Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: culturalexploitation.com?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
  • To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: culturalexploitation.com?
  • Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:23:58 -0400




Rachel Cox wrote:
> >"It is ... sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity
> >rather than the art that it is," says Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich
> >(speaking about Napster).
>
> Except that near as I can tell, it's not being traded like a
> commodity - commodities are generally assumed to be worth money.
> I've no clue whether what Napster is doing is right or wrong,
> but I can't see what's wrong with wanting people to pay you
> for the work that you do, even if the work is making music.

Well, the irony of the quotation is that Metallica's music and that of
any other recording act *is* being traded like a commodity. Metallica's
records sell by the millions around the world, not only new but also in
the secondary/used market, too. Metallica doesn't get paid for resale
in a used record store.

It goes back to the God-and-Mammon thing: sure, Metallica's music (in
someone's opinion) is art, but it is also product. Hell, Mammoth
Records is getting the smackdown, not because they aren't a successful
label, but because they aren't moving units in sufficiently excessive
quantities. Metallica is all exercised about Napster because they
perceive Internet distribution of unlicensed copies of their product as
a threat to their revenue stream. But isn't the secondary CD market a
threat to their revenue stream, too? It's simply a matter of degree.
Big-business music profits when a particular product experiences a flood
of popularity, becomes the tune on everyone's lips. That's what boosts
sales into the massive-profit range.

But as an individual consumer, I am going to buy my CDs as cheaply as
possible, whether new or used, depending upon what's available. But a
flood of popularity for a particular piece of music will increase sales
of new product even as more used or even unlicensed copies are
distributed.

Another factor to consider is that Metallica and other big-time acts
are selling more than just the music on the CD, they are selling the
image, the lifestyle, the identity, the packaging that comes with the
CD. People buy into million sellers as much as a function and
expression of their personal identity rather than from simple enjoyment
of the music. Like Red Hat, they arent' selling the content, they are
selling the package. They are selling the sizzle.

> I'd be pretty annoyed if someone expected me to just give away
> my work on the basis of some theory that it'd be a big incentive
> for people to come back and buy it.

But the difference is that your work is not a commodity product. But
what about the art of Jenny Holzer, which consists of aphorisms that she
reproduces on electric signs, t-shirts and park benches.

"Lack of charisma can be fatal."

There, I just reproduced a work of art.

"Murder has its sexual side."

There I go again. Is Jenny Holzer entitled to a royalty? That's the
question. But look, I've gone on way too long on this. I'm not
actually resolved on the Napster issue myself, I'm trying to figure it
out. I'm interested in what other folks have to say.

TaB




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page