Slicing the Pie: The Search for an Equitable Recorded Music Economy

Aram Sinnreich
{"title":"Slicing the Pie: The Search for an Equitable Recorded Music Economy","authors":"Aram Sinnreich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2530161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In November 2014, pop music icon and New York City’s recently anointed ‘Global Welcome Ambassador’ Taylor Swift, perhaps the year’s most ubiquitous American public figure, made headlines by absenting herself from a hip and increasingly popular venue: the Spotify streaming music service. Swift, whose popularity and income were unquestionably propelled by avid listening on terrestrial radio, YouTube and services like Spotify, had fired a warning salvo with a July Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which she stated unequivocally that ‘music should not be free,’ because, in her words, ‘Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.'This one-two punch set off a firestorm among musicians, music industry executives and music fans, who promptly divided themselves into two opposing camps: Swift’s supporters, who view Spotify and its ilk as exploiters of artistry and debasers of culture, and Spotify’s supporters, who view the service as an exemplar of media economics in the age of digital ubiquity and a bulwark against the deleterious effects of online piracy.Although both camps seem genuinely motivated by a principled love of music and a fundamental belief in some notion of ‘fairness,’ neither side got the story right, though each version contains elements of the truth. In order to understand fully the role of streaming in the evolving recorded music economy and to evaluate whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for musicians and fans, it’s necessary to take a broader and more historical perspective, and to understand streaming in contrast to other modes of distribution and market exploitation. Since its inception, the recorded music industry – composed of recording artists, composers, record labels, publishers and a myriad of other stakeholders – has been a tumultuous, ever-changing economic battle royale. Each new law, technology or market shift has presented strategic threats and opportunities enabling some to gain a ‘larger piece of the pie’ while others divvy up the dwindling remains. Yet the market disruptions introduced by digital media at the turn of the twenty-first century have introduced a degree of volatility and uncertainty that makes the previous century’s ups and downs look stable and placid by comparison. One effect of these disruptions has been to intensify the ongoing battle – legacy stakeholders seek to protect their margins and market dominance, rival upstarts wish to carve out their own slices and creative professionals see a long-awaited opportunity to exert some financial autonomy and creative control over the product.To the extent that these disruptions are covered in the press or understood by the general public, the situation is often depicted monochromatically, from the perspective of a given stakeholder. In addition to Swift’s campaign against Spotify, other examples include calls for broadcast royalties for recording artists by musicians like Blake Morgan, campaigns for parity between online and off-line radio royalties by organizations like Pandora and, of course, campaigns for and against peer-to-peer distribution platforms by record labels and technologists.In this chapter, I present a nonpartisan analysis of past, current and proposed methods of ‘slicing the recorded music pie’ in the US marketplace,1 with the aim to clarify exactly what’s at stake, and for whom, and to correct and counteract some of the more vitriolic and less accurate rhetoric that has governed the public debate of these issues thus far. I shall also provide a side-by-side comparison, in the form of a table, depicting the economic rewards for creators, as well as the cultural rewards and economic costs for consumers, of music distributed via various channels. It should be abundantly evident even without such analysis that there is no ‘silver bullet’ utopian scenario in which every party concerned, from artists to labels to consumers, benefits without a corresponding expense on the part of some third party – in other words, there can’t be an infinitely large pie with an infinite number of slices. Nor can there be a single organization or sector that wins out at the expense of all the rest; compromise is inevitable, and the challenge is in shaping its contours, rather than avoiding it.Yet, while no single stakeholder in the recorded music economy can expect to see new laws, policies, economies and technologies conform exclusively to its worldview and agenda, there are still more and less equitable ways to divide the industry’s wealth, and to develop methods to insure its continuing growth and innovation. Consequently, this chapter will conclude with a brief analysis of pending policy proposals, outlining what’s really at stake and for whom.","PeriodicalId":281661,"journal":{"name":"Music & Ethics eJournal","volume":"28 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Music & Ethics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2530161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

In November 2014, pop music icon and New York City’s recently anointed ‘Global Welcome Ambassador’ Taylor Swift, perhaps the year’s most ubiquitous American public figure, made headlines by absenting herself from a hip and increasingly popular venue: the Spotify streaming music service. Swift, whose popularity and income were unquestionably propelled by avid listening on terrestrial radio, YouTube and services like Spotify, had fired a warning salvo with a July Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which she stated unequivocally that ‘music should not be free,’ because, in her words, ‘Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.'This one-two punch set off a firestorm among musicians, music industry executives and music fans, who promptly divided themselves into two opposing camps: Swift’s supporters, who view Spotify and its ilk as exploiters of artistry and debasers of culture, and Spotify’s supporters, who view the service as an exemplar of media economics in the age of digital ubiquity and a bulwark against the deleterious effects of online piracy.Although both camps seem genuinely motivated by a principled love of music and a fundamental belief in some notion of ‘fairness,’ neither side got the story right, though each version contains elements of the truth. In order to understand fully the role of streaming in the evolving recorded music economy and to evaluate whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for musicians and fans, it’s necessary to take a broader and more historical perspective, and to understand streaming in contrast to other modes of distribution and market exploitation. Since its inception, the recorded music industry – composed of recording artists, composers, record labels, publishers and a myriad of other stakeholders – has been a tumultuous, ever-changing economic battle royale. Each new law, technology or market shift has presented strategic threats and opportunities enabling some to gain a ‘larger piece of the pie’ while others divvy up the dwindling remains. Yet the market disruptions introduced by digital media at the turn of the twenty-first century have introduced a degree of volatility and uncertainty that makes the previous century’s ups and downs look stable and placid by comparison. One effect of these disruptions has been to intensify the ongoing battle – legacy stakeholders seek to protect their margins and market dominance, rival upstarts wish to carve out their own slices and creative professionals see a long-awaited opportunity to exert some financial autonomy and creative control over the product.To the extent that these disruptions are covered in the press or understood by the general public, the situation is often depicted monochromatically, from the perspective of a given stakeholder. In addition to Swift’s campaign against Spotify, other examples include calls for broadcast royalties for recording artists by musicians like Blake Morgan, campaigns for parity between online and off-line radio royalties by organizations like Pandora and, of course, campaigns for and against peer-to-peer distribution platforms by record labels and technologists.In this chapter, I present a nonpartisan analysis of past, current and proposed methods of ‘slicing the recorded music pie’ in the US marketplace,1 with the aim to clarify exactly what’s at stake, and for whom, and to correct and counteract some of the more vitriolic and less accurate rhetoric that has governed the public debate of these issues thus far. I shall also provide a side-by-side comparison, in the form of a table, depicting the economic rewards for creators, as well as the cultural rewards and economic costs for consumers, of music distributed via various channels. It should be abundantly evident even without such analysis that there is no ‘silver bullet’ utopian scenario in which every party concerned, from artists to labels to consumers, benefits without a corresponding expense on the part of some third party – in other words, there can’t be an infinitely large pie with an infinite number of slices. Nor can there be a single organization or sector that wins out at the expense of all the rest; compromise is inevitable, and the challenge is in shaping its contours, rather than avoiding it.Yet, while no single stakeholder in the recorded music economy can expect to see new laws, policies, economies and technologies conform exclusively to its worldview and agenda, there are still more and less equitable ways to divide the industry’s wealth, and to develop methods to insure its continuing growth and innovation. Consequently, this chapter will conclude with a brief analysis of pending policy proposals, outlining what’s really at stake and for whom.
切分蛋糕:寻找公平的唱片音乐经济
2014年11月,流行音乐偶像、纽约市最近任命的“全球欢迎大使”泰勒·斯威夫特(Taylor Swift)——或许是本年度最无处不在的美国公众人物——因缺席一个时髦且日益流行的场所——Spotify流媒体音乐服务而登上头条。斯威夫特的人气和收入无疑是由地面广播、YouTube和Spotify等服务的狂热听众推动的。她在7月份发表在《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)的一篇专栏文章中发出了警告,明确表示“音乐不应该是免费的”,因为用她的话来说,“音乐是艺术,而艺术是重要而稀有的。”重要的、稀有的东西是有价值的。有价值的东西是要付钱的。这种连击在音乐家、音乐行业高管和乐迷中掀起了一场风暴,他们迅速将自己分成了两个对立的阵营:斯威夫特的支持者,他们认为Spotify及其同类公司是艺术的剥削者和文化的破坏者;Spotify的支持者,他们认为Spotify是数字无处不在时代媒体经济学的典范,是抵御在线盗版有害影响的堡垒。尽管这两个阵营似乎都是出于对音乐的热爱和对某种“公平”概念的基本信念,但双方都没有说对,尽管每个版本都包含了事实的要素。为了充分理解流媒体在不断发展的录制音乐经济中的作用,并评估它对音乐家和粉丝是“好”还是“坏”,有必要采取更广泛和更历史的视角,并将流媒体与其他发行和市场开发模式进行对比。自成立以来,唱片音乐产业——由唱片艺术家、作曲家、唱片公司、出版商和无数其他利益相关者组成——一直是一场动荡的、不断变化的经济大逃亡。每一项新的法律、技术或市场转变都带来了战略威胁和机遇,使一些人能够获得“更大的一块蛋糕”,而另一些人则瓜分日益减少的剩余部分。然而,在21世纪之交,数字媒体带来的市场混乱带来了一定程度的波动性和不确定性,相比之下,上个世纪的起起落落显得稳定而平静。这些颠覆的一个影响是加剧了正在进行的斗争——传统利益相关者寻求保护自己的利润和市场主导地位,竞争对手的新贵希望开拓自己的市场,创意专业人士看到了期待已久的机会,可以对产品施加一些财务自主权和创意控制权。在某种程度上,这些中断被媒体覆盖或被公众理解,从特定利益相关者的角度来看,情况往往是单色的。除了斯威夫特反对Spotify的运动,其他例子还包括像布莱克·摩根(Blake Morgan)这样的音乐家呼吁为唱片艺术家收取广播版税,像潘多拉(Pandora)这样的组织呼吁在线和离线广播版税平等,当然还有唱片公司和技术人员支持和反对点对点分销平台的运动。在这一章中,我对美国市场上过去、现在和提议的“分割唱片蛋糕”的方法进行了无党派分析,目的是明确什么是利害关系,为谁服务,并纠正和抵消一些迄今为止主导这些问题的公共辩论的更尖刻和更不准确的言论。我还将以表格的形式提供一个并排比较,描述通过各种渠道分发音乐给创作者带来的经济回报,以及给消费者带来的文化回报和经济成本。即使没有这样的分析,也很明显,没有“银弹”乌托邦式的场景,从艺术家到唱片公司再到消费者,每一方都可以在没有第三方相应支出的情况下获益——换句话说,不可能有无限大的蛋糕和无限多的切片。也不可能有一个组织或部门以牺牲其他所有组织或部门为代价而胜出;妥协是不可避免的,挑战在于塑造妥协的轮廓,而不是避免妥协。然而,尽管唱片经济中的任何一个利益相关者都不能期望看到新的法律、政策、经济和技术完全符合它的世界观和议程,但仍然有或多或少公平的方式来分配行业财富,并开发出确保其持续增长和创新的方法。因此,本章将以对悬而未决的政策建议的简要分析结束,概述真正利害攸关的是什么以及对谁有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信