Newspaper Page Text
A
nuci's
c ft ^
ftMPED
SUMMER DAT CAMP BT RUQI’S SPACE ,+\
JULY 7-19,2008
CLASSES WILL RUN %
MON-FRI 9-5
GRAND FINALE SHOW /,
ON SATURDAY.
JULY 19 AT
Nuqrs SPACE CampAmped,
a Summer Rock
Day Camp for
youth ages 11-17,
'/•- will be presented
by Nuci's Space
JNSPW
so you ore strongly
encouraged lo turn in
applications as
earty as possible.
The deadline for
applications is
May 1, 2008.
TUITION $500
(LUNCH INCLUDED)
LIMITED SCHOLARSHIPS
AVAILABLE
APPLICATION DEADLINE v
MAT 1.2008
For applications and more information,
visit www.nuci.org or contact:
396 Oconee St. • Athens, GA 30601 .
706.227.1515 • lauraOnuci.org
Ycilt OlUK Hunt.
Daniel R. Peiken,
706-433-2116
I 888 542-4002
A
coLouieu.
BANKeRO
ta
L PCUVKCH RTALn
Each omct ts mocnnotvn.Y
OWNED AND Cft RATIO
706-543-4000 Q
t... Omtmf Ww 5*. ;W7
SUFFORT LOCAL MUSIC
1451 Ml Mi SL • 38R? 5SA • New Earmcraft Certified Home • Front Porcfi
SamOoo A Tfawone Floors • SUrtrss Appkanees • Screened Perm • 1209,GOO
14$ MMns tat • MV15M • NcnOew • VUbodi fta • UpttM Kktan • food • MUO
1M tart Or. • 28FV1BA • NonaAown CoQgs • Col Pond • Owrtuus* • $111JOB
1« tart* M. • • Wood. TV • Go* Cwtan • hjjt fans- $1*800
112 tarty* At • N*r3HV25flA • Wtood • Tie • Wjpiroirt Ron tarn • $119,900
243 CSevcAand • 38FWBA • -Newtown’ • Dwrtcwn • Great Frort Portfi • $149,500
235 QmM • 3SVIM • Garden km • CowsJ Feat FWi • I tnfcs to 9* udi • S14U0I
HO PhMtf Ck • 4UVUM • lens of Spec* • to* Condor • Fenced ttrt • $241900
112 Fwtne Or. • SBFV48A • R* Rim Cuaam Www • Abod Ftas • Grok • U200C
245 **%■ Or* • 38FV28A Italy FNnowM • Buttte Lot tad tar • $124,900
MNIarl Creek G1 • 38FV3J8A • teamed- 3 taddlii- View of Creek *$125,900
450 Meyer F«m M. • S6R36A • 30 tow Flantiaon Farm House • $049,000
920 E. Broad • Commercial Lot • Downtown * 50 5’ x 215 5' • $735,000
520 Rnrermort * Vacant Lot in Forest HeqHs • $35,900
www.AthensHome.com
. jGo to Flagpole.com and set up your own ad.
Pay online through PayPal!
Reach the people you want!
Get the items you need!
► • 7,
Sell the items you don't want!
Lowest Rate In Town!
nf
hr
L
_Ljl)
There is a new Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA)-awareness army
sporting brightly colored matching t-shirts
across campus and asking students to "Do It
Legally." I can relate to these girls—they're
in a public relations class, just as I was not
so long ago, and they were given a client and
an assignment which they've taken on enthu
siastically and dutifully: to work with the
University of Georgia's Committee on Digital
Media Downloading to "inform UGA students
that illegal downloading is an unacceptable
behavior and to promote legal downloading
alternatives." Even though I had a bit of a
conniption reading the words "illegal down
loading" (shudder), I couldn't turn down an
invitation to their panel discussion on media
downloading featuring local music industry
types, students, musicians, University officials
and telecomm professors all weighing in on
the controversial debate.
Problem is—there was no debate, and
there were no answers. To give you an idea
of the limited scope of the discussion, here's
the bulleted synopsis as posted on the Do It
Legally blog (www.uga.edu/doitlegally):
1. UGA tries to protect its students from the
RIAA's lawsuits.
2. The RIAA is flawed in its handling of ille
gal downloading, but that doesn't change
anything.
3. The RIAA sees college students as
influential.
Kudos to the University for number one,
and I think number three is obvious enough,
but it's number two that really hurts.
What the group is trying to say is basically,
"Hey, wrong or right, the RIAA can and will
sue you for downloading free music—so 'do
it legally.'" I am all about awareness—I don't
want kids paying a cent to the RIAA either—
but why is the impetus on the consumer to
bend to the status quo? What if we took this
stance with more pressing social issues? If a
company is enforcing racist or prejudiced
policies, we don't tell the victims,
"Hey, it's wrong, but that's how it
is—so deal with it."
OK, I understand that's an
inflated metaphor and kids down
loading Shakira tunes are hardly
victims, but my point is that the
music industry's current business model is
failing atrociously. Sales are declining, labels
are crumbling, and in the midst of the tumult,
tech-sawy music fans are getting sued for
millions in some far-fetched fear-mongering
attempt to reel in control. It's absolute chaos.
What we should be saying—as consumers, as
activists, as music fans, as musicians is: "The
music industry in general is flawed in its han
dling of music distribution—and that changes
everything."
First, let's be frank about what the RIAA’s
role actually is. It's operating under the guise
of being this benevolent artists' union, out
to protect the musicians' best interests when
in fact, it does not represent artists—it rep
resents labels. Joe Guitarist isn't protected or
affiliated with the organization, and neither
is any other independent, unsigned artist.
Heck, even the artists who are signed to
RIAA-affiliated labels aren't getting much
support. As of press time, not one cent of the
estimated $400 million the RIAA has received
in its lawsuit settlements has been paid to the
artists... but I digress.
DO IT ILLEGALLY!
I will admit that digital distribution (I
refuse to call it "illegal downloading" because
there are an infinite number of blurred fair
use practices that get caught in the mix
that I feel ought to be protected consumer
behaviors—despite what the RIAA's lawyers
say) has had a detrimental effect on the cur
rent business model, but I am not blaming
the consumers. This isn't your fault, 60 mil
lion peer-to-peer users. This is the nature of
advancing technology and its effect on our
capitalist market. The current decline o c the
music industry is simply and unequivocally an
issue of scarcity—not piracy.
We are rapidly approaching an era where
trying to maintain control over the distribu
tion of ideas and intellectual property is
increasingly futile and even detrimental. Back
when a song had to go through all kinds of
recording and pressing rigmarole to be heard
by the masses, you could sell it as product
because the song itself existed as a physi
cal entity—the record, the cassette, the CD
□oujniDflo
in PROGRESS,.
was relatively scarce. Today, once a song is
recorded, it exists as an intangible digital
entity that cannot be captured or regulated.
We now have the technology to duplicate
these songs indefinitely on our home comput
ers and share them freely across the internet.
Any flimsy laws or technological restrictions
that the music industry moguls have tried to
impose to restrict this duplication and dis
tribution is, in effect, a last ditch effort to
create a false sense of scarcity. Should they
have foreseen this sea change and figured out
a way to market distribution before the tech
nology became widespread? Probably. But the
dinosaurs were stubborn, and now we need to
accept that this anti-consumer crusade is not
only too little too late, it's a scapegoat for the
industry's shortcomings.
I understand that under modern law a
copyright holder has, by definition, the right
to control the distribution of his/her intel
lectual property. The problem is, given modern
technology and the digital manifestation
of a song, it is flat out unrealistic to try to
maintain this control. Cutting-edge artists and
labels (Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, etc.) have
already accepted this and have been exploring
innovative ways to distribute music freely and
then seek profits elsewhere. This is is where
the long-term solution lies.
Making big bucks off selling records, and
I'm talking about record labels more than
the artists themselves, is a thing of the past.
Sorry. I know it was fun while it lasted. I
mean it made sense—the art and joy of music
has been a part of the human consciousness
for centuries, and in the last 100 years we
found a way to physicalize and monetize the
song. It's no surprise it sold big! But that era
is ending, and if musicians want to find a way
to sustain a living through their music, we're
going to have to work together to find some
creative and innovative solutions.
The short-term model is of course the pay
per download sites, and for now a certain
percentage of music fans have been drawn to
these services. I think the appeal is short
term only because the peer-to-peer market
still has its flaws. With a pay per download
site you are assured that you are download
ing what you ask for, whereas the free sites
are often plagued with viruses, unpredictable
sound quality, and mislabeled tracks. More
importantly, pay per download sites appeal
to the benevolent music fan because we like
to feel that we're financially supporting the
artists we love. In reality, the profits artists
make from these downloads are infinitesimally
small, but you are supporting the record labels
that support the bands, so indirectly this
theory is true.
However, looking ahead, these record
labels are not going to exist as we know them
today. Artists will find more money in produc
ing and distributing independently, as
current trends have shown, and the
free sites will continue to improve
as well. So the question now is how
can we create a model where file
sharing remains legal but artists get
paid and get credit for their work? The
Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org)
has some compelling proposals for start
ers, but I am curious what our local music
community can suggest.
We can look to the movie industry
for help as well. Songs aren't the only
media being shared freely online—and
yet the film industry cashed in with record
high revenue in 2007! Films cost millions more
to make than records, with hundreds of people
involved, and yet they have found a means to
profit despite all the file sharing. We can also
look back to move forward—consider a mod
ern take on the patronage model th.it funded
classical artists before the advent of rock
and roll. Honestly, music may not be the big
money-maker it was in the past 100 years, but
historically musicians weren't the high rollers
anyway.
Maybe my conclusions are just as passive
as the Do It Legally campaign—but I look to
the industry to change its behavior, not the
consumer. Let's embrace "piracy" and find
a new way for our beloved artists to thrive.
Because the one thing that will always remain
scarce is talent, and we can work together to
find a way to reward artists for their contribu
tions without criminalizing the music fan.
Michelle Gilzenrat
Liner Notes is Flagpoles music opinion column.
NEWS & FEATURES I CALENDAR I MOVIES 1 A&E 1 MUSIC I COMICS & ADVICE I CLASSIFIEDS
36 FLAGPOLE.COM APRIL 16,2008