The Future is Free

Entertainment needs to change. The industry must get with the times or die off, it’s as simple as that, and the future of entertainment is free. Thats right, it’s free. It’s not a new concept, it’s just the methods of distribution that differ, but the industry seems reluctant to let go of a model, that is old and in desperate need of revision. For years we have been consuming our entertainment for free. In the form of radio, and television. The laws even allow us to record that programming to review at our leisure as long as we do not make profit from it. In the age of the digital download this should be no different. The stations pay a licensing fee, and sell advertising, and that is how the show and music was paid for. The ad revenue is determined through audience share. The bigger the audience of a particular program, the higher the cost to put an ad on during that programming.

Through all this arguing, and suing of the consumer over content downloaded off the internet, these companies have been missing out on a large potential source of revenue. Why not let people download television shows, why not give them an option for a better more trusted source directly from the producers of that programing. Instead of having the commercials cut out by a third party, or tivo box, include the advertising in the download file. To make it more difficult to cut out use the corners of the screen that are traditionally used for the network overlay, or insert advertising to the bottom of the screen. Most people won’t mind if they have to put up with advertising if they are getting it for free. In fact they are already consuming free programing that comes with built in advertisements, it’s called television. This model would provide more accurate tracking than the current rating system. Every time the file is downloaded it is tracked. And a more accurate representation of audience would be able to be passed on to advertisers. This model is already in place on the internet using google adsense, and websites use the number of tracked hits so that they might target advertisers better, and the sites make money. If the web can use this why can’t the networks and producers of television? Other advantages to this model would allow for shows that have a lower audience share to still receive funding and avoid outright cancellation. Even though they would receive less in ad revenues than the more popular productions, it would still allow them to better develop a longer term audience. The creation of these programs is an Art after all, every artist I know would agree that a big budget is nice but you work with what you have, and often times the final product is better when you have to work with less. Obviously shows would still lose out with too few viewers, but shows like Farscape, and Dirty Sexy Money, which had millions of viewers every week would have survived, and still have the potential to turn a profit.

It’s my opinion that profit is the reason we’ve lost our way. After all the entertainment industry is based on the arts, and as an artist myself you don’t get into the arts for the money, because for the most part there isn’t any, you get in to it because you love doing it, be it the visual arts, performance, or music, it should never be about the money. The Recording industry however takes a different stance, for them it’s not actually about the music, or about the fans, it’s seems to be solely about the money, and now that a better model exists that favors, the musicians and the consumer, they are feeling left out, and reacting the only way they know how, through lawsuits that are crippling their public image not only amongst fans but the very artists they claim to represent. It’s time for them to evolve into something else or finally die out.

Through the fight against digital downloads, the music industry is fighting it’s own salvation. The smaller acts certainly know this. It’s a return to the roots of being able to make a living playing music. In the 1950’s 60’s and 70’s artists made their most money by working hard and going on tour. Connecting with the people who loved them and were willing to pay to see them live. Bands still do it, and the numbers are interesting. Out of the top 25 highest grossing tours of all times only 7 are outside of the last decade, the decade that the RIAA said was the worst decade for the music industry. Simply put easier, cheaper access to music allows for a wider distribution. Using downloads, be they legal or illegal, smaller bands today are able to develop a wider audience than they ever were in the past. A band in England can put an album on their website, and on their next tour they can go to the United States, Canada, Japan, or any number of countries and potentially play to sold out crowds, to people that wouldn’t have heard the music before. Each download is potentially another ticket sale at a live event. Money that is put directly into the pocket of the artists. Why not support your favorite act by seeing them live. Not only are you giving them money they deserve to play, but also having a night out on the town.

What the recording industry fails to understand is that the people who download, those very same people they are suing are also buying more music than anyone else. They hear something great and they want to buy it, and more and more these people are consuming vinyl records again, and why not? The vinyl record offers them something they can’t get with a digital download, and so much more than what they can get in a cd, and most are willing to pay a premium for it. They are buying the object d’art. The analogue recording of the bands they love. People collect vinyl, new vinyl and old, and it represents a solid source of income for the artists, and the resources are there for even the smallest of bands to go to press.

The argument that the record companies have been making for years about how much it costs to produce an album are false. Chances are we all know people that are in a band, and chances are these days that those bands have recorded a disc independently of any label. Thats because it simply doesn’t cost millions of dollars to record an album any more. Studio equipment can be picked up used for cheap, or even new a studio can be set up for less than $10’000 that would rival anything that the labels have access to. Recordings can be made at every price range. Combined with the negligible cost of distribution online, where do the labels fit into this new economy?

Even the means of protecting ones rights as a creator have become easier for the independent artists. Creative Commons licensing has simplified the process for artists to release music to their fans and still insure their intellectual property rights on the music. This means of licensing gives artists a deeper connection to their fans, with the potential to collaborate with others around the globe and not losing the inherent credit to the piece. Nine Inch Nails was one of the first major acts to pioneer this by releasing Ghosts I-IV and The Slip under a creative commons attribution share-alike license. It means that as long as no one makes money off the use of the material, and as long as credit is given to Nine Inch Nails, people may freely use, perform, and make their own work based on the original, and even distribute it under the same license. Try that from within the system controlled by the major labels, and absolutely none of this means that an artist can’t make money from their work. Nine Inch Nails figured proves that. Even though these albums were released for free, people still bought physical copies for their collections. Other major acts like Radiohead, and Public Enemy prove that it’s possible to retain success from outside the industry establishment.

Perhaps if the major labels want to survive they should look deeper at the music they release. The great soul music of the 50s and 60s has now mostly been replaced, by a seemingly endless stream of cloned r&b artists, and extensive use of autotune to turn good looking people into good looking singers. The record companies have been consistently trying to take the art out of music and maximize their profits. They have engaged in pay-for-play promotions of their music, driving it to the top of the charts, and increasing it’s popularity, while marginalizing independent artists, and smaller labels that don’t have access to the same kind of funds, insuring that these bands are limited to college radio stations and limiting any kind of real mainstream success. It’s not “theft” that is cutting into the profits of the record companies. It’s the for profit mentality, the lack of diversity and the lack of respect for the consumers that are affecting the major labels bottom line.