The Rights of the Musician

Since the arrival of the Internet and P2P file sharing, the music industry has gotten a lot more tricky. But in a way, it's nothing new. Musicians have always had somewhat of a fight in terms of getting properly compensated for their work. Stories abound of how musician "A" is screwed over by label/management "B". Or there's the timeless story of musician "A" getting his/her work stolen by musician "B" and not properly credited. And since it's political campaign season, this one's my favorite. Politician "A" decides he/she will use musician "B"'s song in his/her campaign without asking said musician. What a mess!

This is what happens though when art becomes a business. There was a time well before my and probably your time as well when art was not intricatly tied into business. I'm sure there are places in this world where art escapes the clutches of the business world. And to be fair, a lot of artists do make art for art's sake. But the problem that occurs in a market-driven society is that art for art's sake does not get viewed by a lot of people. And what is art if it is not shared? So if you have an artistic vision that you want to share with the world, you kind of have to make a deal with the devil and find your way into the business end of things.

It's not always a deal with the devil. It's a necessary evil, though. In a perfect world, art would be created by artists and appreciated by an audience without worry of monetary transactions. But it is not a perfect world. Artists need to know the business world in order to survive. Everyone needs to make a living.

All that being said, what rights does the musician have when it comes to controlling and/or getting compensated for their work?

P2P is a dicey situation. It's reality, whether artists like it or not. No one buys the physical product and many don't go to legal download sites for their mp3s. They go to Limewire and maybe get an download of inferior quality, but they got it for free. For many, it just doesn't feel like stealing, so it must not be, right? Many artists have accepted this as reality and have tried to roll with it. Radiohead said name your price. Saul Williams gave away an inferior version of his album, but asked for payment for the higher quality download. These ideas were met with mixed results. At least someone's trying though. It seems a lot better than fighting for the old models through litigation. Metallica lost a whole lot of fans after suing those who stole their music.

And now there's Axl Rose fighting against those who leaked GNR's work that is perpetually in the works, "Chinese Democracy". Apparently someone posted some leaked tracks and is now getting sued for it. Does Axl have the right to do so? I suppose so. Is it the best course of action to go after your fans? I really don't think so.

It's a tricky world we live in with the Internet and all. I think artists should have control over their work and be properly compensated as well, but at the same time, we all need to be realistic as well. P2P is reality and people will use it. People get excited about getting the scoop on their favorite artist's new work and will go after leaked tracks. Is it fair? Is it right? In a perfect world the answer to both of these questions is "no". But once again it is not a perfect world. Do I have a solution? No. If not, I'd probably be working within the music industry and not just blathering on about it as a blogger. It's not fair, Axl and others, whose work is stolen and/or leaked, but look it's going to happen. I say accept it and move on. The reality of the retail end of the music industry is that there is little left of the retail end of the music industry. Get creative with leaking your own music. Get creative with how to sell/give away your own music. Just don't waste time slamming your head against the brick wall that is suing your fans.

What about the right an artist has to who plays their music and how their music is represented (i.e. politicians and political campaigns)? This goes back to Ronald Reagan using "Born in the U.S.A." without Bruce Springsteen's permission. First of all, it's funny that Reagan would use this song which politically represented very little about where he stood. But did he have the right to do so, no matter how silly it seemed? Now here 24 years later, we have the likes of John Mellancamp, Jackson Browne, and Heart in an uproar over the use of their songs by the McCain campaign. None of these artists are McCain supporters, but does this give them the right to disallow the use of their work for McCain's purposes? At first thought I think that the artist should have control over how their songs are used, but it gets tricky. Where do you stop? Say you tell John McCain he can't use your song, does that mean you can go to radio stations that are owned by people of a certain political persuasion that does not suit you and yank your songs from them as well? What if a couple of horrible people decide to get married and try to play your song at their horrible wedding? Can you step in and break your cd over your knee and yell, "NO!"?

So maybe I'm getting a little silly here, but what happens when the product is out of your hands and within the public's realm. I'd like to think that out of good faith if an artist asked a politician not to use their work, the politician would comply. The McCain campaign hasn't. But then again, John McCain would be stuck with a whole lot of Ted Nugent and Kid Rock music, but little else. It probably stands to reason, as long as the artist is fairly compensated, anyone can use their music. Maybe a politician should have to pay a little bit more. I don't know. And to be honest, I don't know how any of the litigation attempts have panned out or if they have. At the very least, it's a little shady of someone to just say, "I'm going to use it whether you like it or not". Is it fair? Is it right? Once again no. But once again, we do not live in a perfect world.

So in conclusion, we live in an unfair world where musicians get screwed over. Is this the complete truth? No, but the society we live in is not artist friendly. You have to fight to make it and continually fight to keep making it. I wish we lived in a society where being an artist of any kind was rewarded with adequate funding from several directions--the public, the government, private agencies, etc. Some of that exists, but in my opinion, not enough. But hopefully it doesn't stop artists from producing art that inspires and transcends the world of money and litigation and so on. And hopefully one day artists will get their fair share.