Some readers will remember Spy vs. Spy, which originally was featured in Mad Magazine and then later in its spinoff TV show. Each episode, the two spies would seek to destroy the other, and invariably no one was ever really the winner.

Could we be looking at the same futile battle among recording artists? Hank Williams (not the recording artist but the Internet music techie) seems to think so. He sees an increasing divide between artists who have established their brand and those who haven’t.

Now Williams focuses on a lot of inside-baseball issues, such as the value to each camp of a record label, methods of compensation, etc. So many bloggers out there, generally those with issues regarding copyright law, like to pretend to be music industry experts and they lecture those in the industry on how they should earn a living (give your songs away, make all of your money on touring, etc.). These bloggers — usually software engineers and other techies — really have no place doing that, just as a recording artist has no place telling them how to earn a living writing code or consulting for tech companies.

No, I won’t fall into the trap of decreeing what is right for recording artists and their careers, although I suspect what’s right varies for each artist based on their talents and aspirations, and I suspect what is right will change as their careers progress.

What I will address is a related divide among recording artists to what Williams discusses — the view of copyright.

There is no secret that many artists — generally unknown ones but sometimes well-established ones — are experimenting with, essentially, forfeiting some of their rights as recording artists and giving their music away, either on web sites or social-networking pages or through Creative Commons or by encouraging file-sharing. Other artists fight fiercely against that, insisting on maintaining their rights under law to control reproduction and distribution of their works.

They’re both right.

This is what critics of copyright either don’t understand or, I think more likely, choose to ignore — all of these behaviors fall under copyright law.

If an artist wants to give their works away, more power to them. But I grow weary of the bloggers who highlight these examples and then insist that it should be a business model imposed on all recording artists. Sometimes organizations opposed to current copyright law will gather together some bands and artists frustrated with the current distribution system and use them to push for these changes. Do the artists understand that the groups pushing them forward are ignoring the fact that nothing is preventing them from giving works away, but if the groups’ agendas are fulfilled, that artists who want to retain their rights will lose many of them?

Every artist should embrace copyright. Copyright gives you choices. Copyright doesn’t determine whether you sign with a major label, an independent label, or self-distribute. Copyright doesn’t determine whether you charge for sound recordings or you give them away. Copyright doesn’t determine whether you earn a living touring or choose to save on gas costs and pursue compensation through other means. Copyright doesn’t determine anything a copyright owner doesn’t want it to determine.

Copyright empowers artists to choose whatever path they like. Those who would impose changes on copyright industries from the outside would reduce those choices, and thus reduce the power of artists. Everyone, including artists, needs to understand that.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 at 10:00 am by Patrick Ross and is filed under copyright law, copyright opponents, creators, economy, market forces, property rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.