bitching about sue em all for newbies

A comment by Victor Stone on the ‘Sue em all Awesome’ post:

Lawsuits have been SOP since at the least the 70’s when I noticed that, all of a sudden, every A&R guy had a law degree. Lawsuit insurance, at that time, was built into recording contracts (at the artist expense of course), replacing budgets for coke and ludes.

The Internet just exposed the ‘sue am all’ thing to everybody outside the industry, but they’ve been doing that all along.

My paraphrase: When the internet developers started working on music applications they were so green that they didn’t know the recording industry runs on lawsuits. It was to be expected for Napster to get the shit kicked out of them, and not just Napster, but the whole long line of tech-focused startups lining up to get knocked down.

The tech companies haven’t been tough enough to survive in the recording industry, in other words, and they have walked into one trap after another. They *keep* doing it, if skepticism over iMeem’s ability to survive its licensing deals is accurate.

One thought on “bitching about sue em all for newbies

  1. I think this is a pretty cynical way to put it. It’s not that the internet developers weren’t “tough enough”; it’s that they made the mistake of thinking that the music industry was an actual business with the goal of making money and therefore that it might be interested in strategies that were designed to get their music to more people in new ways out of a belief (garnered from the repeated history of the net) that some of those ways would eventually lead to new business opporunities.

    Unfortunately, the music industry isn’t actually a business; it’s a network of middle-aged dudes-in-suits who hold a death grip on a small number of valuable commodities that they neither created nor understand: the back catalogs of a number of immensely successfull acts from the 50s through the 90s, an armory of media outlets that inspire the attention of a large, if dwindling, population, a certain sense of romance for a large, if, again, dwindling, group of musicians for whom the fame they can create represents highest virtue.

    They’re more like decadent old nobles in the 18th century after the collapse of the economic system that supported them: poor in wealth but rich in refinement, status, and, above all, greed. Describing the industry types as hard-headed realists and the tech upstarts they ruthlessly destroyed as fuzzy-headed idealists valorizes their position in a way that is, at best, amoral.

    I find this whole “sue ’em all” thread to be incredibly sad. What we’re really doing is writing the eulogy to the recently departed era of optimism for music on the web. Unlike the story in nearly every other industry, in music, the villains won. The past beat back the future. The labels managed to scuttle the whole industry — from its economic might to its cultural relevance — in order to prevent the rise of any digital rivals.

    Nowadays, when you hear people talking about music excitedly, they’re more likely to be discussing delivery technologies (iPod, Amazon, or blogs) than a great band that they think is absolutely going to be the next big thing. It’s not that there isn’t great music being made or that people aren’t finding it, it’s just that people have lost their faith that the great thing they’re into could ever find a wider audience, that there even is a wider audience to be found.

    In the long run, this may turn out to be a good thing. Once the labels are done withering a way, once they’re well and truly gone, music may go back to being a folk art again: with local acts (whether georgraphical or hypertextual) filling local needs. At that point technology may be able to try to help again. But, until then, all we can do is grieve and setup signs for future developers who might come this way that say: “Toxic. Keep out.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *