The Forgotten Public

 

By Susan Aker

 

 

 

The scene is a large amphitheater, with seating for 60,000.  The lights are down.  Spotlights suddenly highlight the stage, and, at the same time, music pours from the speakers, booming through the air, loud enough to vibrate the walls.  The band plays their best new song, the one they haven’t even released to radio yet, perfected only a few weeks prior.  This is the place they’ve decided to use for it’s debut.

 

They reach the finish, the last drum roll, the last flash of fingers on the electric guitar.  Breathlessly, they wait for the applause.

 

But there is only silence – nobody responds, not with clapping, not with screams and whistles, not even with boos and hisses.  Nothing.

 

The leader of the band calls out.  “Raise the house lights,” he says, wanting to see this silent crowd.  But when the lights come up, he sees, instead, that there isn’t any crowd.  Three months ago, they had only sold-out concerts – what happened?

 

 

Last year, the rock band Metallica attacked the file-sharing service Napster, accusing them, and all their users, of theft.  Further, they insisted that Napster cancel the accounts of some 30,000 users whom they’d discovered were trading Metallica music.   These people were, I think understandably, angry at this treatment.  Many of them were fans from the beginning, perhaps using Napster to acquire MP3s of music they already owned, perhaps actually engaged in active infringement.  It doesn’t really matter which, the anger was spread evenly and a lot of that anger was great enough that the person affected no longer wanted anything to do with Metallica.

 

Perhaps the scenario I pictured at the beginning of this piece would never happen, probably wouldn’t.  After all, the band should know before the performance that no one had purchased any tickets.  But I’m trying to illustrate a point.  The people who support the modern copyright laws the most ardently are generally artists, authors and musicians.  I’ve seen and heard, so many times, that copyright law protects the artists, authors and musicians, and that protection is the only reason for copyright’s existance.  Without copyright, no one would create.  I am asked, “Would you work without getting paid?” They go on, “No one should have a copy of my work without paying me.”

 

 

Joe Public is a loyal fan of Big Star Band.  He absolutely adores their music – the band members themselves are demi-gods to Joe.  Any concert within two hundred miles and Joe is there; when the radio plays one of their songs, Joe turns up the volume; when he sees a CD of theirs in the store, he buys it.

 

This isn’t enough for Joe.  After all, some of this friends, especially a group he met through a chat room on the internet, have never even heard of Big Star Band.  The radio stations in their part of the world don’t play that kind of music.  The CDs aren’t distributed there either.   So Joe copies his CDs to MP3s and lets his friends download the music so they can know the glories of Big Star Band too.

 

The Internet isn’t as open as it used to be.  Big Star Band’s lawyers learn of the downloading from Joe’s IP address, six entire CDs worth of music, gone out to more than 50 different addresses.  The lawyers get out their calculators – 6 times 20 is equal to 120, times 50 is equal to 6000.  Six thousand dollars worth of music – lost sales and there is Joe Public’s IP and, with his DSL service, it is a permanent IP, registered to his name.  No mistake about who this pirate is and $6000 is six times the necessary limit to bring criminal charges against Joe. 

 

After Joe has been in prison for 3 years, do you think he’s going to go back to being a loyal fan of Big Star Band?  Or, will he feel as though they betrayed his loyalty, punished him for being an avid fan?  Will he ever again even listen to the CDs he shared so ardently with his friends?

 

 

To all the creators of the world, consider – what are you without your Public?  What is an author when no one reads his books, or an artist if no one looks at her paintings, or a musician if nobody stops to listen?  The anwer is, without the Public, without fans, without admirers, you are nothing.

 

Ultimately, it is the Public who decides whether or not a copyright owner is paid.  We can decide we will only pay for live performances or we can decide we will pay nothing more at all.  Performers need the Public a whole lot more than the Public needs them.  After all, a great deal of music and books and video are already part of most households.  America could decide that Retrospective is in fashion and old vinyl recordings could become the popular music.

 

And yet, modern performers, authors and artists seem so caught up in supposedly righteous protection of their “Intellectual Property” that they no longer think, or even care, about their audience.  If this trend continues I find it entirely within reason that they will no longer have an audience.  And without an audience, the creator no longer has any purpose.  When creators have no purpose, no more creations are made.  If no creations are made, copyright, with the original purpose ‘to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,’ will have completely and utterly failed.

 

Copyright protection began with very limited terms, the right to sell copies of a specific work for a period of 14 years.  At the end of that time, if the author were still living and chose to, he could renew the copyright for another 14 years.   Since that time, both the term lengths and the scope of protection have been expanded.  Now the protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, or a flat 95 years on ‘Works for Hire,’ and includes the right to make derivative works and translations, the right to license public performances and displays, as well as the original control on selling copies.

 

From a fairly weak copyright, limited in scope, term length, and the things to which it could apply, we have gone to an overly powerful copyright that applies to almost everything created, has a nearly unlimited term length (realistically unlimited, at any rate) and which covers every possible use that copyright owners could conceive might be marketable.  Neither suits today’s needs, though I would maintain that a weak copyright is better than one that is too strong, for reasons of the audience.

 

Everyone has heard Retail stores’ motto “The Customer is always right.”  I would change that to, “The Audience is always right.”  Musicians don’t work for themselves or a Recording Studio – they work for their audience.  The same is true of authors, artists, and movie makers.  They should listen to their audience, learn what their audience wants and accommodate the audience.   The audience, whether through a conscious decision, or by simply following the crowd, decides what is successful, what is popular, what will be remembered.

 

This power the audience holds has not been used extensively and artists, authors and musicians don’t seem to realize it exists.  In their pursuit of money, they’ve ignored the importance of their work, the very reason for their existance as creators.  They’ve replaced appreciation with marketing, traded their loyal followers for those who can afford to pay, sold their faithful fans for stardom.  They’ve forgotten their Public.

 

It’s time they were reminded – it’s past time.  We are here and there are things that we want, things we don’t want, and if you can’t accommodate us, we may no longer accommodate you.

 

We, the public, want to be able to make copies.  We want to be able to share those copies with our friends and acquaintances.  We don’t want to be locked down by technological controls.  We don’t want to pay each and every time we use a work.  We don’t want to be limited to someone else’s ideas of what is good for us. 

 

But we also want our favorite authors, artists and musicians to create more.   And we want them to be able to devote their attention fully to creating, not to be distracted by the requirement to earn a living in some other manner.

 

These two objectives may seem mutually exclusive.  Let me assure you, they aren’t.

 

Rather than paying people for what they create, let me suggest an alternative.  We, as the appreciative audience, should be paying these people so they can create.  With the Internet, using this kind of payment system no longer seems unrealistic.  It also encompasses what the authors, artists and musicians say they want – to be paid for what they do.  And it allows the audience to decide what a particular work is worth, where they are not required to pay for anything they don’t like.

 

 

Dear Internet Musician,

 

Hi!  I’m one of your biggest fans.  I love your music!  It’s absolutely awesome!  I tell all my friends about you – some have even bought your hard copies, kind of old-fashioned, but that’s their choice.  All I can do is download since we don’t have a lot of money. 

 

Speaking of money, my allowance is only $10 this month because my dad got laid off.  I downloaded all 12 of your new songs and I know the standard amount is $1 per song for anything good (and all of yours are really, really good,) but I’ve only got $10.  I'm a loyal fan and it really hurts that I can't pay as much as you deserve.  Maybe I’ll be able to make it up to you with your next collection.

 

Sincerely,

Joey Jr.

 

 

Dear Joey,

 

I’m sorry to hear your dad was laid off.  That happened once when I was a kid, too.  Thank you for writing and telling me how much you like my music.  That’s more important to me than the money.

 

And, speaking of money, I’m returning your $10.  Maybe you can use it to help out the family until your dad goes back to work.  Until then, feel free to download all of my songs that you want without worrying about whether or not you can pay.  I’m loyal to all of my fans.

 

Sincerely,

Internet Musician