The way I see it, Rand didn't financially benefit from using Rush's tunes as he could've chosen any of the other songs/bands out there. What Rand did do, is put Rush back on the map in the minds of many ordinary republicans that might have long given up on caring about/listening to them. Not to mention the younger part of the crowd that had little or no impression of Rush as a band.
True. But it wouldn't take many emails ('dude! I've listened to you for ever! NOw I se3e your racists!') before the new exposure becomes more trouble than it is worth.
That said, intellectual property should not be en-forced, by force.
Why don't lead singers sue the fans in the crowd who are singing along? What if someone has a cell phone recorder on in their pocket while doing it, and shares the recording with another?
Enforcement of IP stifles innovation. Consider this:
I'm in writer's block and a singer puts out a song on the radio. The lyrics speak to me. 'I want to cover that song!' I want to add a Run-DMC beat and kick it up a notch. My heart sings, but oops, illegal.
Besides IP eforcement being impractical and stifling innovation, it is immoral. The simple issuance and enforcement of the patent paperwork in a state society requires funding/taxation/theft.
Now consider the perspective of the musician.
http://blog.mises.org/11689/doing-business-the-grateful-dead-way/
The Dead recognized that allowing fans to record for free widened their audience and the band became one of the most profitable groups in history. The band’s lyricist, John Perry Barlow, went on to become an Internet guru.
Barlow wrote in Wired in 1994 that in the information economy, “the best way to raise demand for your product is to give it away.” He explained to Joshua Green of the Atlantic: “What people today are beginning to realize is what became obvious to us back then–the important correlation is the one between familiarity and value, not scarcity and value. Adam Smith taught that the scarcer you make something, the more valuable it becomes. In the physical world, that works beautifully. But we couldn’t regulate [taping at] our shows, and you can’t online. The Internet doesn’t behave that way. But here’s the thing: if I give my song away to 20 people, and they give it to 20 people, pretty soon everybody knows me, and my value as a creator is dramatically enhanced. That was the value proposition with the Dead.”
Read more: Doing business The Grateful Dead way — Mises Economics Blog
http://blog.mises.org/11689/doing-business-the-grateful-dead-way/#ixzz0pwdNKIri
Budding musicians need exposure far more than they need IP enforcement. Can you imagine spending your first $100 on a lawyer instead of on 100 CD's to pass out at a show? Less people would hear the music.
Established musicians do not need exposure nearly as much (but as the Grateful Dead model shows, it is still more valuable than a lawyer). However, some musicians, when they think about pirating, they think 'lost profits'.
But as we know, competition drives prices down
until they are no longer inflated.
Though it has been a shock to the stuffed suit music industry puppeteers, fans would not pay $15.99 if they did not have to.
Now are the musicians who are mad about pirating being selfish?
Sort of.
If a musician has a profit motive, it's not about the art. That's okay, but it does tend to result in a watering down of the industry, where the big market becomes 13-16 yr olds who are bad with money, don't know how to fileshare, and wouldn't know good music if it hit em in the head.
But the key here is, musicians hear about all the money they are gonna make, all this. But they are often bad with money, and need a money manager. There goes a percentage. And the record companies take a cut. And the ticketsalesmen, the venue, etc. They all deserve compensation for the service they provide.
But IP enforcement has made all these services come at an inflated cost - and in fact musicians in particular make a very low percentage of the money fans spend on them. This need not be the case.
Now all the tools are available that these services are no longer needed, or would come at a much lower cost, or in a different form.
- Live internet video concerts
- Websites cost like $50/year
- Upload mp3's and charge whatever you want, paypal shopping cart, EZ
- Sell signatures/autographed merch
- Do live in-home concerts for rich people
- Cut 'exclusive' single remixes per request with customized lyrics/ chording patterns for rich people
Smarter people would come up with more. But the industry is slow to transition because of IP. We begin to see that enforcement itself is uneccesary, slow to adapt, and stifling of innovative ways to solve problems without aggressive violence.
It's beginning to happen:
http://www.routenote.com
http://www.reaper.fm/purchase.php
Services like this will free the artist from the inflated percentages they pay money managers and paper shufflers.
/Play your music for some freakin hippies and take donations already rant
