|
AndrewHerinkPaperOneAnarchicalDistributionAndTheCommunicationOfArtisticVision 4 - 25 Nov 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
ANARCHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND THE COMMUNICATION OF ARTISTIC VISION
What disadvantages, other than inefficiency, does the predominant system of digital popular music distribution (i.e. sale of copyrights to mass distributors) produce? Below, I do not attempt to fully answer this question. Yet, I do conclude that the predominant system prevents the communication of at least part of popular musicians’ artistic vision. | | | Dilution of Artistic Message: ITunes's Alternative Distribution Structures
ITunes generally makes derivations from its default structure when an album contains less than 10 tracks. If the structure remained the same, the $9.99 album price would then be greater than the combined cost of each song. This would cause album buyers to simply buy each song separately, making the album price useless. | |
<
< | ITunes picks one of two solutions to this dilemma based on what it sees as the most profitable. One method is to sell the album for $9.99 and make a single track “Album Only,” meaning that this track cannot be downloaded individually. The other solution is to allow each song to be downloaded individually and then lower the album price to reflect the sum price of the songs. Presumably, ITunes chooses the “Album Only” solution when it thinks the profit from those who download the non-“Album Only” tracks plus the profit from album-lovers who are willing to pay $9.99 will outweigh the profit from selling all tracks individually and charging album-buyers the sum price of songs. See Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, and Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited. In turn, ITunes applies the other solution when it thinks the “Album Only” method will produce a relatively unprofitable result. See Buddy Guy, Stone Crazy, and Talking Heads, Remain in Light.
Predictably, the lower-album-price structure creates the same miscommunications of integration that the default structure does. For its part, the “Album Only” structure communicates that the album and every song, except the “Album Only” song, is a separate artistic vision. Yet, in order to gain maximum profitability, ITunes will pick which song to make “Album Only” based on which is the least likely to be downloaded individually, not based on whether or not the song needs to be understood in the context of the album. For instance, if any song on Highway 61 Revisited can be heard as a distinct artistic vision, it is “Desolation Row,” an acoustic exception to the heavily electric set. Yet, ITunes makes this song “Album Only.” | >
> | ITunes picks one of two solutions to this dilemma based on what it sees as the most profitable. One method is to sell the album for $9.99 and make a single track “Album Only,” meaning that this track cannot be downloaded individually. The other solution is to allow each song to be downloaded individually and then lower the album price to reflect the sum price of the songs. Presumably, ITunes chooses the “Album Only” solution when it thinks the profit from those who download the non-“Album Only” tracks plus the profit from album-lovers who are willing to pay $9.99 will outweigh the profit from selling all tracks individually and charging album-buyers the sum price of songs. See Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, and Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited. In turn, ITunes applies the other solution when it thinks the “Album Only” method will produce a relatively unprofitable result. See Buddy Guy, Stone Crazy, and Talking Heads, Remain in Light.
Predictably, the lower-album-price structure creates the same miscommunications of integration that the default structure does. For its part, the “Album Only” structure communicates that the album and every song, except the “Album Only” song, is a separate artistic vision. Yet, in order to gain maximum profitability, ITunes will pick which song to make “Album Only” based on which is the least likely to be downloaded individually, not based on whether or not the song needs to be understood in the context of the album. For instance, if any song on Highway 61 Revisited can be heard as a distinct artistic vision, it is “Desolation Row,” an acoustic exception to the heavily electric set. Yet, ITunes makes this song “Album Only.” | | |
Conclusion |
|
|
AndrewHerinkPaperOneAnarchicalDistributionAndTheCommunicationOfArtisticVision 3 - 21 Nov 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
ANARCHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND THE COMMUNICATION OF ARTISTIC VISION | |
<
< | For non-functional goods, does Free Software produce advantages other than optimal distribution efficiency? Below, using the example of digital music, I show that in a system of anarchistic distribution musicians are better able to communicate their artistic visions. | >
> | What disadvantages, other than inefficiency, does the predominant system of digital popular music distribution (i.e. sale of copyrights to mass distributors) produce? Below, I do not attempt to fully answer this question. Yet, I do conclude that the predominant system prevents the communication of at least part of popular musicians’ artistic vision. | | | Typology | |
<
< | This paper separates musicians into three groups. First, there are “album artists,” musicians who attempt to communicate their artistic vision not through single songs, but through the album as a whole. For an album artist, a song is meant to communicate only a segment of an artistic vision. | >
> | This paper analyzes only a small segment of popular musicians’ artistic vision: the degree of integration they intend to communicate in their anthologies. Based upon this limited segment of artistic vision, I devise a typology. First, there are “album artists,” musicians who attempt to communicate their artistic vision not through single songs, but through the album as a whole. For an album artist, a song is meant to communicate only a segment of an artistic vision. | | | Second, there are “singles artists,” musicians who try to communicate a distinct artistic vision through each song, but not through their albums. The singles artist’s album, then, merely represents a collection of individual artistic visions.
Third, there are “singles and albums artists (S & A artists),” who attempt to communicate unique artistic visions in at least some of their songs but also try to create a coherent artistic vision on their albums. | |
<
< | Anarchistic Distribution and Artistic Message
In anarchistic distribution, an artist can choose the medium that aligns with her typology. An album artist can set a condition that anyone who downloads her album must make others download it in full album form. Similarly, a singles artist can demand that her singles must be downloaded separately. Finally, an S & A artist can make it so that individuals may either download the full album or the individual songs that are meant to communicate an artistic vision.
Of course, the listener can, after download, choose to listen to the music in a way that is inconsistent with the artist’s vision. For instance, a listener could skip songs on an album artist's album. Yet, in such cases, the artist has still had a chance to communicate her vision; the listener simply has ignored it. | | | Dilution of Artistic Message: ITunes's Default Distribution Structure | |
<
< | Using ITunes as an example, we can see that the current copyright system, where the musician sells her song-rights to a digital distributor, compromises musicians' ability to communicate their artistic visions. | >
> | Using ITunes as an example, we can see that the predominant incarnation of the copyright system, where the musician sells her song-rights to a digital distributor, compromises popular musicians' ability to communicate their intended degree of integration. | | | Because they have to make up for their rights-purchasing investment, distributors circulate music with the sole motive of maximizing profit. Of course, the most profitable strategy is to distribute music in a manner that appeals to the most listening preferences. Music listeners group into two segments: those who prefer hearing entire albums and those who prefer limiting themselves to single songs. In order to appeal to both groups, ITunes, for albums with more than 10 tracks, generally allows customers to buy the entire album for $9.99 or buy an individual song for 99 cents. Song-lovers like this deal because they can download nothing but the songs they want to hear. Album-lovers enjoy this structure because they get to buy an entire album at a rate lower than the total price of the individual songs. | |
<
< | Lost in this consumer-friendly structure is the artist's message. Indeed, the only artists whose visions are conceivably conveyed by this structure are those S & A artists who try to convey a separate artistic vision in each song. But, even assuming a given musician is such an S & A artist, the uniformity of the structure would prevent a listener-consumer from realizing it. That is, since almost every album is packaged the same, the customer has no way of realizing that Album A’s packaging aligns with its creator’s artistic vision, whereas Album B’s packaging does not. | >
> | Lost in this consumer-friendly structure is the artist’s communication of her intended degree of integration. Indeed, the only artists whose visions are conceivably conveyed by this structure are those S & A artists who try to convey a separate artistic vision in each song. But, even assuming a given musician is such an S & A artist, the uniformity of the structure would prevent a listener-consumer from realizing it. That is, since almost every album is packaged the same, the customer has no way of realizing that Album A’s packaging aligns with its creator’s artistic vision, whereas Album B’s packaging does not. | | | Dilution of Artistic Message: ITunes's Alternative Distribution Structures
ITunes generally makes derivations from its default structure when an album contains less than 10 tracks. If the structure remained the same, the $9.99 album price would then be greater than the combined cost of each song. This would cause album buyers to simply buy each song separately, making the album price useless. | |
<
< | ITunes picks one of two solutions to this dilemma based on what it sees as the most profitable. One method is to sell the album for $9.99 and make a single track “Album Only,” meaning that this track cannot be downloaded individually. The other solution is to allow each song to be downloaded individually and then lower the album price to reflect the sum price of the songs. Presumably, ITunes chooses the “Album Only” solution when it thinks the profit from those who download the non-“Album Only” tracks plus the profit from album-lovers who are willing to pay $9.99 will outweigh the profit from selling all tracks individually and charging album-buyers the sum price of songs. See Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, and Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited. In turn, ITunes applies the other solution when it thinks the “Album Only” method will produce a relatively unprofitable result. See Buddy Guy, Stone Crazy, and Talking Heads, Remain in Light.
Predictably, the lower-album-price structure creates the same miscommunications of artistic vision that the default structure does. For its part, the “Album Only” structure communicates that the album and every song, except the “Album Only” song, is its own artistic vision. Yet, in order to gain maximum profitability, ITunes will pick which song to make “Album Only” based on which is the least likely to be downloaded individually, not based on whether or not the song needs to be understood in the context of the album. For instance, if any song on Highway 61 Revisited can be heard as a distinct artistic vision, it is “Desolation Row,” an acoustic exception to the heavily electric set. Yet, ITunes makes this song “Album Only.” | >
> | ITunes picks one of two solutions to this dilemma based on what it sees as the most profitable. One method is to sell the album for $9.99 and make a single track “Album Only,” meaning that this track cannot be downloaded individually. The other solution is to allow each song to be downloaded individually and then lower the album price to reflect the sum price of the songs. Presumably, ITunes chooses the “Album Only” solution when it thinks the profit from those who download the non-“Album Only” tracks plus the profit from album-lovers who are willing to pay $9.99 will outweigh the profit from selling all tracks individually and charging album-buyers the sum price of songs. See Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, and Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited. In turn, ITunes applies the other solution when it thinks the “Album Only” method will produce a relatively unprofitable result. See Buddy Guy, Stone Crazy, and Talking Heads, Remain in Light.
Predictably, the lower-album-price structure creates the same miscommunications of integration that the default structure does. For its part, the “Album Only” structure communicates that the album and every song, except the “Album Only” song, is a separate artistic vision. Yet, in order to gain maximum profitability, ITunes will pick which song to make “Album Only” based on which is the least likely to be downloaded individually, not based on whether or not the song needs to be understood in the context of the album. For instance, if any song on Highway 61 Revisited can be heard as a distinct artistic vision, it is “Desolation Row,” an acoustic exception to the heavily electric set. Yet, ITunes makes this song “Album Only.” | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion
Anarchistic distribution allows musicians to communicate their artistic vision more articulately than the copyright system. Of course, if one sees the goal of art as creating a dialogue between artists and society, such superior communication is simply an aspect of anarchical distribution’s efficiency. | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion
Thus the predominant distribution structure of digital popular music, in at least one way, frustrates the communication of artistic vision. This conclusion poses further questions. What other aspects of artistic vision, if any, does the predominant system of digital popular music distribution frustrate? Is anarchical distribution, or even a more decentralized incarnation of the copyright system, more capable of allowing artists to communicate their visions in an uncompromised fashion? These questions are left to my peers, if any deem them worthy of answering. | | |
-- AndrewHerink - 31 Oct 2008 | |
<
< |
It seems to me that the argument here is "faux-general"--it generalizes from narrow data reaching narrow conclusions that seem broad. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean we can't begin to tell.
For me, the problem starts from the identification of "artistic vision" with the degree of integration in the artist's self-made anthologies. That's one aspect of any definition of artistic vision, I'll grant you, but I don't see how it could be a proxy for the rest in any "model" one might care to construct.
The next weak step, as I see it, is the assumption that "popular" music is music. Even the one quality of "artistic vision" you are considering varies more substantially in its significance from "popular" to "classical" to "jazz" to "North Indian classical" forms than you can possibly account for in the categorization (even on continuum) of "permits" or "inhibits" artistic vision. Taking in isolation one movement of a Mozart symphony is not the same thing as taking one movement from a symphony by Mahler, but it is more relevant that taking in isolation one movement of a symphony is not an act measurable on the scale of "S, A, S&A."
The next place where the boards give beneath you is the representation that the iTunes Music Store is the distribution of music. Mr Jobs' contempt for the autonomy of the people he does business with is unmatched. But the pricing policies you discuss are not the result of guesswork: software is deciding what to sell at what price in order at any given moment to maximize the margin of the store as a whole given the people who happen to be shopping in it. Mr Jobs maintains flexibility of the organization of music in order to show his contempt for customers and musicians, as you recognize. He is forced to maintain the 0.99 per song price as a result of the contractual obligations he has to the music companies, who recognize the depth of his contempt for them, and would infinitely rather be relegated to the mercies of anarchism than to a world of diciplined distribution that he controls.
But he does not in fact control music distribution and if artists distribute their own music in the web in return for voluntary payment, which no one has yet any possibility of preventing them from doing, they can express their "artistic vision," under almost any definition that term has, as freely as they want. This does not in any sense require the relaxation of the copyright system. If you turn your website into a little CD-Now of your own music and sell files to people there, you have every copyright power the music companies have, and there's no way they exercise theirs you couldn't exercise yours. Suing your customers will strike you as a bad way, as it should them, but you could do that too if you wanted to.
So isn't the generalization really involved that if you sell your art to others to distribute for you something you value may well be compromised? This is true but rather trite. It is an argument for free distribution, I agree, but one that could be put more succinctly than you put it.
-- EbenMoglen - 15 Nov 2008
|
|
|
AndrewHerinkPaperOneAnarchicalDistributionAndTheCommunicationOfArtisticVision 2 - 15 Nov 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
ANARCHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND THE COMMUNICATION OF ARTISTIC VISION
For non-functional goods, does Free Software produce advantages other than optimal distribution efficiency? Below, using the example of digital music, I show that in a system of anarchistic distribution musicians are better able to communicate their artistic visions. | | | -- AndrewHerink - 31 Oct 2008 | |
>
> |
It seems to me that the argument here is "faux-general"--it generalizes from narrow data reaching narrow conclusions that seem broad. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean we can't begin to tell.
For me, the problem starts from the identification of "artistic vision" with the degree of integration in the artist's self-made anthologies. That's one aspect of any definition of artistic vision, I'll grant you, but I don't see how it could be a proxy for the rest in any "model" one might care to construct.
The next weak step, as I see it, is the assumption that "popular" music is music. Even the one quality of "artistic vision" you are considering varies more substantially in its significance from "popular" to "classical" to "jazz" to "North Indian classical" forms than you can possibly account for in the categorization (even on continuum) of "permits" or "inhibits" artistic vision. Taking in isolation one movement of a Mozart symphony is not the same thing as taking one movement from a symphony by Mahler, but it is more relevant that taking in isolation one movement of a symphony is not an act measurable on the scale of "S, A, S&A."
The next place where the boards give beneath you is the representation that the iTunes Music Store is the distribution of music. Mr Jobs' contempt for the autonomy of the people he does business with is unmatched. But the pricing policies you discuss are not the result of guesswork: software is deciding what to sell at what price in order at any given moment to maximize the margin of the store as a whole given the people who happen to be shopping in it. Mr Jobs maintains flexibility of the organization of music in order to show his contempt for customers and musicians, as you recognize. He is forced to maintain the 0.99 per song price as a result of the contractual obligations he has to the music companies, who recognize the depth of his contempt for them, and would infinitely rather be relegated to the mercies of anarchism than to a world of diciplined distribution that he controls.
But he does not in fact control music distribution and if artists distribute their own music in the web in return for voluntary payment, which no one has yet any possibility of preventing them from doing, they can express their "artistic vision," under almost any definition that term has, as freely as they want. This does not in any sense require the relaxation of the copyright system. If you turn your website into a little CD-Now of your own music and sell files to people there, you have every copyright power the music companies have, and there's no way they exercise theirs you couldn't exercise yours. Suing your customers will strike you as a bad way, as it should them, but you could do that too if you wanted to.
So isn't the generalization really involved that if you sell your art to others to distribute for you something you value may well be compromised? This is true but rather trite. It is an argument for free distribution, I agree, but one that could be put more succinctly than you put it.
-- EbenMoglen - 15 Nov 2008 | | | |
|
|
AndrewHerinkPaperOneAnarchicalDistributionAndTheCommunicationOfArtisticVision 1 - 31 Oct 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
ANARCHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND THE COMMUNICATION OF ARTISTIC VISION
For non-functional goods, does Free Software produce advantages other than optimal distribution efficiency? Below, using the example of digital music, I show that in a system of anarchistic distribution musicians are better able to communicate their artistic visions.
Typology
This paper separates musicians into three groups. First, there are “album artists,” musicians who attempt to communicate their artistic vision not through single songs, but through the album as a whole. For an album artist, a song is meant to communicate only a segment of an artistic vision.
Second, there are “singles artists,” musicians who try to communicate a distinct artistic vision through each song, but not through their albums. The singles artist’s album, then, merely represents a collection of individual artistic visions.
Third, there are “singles and albums artists (S & A artists),” who attempt to communicate unique artistic visions in at least some of their songs but also try to create a coherent artistic vision on their albums.
Anarchistic Distribution and Artistic Message
In anarchistic distribution, an artist can choose the medium that aligns with her typology. An album artist can set a condition that anyone who downloads her album must make others download it in full album form. Similarly, a singles artist can demand that her singles must be downloaded separately. Finally, an S & A artist can make it so that individuals may either download the full album or the individual songs that are meant to communicate an artistic vision.
Of course, the listener can, after download, choose to listen to the music in a way that is inconsistent with the artist’s vision. For instance, a listener could skip songs on an album artist's album. Yet, in such cases, the artist has still had a chance to communicate her vision; the listener simply has ignored it.
Dilution of Artistic Message: ITunes's Default Distribution Structure
Using ITunes as an example, we can see that the current copyright system, where the musician sells her song-rights to a digital distributor, compromises musicians' ability to communicate their artistic visions.
Because they have to make up for their rights-purchasing investment, distributors circulate music with the sole motive of maximizing profit. Of course, the most profitable strategy is to distribute music in a manner that appeals to the most listening preferences. Music listeners group into two segments: those who prefer hearing entire albums and those who prefer limiting themselves to single songs. In order to appeal to both groups, ITunes, for albums with more than 10 tracks, generally allows customers to buy the entire album for $9.99 or buy an individual song for 99 cents. Song-lovers like this deal because they can download nothing but the songs they want to hear. Album-lovers enjoy this structure because they get to buy an entire album at a rate lower than the total price of the individual songs.
Lost in this consumer-friendly structure is the artist's message. Indeed, the only artists whose visions are conceivably conveyed by this structure are those S & A artists who try to convey a separate artistic vision in each song. But, even assuming a given musician is such an S & A artist, the uniformity of the structure would prevent a listener-consumer from realizing it. That is, since almost every album is packaged the same, the customer has no way of realizing that Album A’s packaging aligns with its creator’s artistic vision, whereas Album B’s packaging does not.
Dilution of Artistic Message: ITunes's Alternative Distribution Structures
ITunes generally makes derivations from its default structure when an album contains less than 10 tracks. If the structure remained the same, the $9.99 album price would then be greater than the combined cost of each song. This would cause album buyers to simply buy each song separately, making the album price useless.
ITunes picks one of two solutions to this dilemma based on what it sees as the most profitable. One method is to sell the album for $9.99 and make a single track “Album Only,” meaning that this track cannot be downloaded individually. The other solution is to allow each song to be downloaded individually and then lower the album price to reflect the sum price of the songs. Presumably, ITunes chooses the “Album Only” solution when it thinks the profit from those who download the non-“Album Only” tracks plus the profit from album-lovers who are willing to pay $9.99 will outweigh the profit from selling all tracks individually and charging album-buyers the sum price of songs. See Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, and Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited. In turn, ITunes applies the other solution when it thinks the “Album Only” method will produce a relatively unprofitable result. See Buddy Guy, Stone Crazy, and Talking Heads, Remain in Light.
Predictably, the lower-album-price structure creates the same miscommunications of artistic vision that the default structure does. For its part, the “Album Only” structure communicates that the album and every song, except the “Album Only” song, is its own artistic vision. Yet, in order to gain maximum profitability, ITunes will pick which song to make “Album Only” based on which is the least likely to be downloaded individually, not based on whether or not the song needs to be understood in the context of the album. For instance, if any song on Highway 61 Revisited can be heard as a distinct artistic vision, it is “Desolation Row,” an acoustic exception to the heavily electric set. Yet, ITunes makes this song “Album Only.”
Conclusion
Anarchistic distribution allows musicians to communicate their artistic vision more articulately than the copyright system. Of course, if one sees the goal of art as creating a dialogue between artists and society, such superior communication is simply an aspect of anarchical distribution’s efficiency.
-- AndrewHerink - 31 Oct 2008
|
|
|