Muxtape, Copyright & You

The demise of Muxtape is one of the classic situations where the gelatinous, ethereal evil blob often referred to as “the music industry” has stamped out some form of good times for music fans.

If the music industry would just grow up and use the internet for all it’s advantages, they’d do a lot better, I think. Shutting down Muxtape? What a terrible idea.

(-Allison Weiss)

Now, even though the RIAA is most definitely behind the shut-down of the site, it’s worth noting that the “music industry” and the RIAA aren’t the same thing. And everyone who promotes or signs indie bands to their indie labels or indie PR firms would very much appreciate that distinction. They’re very much a part of the ‘industry,’ and “DIY” ain’t what it used to be.

I’m sure she means industry in the big-bad-major-labels-trying-manically-to-crush-independent-music-and-more-specifically-indie-rock-bands-and-web-designers-who-like-huge-fonts sort of way, and that’s fine, I just think the distinction is worth making in this case. And you know, it’s possible that indie labels would high-five over Muxtape’s demise as well — if for no other reason, because the site never submitted statistics or plays. What good is all the free promotion if you can’t even access where it went?

And though Muxtape argues that no artists have ever complained about being included on a streaming Muxtape, the bottom line is still a legal one involving fair use and copyright law. Well that and this whole problem where Internet users think they know what’s best for the music industry, which is complete and utter bullshit - but he said it better.

Granted, the RIAA is an evil monolith out to destroy our enjoyment of music - an art form most of us have become accustomed to receiving and enjoying for free. Still, the most open-minded artist or performer in the world can not dispute that what they create is their copyright. They don’t want the RIAA telling them where it can and can’t go, so why does some web designer get to? Sure, the RIAA’s decision to override an artist’s decision to share for free is bullshit. And it might even indicate a severely disturbing lack of insight on the “industry’s” part towards a modern adaptation to the way humans experience music. But that doesn’t mean that anyone using the Web should be able to give people’s things away for free and then tell them, “Listen, I did you a favor - some people might go see you play now, or buy a single from iTunes for .99!”

Today, many bands are happy to hear those words. That doesn’t mean that they all should be.

There’s no shortage of web designers, music critics, bands and web users who have decided that giving things away for free on sites like Muxtape is indicative of a new age in marketing, and that bands should be thrilled when their music is included on these kinds of sites because hey, free promotion. And besides, most bands are doing it that way. Well, what about the handful of artists who don’t want to do it that way? They have to play along because a web designer with no understanding of copyright law or RIAA regulations or (as Kingofspills notes) the solution that already exists (and that makes it possible for radio stations to stream music all day long, Sound Exchange) wants to create a compelling “user experience”? Give me a break.

Even if believing there’s a chance for bands to make real money selling records and playing small clubs
is anachronistic (as Rhodri Marsden argues), I’d argue that it is, at the very least, up to them whether or not they decide to play along with the ‘new’ model. This new model, by the way, is being led by users, fans and web marketers — people distinctly outside ‘the music industry’ and oftentimes not honestly addressing the rights issues at the root of the situation. Or if they do, they’re sort of thumbing their nose at the machine by assuming the models that they prefer to use are somehow offering the same satisfaction to the performers creating the value.

The problem isn’t that the major label world (and by association, the RIAA) only cares about making money and therefore squashes cool Web sites that interfere in its monopoly. Though the whole earn a profit in order to stay in business model is arcane, it works, and you can’t really blame labels for trying to keep doing it that way. You can roll your eyes at their missteps and blunders on the way down that path, but it’s not solving anything. Be distressed by their failed business model, but don’t throw your hands in the air and demand that they play along with millions of Internet users who don’t have the faintest clue how to run a business, stay in the black on a indie musician’s budget or (gasp) understand copyright law.

Barthel’s Tumblr post speaks to much of this (and beyond, brilliantly) as well. Do go read that.

Just wanted to say that this was well written and it’s caused me to consider, once again, at the issues in a different light.

Keep up the good work.

Well said, and well-debated. You’re in a very good position to write about these things, so I’m glad you’re writing them.

[...] respond to myself for a moment on copyright legislation and meaningful artist control of licensing, all this Palin / [...]