There’s a great article today on Salon, by John Snyder, a board member of the American Nation Association of Recording Arts and Sciences.Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I’m not in favour, in general, of the idea of intellectual property. Snyder has a great quote from Thomas Jefferson about how the most wonderful thing about an idea is that you can pass it on to others without losing it yourself. He also makes a lot of good points about how the record companies are amongst the most loathed corporations in the world – he attributes this to the moves by them to make music into a commodity rather than an art form. He points out that, by making music into something you listen to for 90 days and then throw away, they remove the inclination of people to want to reward the artist.
It got me thinking on a more general level. The problem for these record companies is that the people who are doing the stuff that the moguls don’t like are the people who are the most computer literate, the most able to navigate the web. I think that a lot of older people, or more accurately, less compluter literate people don’t realise is how the ease of finding information leads to what can be called, for lack of a better word, wisdom.
The fact that it’s so easy to find and read conflicting opinions, or varied opinions, makes it easier to see the slants/biases/angles people put on their own opinions. It’s also easier to trace people’s connections online – it doesn’t really require special access.
What it comes down to is that, for people who spend any reasonable amount of time online, a version of Feyerabend’s idea of ontological pluralism is acting. In less hifalutin language, a large amount of bullshit makes it easier for people to train their bullshit detectors, to immunise themselves against propaganda.
And that’s where the record companies are failing – I don’t think they realise how easy it is for people to correlate what they’ve been saying and doing and form a picture of their actions – a picture that usually ends up showing that what they say to the consumer is either an insult or a lie.
And insulting your customers, calling them thieves and scoundrels, when the evidence suggests that you are not innocent of such behaviour yourself is hardly conducive to those customers being prepared to give you money.