It's George. First, let me say how genuinely happy I am for the discourse. All I've ever aspired to in 20 or so years of working in the industry is to raise the level of discourse. Similarly, as someone who has been (at least in part) responsible for many thousands of pieces of artistic content entering the world, I've never wanted anything more than to see artists succeed on their own terms.
Clearly, we're in a time of great flux in the music (and other) businesses; clearly old models and paradigms either aren't working at all, or are not working effectively.
However, there is, and has been, an undercurrent of pressure from various proponents of - call it what you will - copyleft, CC, et al. that artists should relinquish some (or all) of their rights granted when they create a (c).
This (and only this) is my issue.
I am *not* against artists collaborating, and I am *very much* in favor of instruments that enable collaboration; a CC license clearly facilitates this.
What I am against, and what I will always be against is the destruction of value (either perceived or real) of artistic output.
Clearly, our systems with respect to tracking and payment of artists' work is in dire need of reconfiguration (for more, see my recent article on the TuneCore blog entitled: "A Goal: Performance Royalty Accountability in 2012" - http://blog.tunecore.com/2011/10/a-goal-performance-royalty-accountability-in-2012.html )
I *firmly* believe that technology will enable better tracking and payment of artists' work, and - relatedly - a new level of success for artists, and, thus, an increase (rather than decrease) of artistic output.
My fear is that while we away tech to enable this needed improvement in tracking/accounting, many tilt towards an understandable direction: we can't collect, ipso facto, music should be free.
It truly pains me to be painted as some sort of stick in the mud with respect to technology, innovation, etc. I believe my record stands for itself, but let me be clear: I'm *for* technological innovation; I'm for artists having a right to choose; I'm for artists utilizing efficient methods (including, but not limited to CC) to better spread their music.
However, I'm against - and will be forever - artistic output being devalued. I'm against - and will be forever- artists being pressured into abandoning the ONE asset they have: their (c)s.
While I'm certain there are examples out there, I would very much like to open up this conversation to some tangible examples of how CC has actually helped artists create and develop sustainable careers.
While I don't feel Justin Bieber is a good example, I do feel an artist like Jonathan Coulton might be. I'd love to hear more.
Thanks again for the discussion/conversation.
We need more.
Best,
George
ps: I'm also posting this on the TC blog.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by George Howard.
raising the level of discourse (hopefully)
Hi,
It's George. First, let me say how genuinely happy I am for the discourse. All I've ever aspired to in 20 or so years of working in the industry is to raise the level of discourse. Similarly, as someone who has been (at least in part) responsible for many thousands of pieces of artistic content entering the world, I've never wanted anything more than to see artists succeed on their own terms.
Clearly, we're in a time of great flux in the music (and other) businesses; clearly old models and paradigms either aren't working at all, or are not working effectively.
However, there is, and has been, an undercurrent of pressure from various proponents of - call it what you will - copyleft, CC, et al. that artists should relinquish some (or all) of their rights granted when they create a (c).
This (and only this) is my issue.
I am *not* against artists collaborating, and I am *very much* in favor of instruments that enable collaboration; a CC license clearly facilitates this.
What I am against, and what I will always be against is the destruction of value (either perceived or real) of artistic output.
Clearly, our systems with respect to tracking and payment of artists' work is in dire need of reconfiguration (for more, see my recent article on the TuneCore blog entitled: "A Goal: Performance Royalty Accountability in 2012" - http://blog.tunecore.com/2011/10/a-goal-performance-royalty-accountability-in-2012.html )
I *firmly* believe that technology will enable better tracking and payment of artists' work, and - relatedly - a new level of success for artists, and, thus, an increase (rather than decrease) of artistic output.
My fear is that while we away tech to enable this needed improvement in tracking/accounting, many tilt towards an understandable direction: we can't collect, ipso facto, music should be free.
It truly pains me to be painted as some sort of stick in the mud with respect to technology, innovation, etc. I believe my record stands for itself, but let me be clear: I'm *for* technological innovation; I'm for artists having a right to choose; I'm for artists utilizing efficient methods (including, but not limited to CC) to better spread their music.
However, I'm against - and will be forever - artistic output being devalued. I'm against - and will be forever- artists being pressured into abandoning the ONE asset they have: their (c)s.
While I'm certain there are examples out there, I would very much like to open up this conversation to some tangible examples of how CC has actually helped artists create and develop sustainable careers.
While I don't feel Justin Bieber is a good example, I do feel an artist like Jonathan Coulton might be. I'd love to hear more.
Thanks again for the discussion/conversation.
We need more.
Best,
George
ps: I'm also posting this on the TC blog.