A flood of crocodile tears
Many artists work very hard for little to no monetary compensation. Some succeed and make vast profits but the majority never make it that far. Those whose art sells deserve financial compensation.
Who is really stealing from the artist though? Is it the college student downloading an album? While, there certainly is limited moral grounds for defending the decision to download music without purchasing the rights, perhaps that’s not where artists should be focusing.
There are many gray areas as media moves from physical distribution to a digital system. What was once clearcut is now a tangled web as options emerge to rent music through a subscription service, download it, purchase it in a physical form or even convert it between formats. What’s clear is that artists deserve compensation for the art they’ve created.
The RIAA and MPAA have positioned themselves as advocates of the little guy, fighting tirelessly to make sure they get the money that’s coming to them from the thieving hoards. They have launched numerous lawsuits against those it alleges to have caught illegally sharing files. They have also gone after companies whose products make file sharing easier, banking millions in lawsuits.
We already know that the RIAA hasn’t actually given any of the money gained from those cases to the artists whose copyrights were being violated. In fact, the RIAA has collected millions that rightfully ought to belong to the artist. The RIAA, who complain endlessly about individuals stealing from the artists, are themselves stealing vast sums that ought to be the artists.
Not only that, but there are many cases where the work of an artist, originally created for a company to be used in one medium, is later used in a variety of other medium without the artist receiving compensation. Take the new Grand Theft Auto, for instance. Michael Hollick, the voice of the main character Niko Bellic, was compensated for the use of his voice in the game, but not for its use in commercials.
Hollick, has highlighted the fact that video game voice actors and motion-capture folks often get zero royalties or residuals unlike other forms of entertainment media. Hollick revealed he was paid “only” $100,000 over roughly 15 months for his work on GTA IV. Hollick doesn’t blame Rockstar for this, he puts the blame on his union for failing to protect him. “For instance, our contracts say nothing about the use of voices for promotional purposes over the Internet,” Mr. Hollick said. “The first G.T.A. IV trailer generated something like 40 million hits online, and that’s my voice all over it, and I get nothing. If that were a radio spot, I would have. Same thing for the TV ads.
The artists who actually create the entertainment we enjoy deserve a fair cut of the profits. It is their blood, sweat and tears that fuels the final product, be it a film, book, album or video game. When organizations which are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the artist, such as the RIAA or the union that Hollick belongs to, put the lobbying groups and big media before the artists, they no longer deserve to be taken seriously when they cry about the poor artists.
2 Responses to “A flood of crocodile tears”
As an artist myself, I still can’t buy this argument. It’s more of a statement of morality — people will either agree or not.
I can’t agree. Artists will create art regardless, I know I’ve been working for free for about a decade now. It’s what I enjoy doing.
I will be making money in the future, because I’m working with friends to design businesses around our creative work. And if people download our music, fine — that’s going to benefit us in the long run.
We don’t deserve money for our music. Everyone makes music. Few people make the effort to make that into something that can sustain them into the future. Those that do, wind up earning money instead of getting it on moral principles of fair play.
Artists have a responsibility to figure out the business, selling end of things — and do it well — if they expect to make money. Otherwise, someone else will take those responsibilities for them, wether it’s a manager or a label.
Comment made on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pmI couldn’t agree more in some ways. I’m a big fan of finding new business models that work for both artists and consumers. It seems clear that the current system does neither.
Comment made on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pmDownloads are certainly beneficial for new artists, (I first heard Wombaticus Rex because of mp3s I downloaded after a friend’s recommendation). Exposure is the first step towards that future profitability.
While I agree that having made an album doesn’t mean you deserve money suddenly. If millions of dollars are collected, be it from album sales or lawsuits, it strikes me that the artist deserves the bulk of that profit.
I’m not trying to argue, however, that the creation of art alone, regardless of it’s quality or exposure, mandates that the artist make money. My point is that if profit is generated from the art, that profit ought to go first and foremost to the artist.
In the cases where the effort put into the art is far less than the effort put into marketing that art the equation probably changes.
Leave a Comment