I received a very eloquent comment from a reader after my last post which I'll re-post in its entirety:
"Why does the gov't f&%k the scene!? Music tax is killing the music! Why?! WHY!?! HOW DO YOU STOP IT!? But seriously. . .why does gov't f*@k Pandora. . ."
Thank you Tony B for your inspiring questions! Tony also sent me the following link which he is referencing in his commentary:
< blog.wired.com
For anyone who has not yet discovered the musical wonder that is Pandora.com, you better hurry! The headline of the article which Tony B is so peeved about is titled "Pandora Could Be First Major Casualty of New Royalty Rates". If you are one those who don't know, Pandora is a free online music radio which plays stations that are customized to listener's musical preferences. Type in The Bob Marley Station, and the result is a constant stream of reggae-influenced songs, not necessarily the African Herbsman himself, which the listener can then approve or shun. These "I Like It"/"I Don't Like It" ratings put forth by the listener are then applied to an algorithm of over 250 musical variables and bam!: a radio station perfectly tailored to your aural palette. Pretty neat. It's so neat that I can see why Tony B is all torqued off about The Feds raising royalty rates for artists. Then again, I am an artist and stand to make a whopping 10 cents every time one of my songs is played online!
At the outset, it seems that us songwriters have a clear-cut choice: to support rising royalty rates. Then again, Pandora is a just about the best promotional and marketing tool for a new artist that could be imagined at this point in technological history. A short discussion of exactly what intellectual property is might help us decide what we really think...
You see Tony, the federal government has in place protections for people who are the copyright owners of something we like to call intellectual property. Because art and entertainment are largely intangible concepts, it is hard to ascribe value to a product which is not monetarily standard. Art means something different to everyone and therefore has a different price depending on who you ask to value it. As we all know however, most people are greedy and will gladly enjoy music or a book or a movie or a sculpture for free, given the chance. I know I fall into this category! As much as I would love to put up an esoteric, uber-artistic front of strictly paying for the art I enjoy, the pragmatic considerations of my post-grad musician's budget prevent this entirely. (I have earned 98 cents from Google AdSense writing this blog; I'll need an accountant in no time!)
So as the Feds decide what to do about online royalty rates, Pandora-listeners and songwriters alike anxiously await the decision. As of now, according to above article on wired.com, there is "no specific day on which Pandora will go offline, assuming rates are not changed" according to Pandora founder Tim Westergren.
So chill, Tony. Pandora is not going anywhere anytime soon. They are financed by venture capital and advertsing. Given their listenership, I think they will figure things out. As for us musicans, any royalty issue will come down to the simple economics of whether the promotional return on a song played outweighs the 9.5 centavos we stand to earn from the Copyright Board's legislation.
Personally, I would love to give my music away for free if it meant that the person listening would then come to multiple shows (which earn higher revenue for artists than albums, anyway), buy a Frogs Gone Fishin' t-shirt and matching lighter-holder along with the two-disc DVD box set....
Until that day, all one can do is write solid songs and try to play outrageously fun shows. Focusing on that is a lot more fun than fretting over 10 cents.
A very good article by David Byrne:
www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne
No comments:
Post a Comment