Tag: prince

R Street & Techdirt Dissing Prince

“R Street is a free-market think tank with a pragmatic approach to public policy challenges.”         — R Street About Page —

If one is going to comment on public policy, then one ought to make an effort a) to understand the nature of a given topic; and b) to present facts instead of fiction.  In this regard, R Street might want to be careful about republishing articles from the blog Techdirt, as it did last week with this Op Ed by Zach Graves all about what Prince did wrong in the management of his career.

Graves notes that although Prince was a musical genius, he was one who “…never quite found the right approach when it came to licensing his music for redistribution—in spite of the fact that he sold over 100 million records, placing him among the best-selling artists of all time.”  If it seems as though the second half of that statement contradicts the first, that’s because it does.  When you combine terms like musical genius and best-selling artist, it takes some chutzpah to presume to know best—in a post-mortem analysis—how the artist in question might have made wiser choices.  In fact, Graves is working overtime trying to shoehorn Prince into an online market the artist rejected. He writes, “ … his fans were left in an odd position, on the news of his death, of being frequently unable to provide links to Prince’s massive oeuvre.”

Speaking as a representative of the 80s, and of those who have been Prince fans since he first emerged, that statement is not only surprisingly disrespectful to the wishes of a beloved artist who just passed away, but it lays bare a mindset that actually believes these fleeting moments on social media are of much greater emotional and cultural value than they really are.  The shared sense of loss among Prince’s fans is not diminished because a friend does not post “Little Red Corvette” on Facebook via YouTube.  Micro-moments like these are fine, occasionally interesting, but are utterly forgettable because of the very nature of the interface itself. Our relationships with Prince’s music, as with all music, are based on associations his songs have with tangibly profound, wonderful, painful, or intimate moments in our lives.  And if the next generation doesn’t form these same types of realtionships with music, then they probably won’t relate to music at all.  Meanwhile, the fact that YouTube & Co. were deprived of a few million advertising impressions they would have sold on the trending of Prince’s death is exactly what he wanted to deny these companies.  He saw through the lie that the OSP’s revenue model has anything whatsoever to do with his music or our love of it. And he was absolutely right.

It is fairly well known that Prince spent considerable effort and resources during his career in order to gain and maintain control of his work.  Quite simply, he did not like anyone dictating how, when, or where his music ought to be distributed—not Warner Music 23 years ago, not YouTube last month.  So, the fact that Graves chose to compare and contrast the market potential of Tidal (which licensed Prince) with Spotify (which Prince rejected) is entirely irrelevant, whether Graves’s math in this case is sound or not.  Prince was a Mozart.  And it’s rare to see that kind of genius without the individual also being fiercely proprietary about his work.  And although Graves acknowledges that Prince’s decision to license exclusively through Tidal “may have been a reflection of his proclivity to assert tight control of his brand,” he remains steadfast in his bias when he writes “…making music less accessible poses serious challenges for artists and consumers alike.  For one thing, as English singer/songwriter Lily Allen explains, it will reinvigorate incentives for piracy.”

News flash:  Prince did not disappear into obscurity despite his rejection of these “free” platforms.  Yet, somehow, Graves believes the “lesson” we are supposed to draw from Prince’s legacy is that this hugely successful, influential, and universally-respected artist was fundamentally wrong, while the new-economy sages at Techdirt and R Street are right. Their logic says that if the artist chooses not to be fractionally exploited by a YouTube or a Spotify, then he naturally deserves to be fully exploited by outright piracy.  Put that way, it sounds more outrageous, right? But that’s essentially what Graves and others are saying.  Prince told that proposition to go screw itself, and maybe that’s the real lesson he leaves behind.

Of course, Graves actually reprises the blame-the-artist-for-piracy theme because he wants to point readers to a remarkably obtuse statistic presented by Techdirt founder Mike Masnick’s very own, brand-new “think tank” called Copia.  The stat says that, “55% of 18-29 year-olds pirate LESS when offered a free, legal alternative.”  Wait for it. It’ll happen…

I’m no longer amazed at the capacity some people have for presenting bad news as if it were good news.  Because somehow Copia et al think nobody will notice that the truly stunning fact revealed by this stat is that 45% of the demographic will continue to pirate as much as ever no matter what free, legal alternatives are available.  But creators should feel molified by the prospect that the other 55% of the market will pirate less!  It is certainly indicative of a Kool-Aid narcosis that Techdirt, Copia, and R Street would even present these data with a straight face. After all, if one were to provide the same market research to the dumbest investor on earth, no matter what the business sector, he would tell you that no investment will be forthcoming.  Try pitching investors and telling them that 45% of the target market is guaranteed to steal from you while 55% of the market will only steal some from you, and watch what happens.

Perhaps most importantly, R Street in particular should be held accountable for republishing an article that completely misrepresents the facts in what is commonly called the “dancing baby” case.  Graves writes …

“Famously, Prince, via Universal Music, was behind the “dancing baby” DMCA lawsuit, which featured Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” playing faintly in the background of a short clip as a toddler danced. Ultimately our friends at EFF, who were representing defendant Stephanie Lenz, prevailed on their fair use claim. In 2013, EFF awarded him their “Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award” for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”

Setting aside the relatively minor detail that Prince himself was never directly involved in this case, the most important fact is that EFF sued UMG after the Lenz video was actually restored to YouTube via counter-notice procedure; and nobody ever sued Stephanie Lenz–at least not pertaining to this matter.  The reader is free to review the facts of this eight-year litigation and decide for himself whether the temporary takedown of the “dancing baby” video represents “award-winning” abuse of DMCA—or if perhaps the EFF chose this case because it would inevitably lead to misrepresentation exactly like the quote above.  “Prince sues mom and baby” makes good drama, but it just didn’t happen.  And to say that it did in the immediate aftermath of this artist’s passing is as rude as it is irresponsible.

As for Zach Graves’s concern that Prince’s music may not “reach a new generation of fans” due to its absence from certain free platforms, I’d like to tell him not to worry.  Prince’s work has touched millions of people and influenced thousands of other musicians around the world. It will transcend generations in spite of what web platforms have done to culture and memory itself.  At the same time, although YouTube’s predatory and monopolistic strategy may position its platform as “essential” in a certain sense for musical artists, one must ask if this winner-take-all outcome is the kind of “free-market pragmatic approach” R Street policy hopes to support.  The idea that Prince’s music needs YouTube in order to live on in our cultural memory would be a quaint conceit if it were not the kind of arrogant proposition that has hypnotized many policy thinkers by means of ceaseless repetition.

some tech thing – episode four

stt4

some tech thing is a new weekly roundup of tech-related stories you might have missed or even wished you missed.  Co-hosted by David Newhoff and Sandy Davis.  Take a listen and let me/us know what you think.

In this episode:  Super Bowl stories: SodaStream & GoldieBlox; Strawbees, Prince sues fans, Bitcoin regulation

Choice Words & The Right to Choose

Photo by David Crockett
Photo by David Crockett

Announcement of the Copyright Alert System just over a week ago brought some new readers to this blog, and among these was one who was offended by this post, which is coincidentally the most-read to date.  My use of the word slavery in context to BitTorrent sites exploiting labor inspired the reader to call me a racist. You can decide for yourself whether the accusation is fair, but the subsequent exchange of comments did leave me thinking about the word slave, which made me think of Prince, who performed in 1993 on Late Show with David Letterman with that very word inscribed on his face. [Date and show name corrected from original post thanks to comment from a regular reader.]

Prince is an unqualified musical genius, and in the tradition of geniuses, he has been as provocative in managing his career as he is with the production of music itself.  It occurs to me, though, that this particular artist also unwittingly personifies so many of the emotional and functional complexities in the business of making and selling music in the digital age.

Presently, the 1984 hit song “Let’s Go Crazy” is at the heart of an ongoing case, Lenz v UMG, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2010. The case involves a DMCA takedown of a home video from YouTube depicting a baby dancing in a kitchen while Prince’s song plays on the radio in the background.  The short story is that the video was taken down in error and then restored, which is pretty much how DMCA is meant to work, but of course the video and Mrs. Lenz’s temporary inconvenience aren’t really the point. See Terry Hart’s analysis from August of 2010.

Interestingly, the CAS bump in readership here also brought a new reader/commenter with whom I had discussion about the altruism (or not) of organizations like EFF; and Lenz makes a pretty good example of what looks to me like a group of lawyers making much ado about nothing while hiding a rather large axe to grind.  The general public gets the easily digestible image “Prince sues mother and baby,” even though the suit was brought by Lenz and the EFF.  But the aura of Prince provides good cover for the real motive in this case, which is that the EFF is seeking a ruling that UMG willfully issued takedowns to non-infringing material (because honest mistakes are not grounds for a suit) in order to establish a precedent that would place a higher burden on creators seeking to protect their works online.  Writes attorney Luke Platzer in this guest post at Copyright Alliance:

“…the expansion of the 512(f) standard to challenge the reliability of copyright owners’ takedown processes — thereby forcing copyright owners to use more precise, but potentially much slower processes — appears to have been at least in part EFF’s goal in bringing the Lenz case.”

If you read the recent article in the Wall Street Journal about NBCUniversal’s counter-piracy efforts which can hardly keep up with its notice and takedown process, you might understand why many independent content owners have given up hope of protecting their work online; but by bringing the case in Lenz, the EFF would like to make that process even harder. In fact, cases like this aren’t about the work, they aren’t about the artist, they aren’t about free speech, and they aren’t even about fair use.  They’re about ivory-tower academics making a career out of fighting a problem that doesn’t exist. To paraphrase Hart, DMCA was 12 years old when the case began, and this relatively benign and temporary video takedown was the best example they had to reflect a supposedly comprehensive threat to free speech and democracy.  In fact, the recent misuse of DMCA by NASCAR to remove footage of a crash from YouTube makes a much better example than Lenz, but  Lenz  is already underway.  Still, the fact that Prince is the face of this story is somewhat paradoxical, although not necessarily incongruous, if we understand the mind of the artist.

Where this stuff gets a little complicated for the casual observer is that Prince is in fact an ardent — some might even say obsessive — protector of his rights on the Internet. He has gone to great length and expense to control where and how his work is used but has never, to my knowledge, filed suit against an individual user or fan for infringement. For anyone who thinks copyright is just about money, consider the likelihood, that it costs Prince more to pursue these actions than it is probably worth on the balance sheet. So why does he do it?  I don’t know the man, but I’m going to guess that it’s the same passion that drove him to the performance he gave in 1993 on Letterman.  It is one of the few live TV acts I’ll never forget because it was so strange — this virtuoso guitarist playing as though wrapped in a straight jacket, and scrawled on the side of his face in what looked like black marker, letters organized vaguely into a guitar shape akin to the glyph that would become his temporary moniker, the word — SLAVE.

I do find it fascinating that the same musician who has been unfairly tarred in the Lenz case is the one who can reasonably be described as our generation’s poster child of the artist bucking against his corporate “gatekeepers,” for those who would use that term. In fact, Prince’s frustration with Warner Music back then had nothing to do with money per se, but with the label’s reluctance to release his new album Gold over concerns of “saturating the market.”  Restraining an artist is a difficult thing, and I can only imagine doing so with Prince would be like trying to lasso a stallion with a length of yarn.  Yet even in the years subsequent to these events, even with all the resources at his disposal, Prince has not thoroughly embraced the so-called “permissionless culture” promoted by legal scholars, who perhaps don’t actually understand artists.  Some will assume the motive here is greed, although I would argue that this assumption is likely a misunderstanding of Prince in particular and many artists in general.  What those who don’t create art fail to grasp is that controlling distribution is often a component of the work itself.  This is why an artist as passionate, as obsessive, as prolific, and as influential as Prince will naturally rebel against both a Warner Music holding him back and a Google exploiting his work. And, yes, either form of restraint on his choices can make the artist feel like a slave.