

blame the artist, part 3 -- the evil that is Celine

Technology columnist Mathew Ingram over at the Globe takes an increasingly familiar "fair and balanced" approach to the copyright question on his Globe-sponsored blog, Ingram 2.0.

Yesterday's release of some new stats by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry suggesting worldwide sales of CDs are markedly down and that climbing digital music sales are certainly not making up the industry shortfall is an occasion for derision of the usual suspects -- dumb, retrograde, bullying record companies, and of course, the artists themselves.

Ingram's fact-based attack focuses on the important stuff, such as the IFPI's name, which he believes "harkens back to the earliest days of recorded sound, when discs played at 78rpm and weighed about a pound each." He then takes a swipe at the recent CCC position paper, occasionally worried (and unfortunately honest) rockstar Trent Reznor, and the Songwriters Association, claiming, I gather, that any call for increased ISP responsibility for what goes on through their tubes is akin to making ISPs the copyright police. By that logic, making big industry responsible for what comes out of their chimneys turns them into the environment police.

"So what is the IFPI's response," Ingram asks, and then answers "-- to call on the music industry to become more competitive, or to experiment with different business models? Hardly."

I see Ingram's point here. Actually discussing experimentation and competitiveness just confuses the issue. From the hilariously-named IFPI's own release about their report:

"The report outlines the prospects and challenges for digital music as record companies move from a single format world to one of hundreds of formats and digital products. It shows experimentation with new revenue streams, including advertising-supported models and partnership with social networks. It also outlines the work record companies are doing in artist development and marketing of talent in the digital environment."

And in case we didn't understand Ingram's opinion from his reporting, he then points us in the direction of the comment stream following the Globe's report on the IFPI release, which is full of wonderful logic such as:

"As almost every statistic ever quoted by the recording and movie industry associations has effectively been pulled out of their nether parts (and has shown to be wrong), I'll guess that these numbers are wrong as well..." - unabashed opinion

"i don't think Celine Dijon is sleeping on the street and live on white bread.. maybe singers should make money by actually singing live shows at restaurants as opposed to sitting in their mansions, collecting royalties..." -- brokeback mountain

"Sales are down because: 1. Most top-40 music is useless with the sappy Celine Dion & rap that rhymes with crap as prime examples." -- THX 1138

So, apparently, this is all Celine Dion's fault. Surprised? I'm not. I've always been suspicious of that woman.

blame the artist

While a number of creative folks are being celebrated by the consumers-first Fair Copyright crowd for advocating and experimenting with alternative and new business models for audience building and distribution -- think the oft-quoted-on-copyright Barenaked Ladies and Cory Doctorow -- it would appear that celebrating the artist has its limits. Apparently, we only celebrate those artists who never express any doubt or worry about the future of their creative industry. Apparently, we only celebrate those artists who say exactly what we want them to say (and who don't expect to make very much money).

When they do worry, or count their money, as musician Trent Reznor recently dared to do in an interview with cnet news:

Why Won't People Pay $5

the consumers-first crowd questions not only their commitment to fair copyright, but their talent and intelligence as well. Here's a representative sampling of some of the comments following the Reznor interview:

"Thanks for thinking that your (sic) legendary and we should all pay a tax for the garbage you produce."

"Trent. Consider the content, not the price, as the true reason it didn't sell as well as you thought. Who the hell is Saul Williams????? There's your problem right there!"

"What about the thousands of people that have never downloaded a song (I am in that category) but prefer to buy the CD and rip it? Why should we pay a "tax" to benefit the recording industry, or musicians that I do not listen to?"

Keep in mind that these comments are directed at an artist who happily chose to experiment with the anti-label, anti-corporate, free on the Internet model. Now, not everyone who commented was this harsh, but the comments section as a whole does reveal a significant disdain for Reznor's concerns. And just what were his concerns?

In the interview he says (emphasis mine):

... I think music should be looked at as free. It basically is. The toothpaste is out of the tube and a whole generation of people is accustomed to music being that way. There's a perception that you don't pay for music when you hear it on the radio or MySpace.

... In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."

Does Stephen Page of the Barenaked Ladies ever lie in bed at night and worry even a little bit about how he -- or better yet, other, lesser known, perhaps just-starting-out musicians -- will survive, professionally, in a marketplace that shows increasing unconcern for his livelihood?

I wonder.

If he does, he's one smart dude because he's not talking about those worries out loud.