The Internet, Old Records, and Me

Back in the Pleistocene, when I wasn't hunting mammoths or painting stuff on the walls of my cave, I used to spend a lot of time in used record stores. I liked them because they were cheap and because I there was always the possibility of finding something that I'd never heard of that would blow me away and thus add an additional measure of joy to my life. I liked all sorts of stuff, but my serious jones was for obscure psychedelia from between 1966 and '73. Album covers with bulgy, swirling typography and photos of guys in paisley tunics and Prince Valiant haircuts made me drool. The problem was, almost all that stuff was ridiculously expensive. I wasn't a serious collector, I just wanted to hear it. But unless I wanted to gamble $30 on a record that probably sucked, I was out of luck. When CD reissues started to come out, it was the same story--the more obscure something was, the more it cost.

Then, a few years ago, I discovered music blogs. Suddenly, I realized that there were hundreds of people with proclivities similar to mine, posting the music I craved on the internet, where I could download it for free. The ethics of it bothered me a bit--I've made my living as an artist my whole adult life, and I certainly think I should get paid for my work. But self-control has never been my strong suit, and I've been downloading like a maniac ever since.

In the years since I started, though, the issue has become much more nuanced. Most of the stuff I download is well over 35 years old. Almost none of it made money when originally released and even if it was legitimately reissued, it'd be unlikely to make money for anyone now--there simply isn't enough of an audience. In most cases, the people who made this music long ago went on to pursue other things and now many aren't even alive. In many cases, the original labels also are gone.

Actually, the fact that this music is being widely heard for the first time has given it a whole new life. There are numerous albums that have become internet "hits" 40 years after the fact, enough so that the surviving members of some bands have even reformed and begun touring. I have often seen albums posted by the original artists themselves and many other instances of artists writing commentary for albums being shared, grateful that they have a second chance at being heard.

The fact is, and I know this from my own experience, that artists distributed by the traditional means--publishers, music labels--don't make much, or any, money, at least from the sales of their work. There are so many middlemen taking a cut and there share is so small that they have to have massive sales to see any cash. Most print artists and writers make all their money from the advance, or in the case of musicians, touring. When copyright gets violated, therefore, it's often the middle men that are really getting hurt. The internet makes it possible to give something away and actually see benefits, in the form of a larger audience.

That doesn't mean I don't think copyright is irrelevant. No one wants to see their work taken by someone else, altered a bit and then presented as an original. Money aside, it's a violation. If you're famous and everyone knows who did the original, it's one thing. But if you're not, you feel screwed.

On the other hand, I think copyright has it's limits and there should be a recognition that are many cases when incorporating pieces of existing work into new works, especially when that appropriation is obvious(such as sampling in hip hop) that the new work is artistically valid. Though it should be acknowledged that the fees paid for samples have a blessing for many older and financially strapped musicians who, had there been no copyright laws, would never have seen a dime.

When you're small, it's an advantage to get bigger, when you have nothing, as the song says, you have nothing to lose. The internet allows people to distribute their stuff faster than ever, but it makes it harder for them to hold on to it as well. It's fine to say that everything should be free, but you might feel different when you have a baby crying in the next room. The story of Shepard Fairey is a case in point--he's suing people for appropriating his Andre the Giant image even as he's using copyrighted photos himself. By the way, since he reproduced no part of the photo in his final work(unlike Andy Warhol) and altered the final image substantially, I believe his use is clearly allowed. But if I was that photographer, I'd probably sue, too.