David Lowery Wants A Pony

from the the-rest-of-us-live-in-reality dept

I'm kind of amazed at how many people have been sending over, tweeting or submitting David Lowery's "Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered." Everyone seems to think there's something worth commenting on there, but I can't find it, frankly. Lowery, as we've discussed before, has some nonsensical ideas about the strawman he thinks is "the new music business model" which is somehow worse than "the old music business model." He's both right and wrong. It's "worse" for some people and better for others, but there's one thing that's not debatable: it's not going away.

His letter to Emily is both right and wrong. He exaggerates what Emily actually said, and paints her as some massive pirate, despite the fact that she doesn't use file sharing networks and the gist of her blog post at NPR was basically that she and her generation just don't see the point of "owning" music any more since it's so widely available. Access, not ownership, as they say. But to Lowery, that appears to be a huge sin, because the way a few musicians made money in the past was to sell music, and thus, forever must it be the same.

Toss in some righteous indignation that some tech companies have figured out ways to provide useful services that people want to buy, a confusion over correlation and causation... and suddenly Lowery claims to have made a "moral" argument that we should all go back to paying for music in a world where many people don't see how that makes sense.

Yes, and I'd like a pony too.

Look, I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at new business models for content, because I think it's important to support culture. But my focus is on what's working in today's market, not pining for the way things used to be. As Bob Lefsetz eloquently said in response to Lowery:
While we’re at it, why don’t we save the printers’ jobs too. And bring back Smith-Corona. That company had employees…

I believe artists should be paid. But that does not mean they should be paid the same way they used to be
There are amazing new business models that work. What doesn't work is sitting around and pining for the old days or lecturing people on a "morality" that they clearly don't agree with (and its even worse when you try to make them guilty for using services they find useful). That's just not a workable strategy. Again, to Lefsetz:
To be fighting file-sharing is akin to protesting dot matrix printers. File-trading is on its way out. Because it takes too much time to do it. And you don’t fight piracy with laws, but economic solutions. It doesn’t pay to steal if you can listen instantly on Spotify and its ilk.

And please stop bitching about the low payouts… That’s like saying Apple should liquidate and give the proceeds back to its stockholders, which is what Michael Dell so famously said in the nineties. Spotify is a trojan horse. You get hooked, and then you pay for higher quality on your mobile. Facebook stock gets hammered because of its inadequate mobile strategy and you’re not smart enough to see the connection to music??? You can’t get Spotify and its brethren on your handset without paying. And you will. Because you like the convenience of having all your music at your fingertips all the time.
The complaints of low Spotify payouts are a mirage. Go talk to Jeff Price, a guy who knows this stuff better than just about anyone, and let him explain just how the streaming world is developing. There's a huge and growing opportunity here, and people who look at the snapshot view rather than the trends are missing the big picture. The innovator's dilemma teaches us that the old guard always mocks the new players for being too small or not paying enough. But they miss the trendlines for the snapshot. And when the trendlines converge, they get run over.

David Lowery can ask for a pony all he wants, but it doesn't change the reality. Let's focus on the reality of the models that are working and the opportunities to enable more great new things. Lefsetz points out that we should focus on making great music and the other things will start to sort themselves out. Price points out that if we focus on enabling more useful services (the kind that Lowery dumps on) there's a ton of money to be made (more than ever before). There's a world of opportunity there, but David Lowery wants a pony and wants to make a moral example out of a young music lover who just wants to listen to music.

David Lowery wants his pony, sees a tide to hold back, and plenty of windmills to tilt at, but the rest of us prefer to live in the real world.

Filed Under: bob lefsetz, david lowery, emily white, file sharing
Companies: spotify

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Re: boys will be boys

    the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical, no matter how much you twist it with broken logic.

    No one here disagrees that copyright infringement is illegal. There is disagreement, however, even among the Techdirt community, about whether it is unethical, and whether a creator (or the corporation that funded the creator) should have monopoly control over an infinitely copyable creation. Some at Techdirt think copyright is ok, some think it is good idea and just current laws are out-of-whack, and some of us think it needs to be scrapped altogether.

    You can be a "simple minded girl" all you want, but the Techdirt community is not simple, I am not simple, and my ideas about copyrights are not either.

    In general I see that copyrights and patents are wrong. Why? Imagine this. In the near future someone has created a Star Trek style replicator. It can create food at no cost, anywhere in the world. This would obviously threaten the profits of Monsanto. Are the profits of one company a good enough reason to stop this new invention from feeding the world? What if we add in all the other agri-business companies? Add thousands of farmers who can't adapt to grow specialty foods for people who want "the real thing"? Do all those companies and people deserve some kind of protection against something wonderful? The answer to me is obviously not. Now, food isn't exactly the same as knowledge, ideas, culture, and entertainment - but it is only a matter of degrees if food became as infinitely copyable as ideas and content already are. We have a wonderful invention, the Internet, that can provide all those things at little to no cost to nearly everyone on the planet. How can it be wrong to use it to do so, just because of some companies and artists who can't adapt and see reality?

    Hi, Audrey, my name is Josh. My position is that it is unethical and immoral to deny people something when it costs nothing to provide it to them. I would like to see your justification for why denying the world access to knowledge, ideas, content, and culture is ethical.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.