The LimeWire Debate

My sister-in-law 'Facebooked' me yesterday to ask me what I thought about the LimeWire debate and the Federal Courts 10/26/10 decision.  She was offered a 'Bring LimeWire Back' t-shirt and heard arguments for bringing it back.  Curious as to what I thought, she asked my opinion.   Being both an artist and songwriter, who has been active in the music industry since the late 1990s, I have a unique perspective on the issue.  First, let me clarify that I have nothing against free downloading of music if permission has been obtained from the artist/songwriter, label or representative of those parties.  Allowing the free downloading of a few songs off a project or a 'previously unreleased' song that may not appear on the artist's project(s) is a great means of promotion, again, provided that the parties involved in the creation consent.  What I firmly believe to be unethical and immoral is illegally downloading the intellectual property of someone who depends on royalties for their livelihood and who has not given permission for the download.   

Concerning LimeWire, they were, to my understanding allowing downloads of intellectual properties (music/songs) to those who used their software, without the express consent of the creators of those intellectual properties.  For those of you who don't know, LimeWire is a free peer to peer client program that runs on operating systems supported by the Java software platform (Mac and Windows).  Peer to peer file sharing emerged after the widespread adoption of internet service, and has now become one of the most used file sharing methods, especially for music and films.  

On October 26, 2010, Judge Kimbe Wood, a US federal court judge, issued an injunction forcing LimeWire to prevent "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality" of its software. A trial investigating the damages necessary to compensate the affected record labels is scheduled to begin in January 2011. 

Many people have this 'stick it to the record label'…'Take back music' mentality that is ill informed.  They view file sharing of songs/illegal downloading as only affecting the major labels and wealthy artists.  Those who support the illegal downloading of music speak of how this is somehow benefiting artists and songwriters. Those in support of LimeWire argue that 'sticking it' and downloading regardless of whether or not permission was obtained  will force the labels to fall and music will somehow be better because of this. Nothing could be further from the truth.   What will happen is that songwriters will suffer the most, artist will have to tour relentlessly with no rest or downtime to create new music, recording artists will primarily be composed of 25 year olds and younger, (with labels closing) the music that is produced will consist of music by those who are wealthy or who have obtained the wealth from outside sources, to promote music to the masses and the selection of 'good' music will narrow. Songwriters will more than likely suffer the most, as they make most of their income from royalties gained from mechanical sales and licensing of songs (not from artist ticket sales).  Speaking at a number of music industry conferences, I've lately made the comment, "I glad I'm both an artist and a songwriter because if I were just trying to make it as a songwriter these days, I couldn't." 

Proponents of LimeWire state that LimeWire's closure will not only effect file sharers around the world, but will open the door for legal action and injunctions against any file sharing software, service, or user.  This is stated as if it were a bad thing and as if illegal activity (downloading without the express permission of the intellectual copyright owner) should be tolerated because it raises too many questions about other potential infringements.   If peer-to-peer sharing software, companies, etc.  are negatively impacting the livelihoods of the creators of these intellectual properties, shouldn't there be investigations and lawsuits?

Advocates state that peer to peer file sharing may help artists increase record sales by obtaining fans that they otherwise might not have been reached.  They state that when music is not paid for and rather, 'shared' there will be an increase in CD sales and concert attendance.  They state that similar artists or genres of music may benefit as people look for similar acts.   It's true that file sharing may help a few artists, but these artists are primarily previously established label artists with financial backing and artists who are able to obtain financial backing to promote a project.   The musical landscape will continue to be dictated by the elite.  Non-label investors will dictate what style music is backed based on personal preferences.  Not only will MAJOR labels suffer but INDIE labels will also suffer.  Many outlets for 'fringe' acts will no longer exist.  Smaller (newer) acts who are unable to obtain support to tour and record will 'burn-out' before gaining a grassroots following large enough to support their income/expenses.  The musical landscape will consist of artists who are under 30 and single (without a consistent tour line up of at least 250 dates year after year artists will not make enough financially to support mortgages and families).  Subject matter of songs will thus, never mature.  If the system collapses new music will consist of a very few good artists/songs and a whole lot of ill-produced, poorly recorded and mixed songs that lack structure and direction.  Remember most of the music that you hear and enjoyed today (most-not all) have come from artists who came through the major label system or their sound was inspired by emulating a major label artist's sound.  Without labels, there will be a certain digression.  Crafting of songs will fly out the window because those making music will be those who don't "have to produce great songs" to make a living from music.  Plus, without tour support from labels or backers (most of whom recoup their investments from record sales) artists will make peanuts at their live shows.  Especially if the artists tour with bands/are bands.

Do the math, imagine you are an artist who is fortunate enough to get $5,000 from a venue to come do a concert…Which is very uncommon for non-label artists:

Total the venue pays:  $5,000  (1/2 day travel/CONCERT/1/2 travel)

Our expenses: 

 -$750 to manager

-$750 to booking agent

-$900 to backing band members (3 backing band members at $300 each)

-$1,000 Van rental, trailer and fuel

-$200 Hotel

-$150 Food

Artist take home pay:  $1,250  

That's when you're fortunate enough to get $5,000+ gigs.  MOST clubs pay less than $500 to the artist/band and MOST festivals pay less than $1500.  Do the math.

Oh, oh, but you are going to sell CDs and merch at the club venue.  Yeah, but not enough to really make a dent in your ever accruing travel and production debt for the project that you are trying to sell.  Remember, most people aren't going to purchase your CDs because no one listens to CDs anymore…You say sell them a card containing a code where they can download your songs?  Why would they want that? They've already downloaded the songs for free.  Tee-shirts?  Woo!!! That's going to add a lot to your budget.

PLUS, even if giving away away music helps the artists, it hurts SONGWRITERS and their families who are dependent on mechanical and performance royalties for income.

Currently, songwriters make a whopping $.091 per song per album sold.  The rate may be a percentage of a cent higher at the point in time that you are reading this…So let's go with an even $.10, best case as a future statutory standard mechanical royalty.  The artist goes out and sells 100,000 CDs (It's more likely that an indie, non mass marketed, artist will sell less than 10,000 in a year). So, in a best case scenario, if the artist sells 100,000 CDs the songwriter (if he/she is the only writer on the song) will make around $10,000.  

Imagine, if the fan already has the album for free.  What incentive does the consumer have to purchase the CD?  The artist's star power?  Without label or big money support most artists are going to be traveling as B-level artists…and who cares about getting their autographs?  No one is going to buy the CDs and the few who may, will not make that big of a difference financially. So, in turn, SONGWRITERS SUFFER.

File sharing/illegal downloading will DEFINITELY HURT songwriters.  I've already seen this hit my own pocketbook. I've consistently had song cuts for ten years now.  Music that I've written has appeared on numerous projects.  These songs have been with both major and indie artists, on the charts and projects that were on Billboard.  Though I continue to have songs make it onto projects my royalties are smaller and smaller.  I firmly believe that the decrease in my royalties and my songwriter friends' royalties  are directly linked to illegal downloads and the idea that 'music should be free'. 

The site www.bringlimewireback.com states:   "When world famous musicians start working at McDonald's because nobody buys their records or attends their concerts (cause they got it free on Limewire) we might change this stance."  That's such an ignorant statement.  Musicians who are 'world famous' are in the position because of the record labels.  The 'label' system hasn't crashed and burned completely.  Artists are still getting funding and are making royalties off of CD sales, even though CD sales have plummeted.  (Those are the major artists).  The label system is burning though and YES it is causing some signed artists to have to get other jobs.  Don't get me wrong, John Mayer isn't having to go to work at Burger King but you'd be surprised at the number of new signed artists (to major labels) that I know who moonlight as baristas at Starbucks or who work as waiters to pay the bills.  Why?  Labels can't pay out advances like they used to because of illegal downloads and the death of the CD.  These are not hack acts that I'm talking about that are working second jobs, these are guys who take off from their waiter and barista jobs to tour in the U.S. with other bigger acts and who fly out to Europe to do shows, who have a huge following but who can't make ends meet and have to work part time jobs, red-eyed, just to get by.  It's a shame.  Does the average consumer of music know this? No!  Not unless they live in Nashville or L.A. and wonder why the girl working behind the counter at their favorite coffeeshop looked a lot like____________.

www.bringlimewireback.com petitions people to get behind their cause and states:

"(Their) petition is simple, it will show the record industry that a large number of people value free file sharing services, and that some people care more about the music than the money."

There's this idea that we're sticking it to the labels and that it only hurts the label and helps the artist.  That is simply not true and even if it were, who made LimeWire Robin Hood that they could steal from the 'rich' (most of whose employees are not rich).

The average consumer (average person who downloads) isn't downloading hours upon hours of INDIE bands.  They don't want that.  They are illegally downloading music produced and promoted by MAJOR LABELS.  If you are a person who's 'shared' music, go look at your playlist.  Are the majority of the artists making up that list MAJOR or INDIE? My point is if the listeners are supposedly 'not into' the music the majors have 'thrusted' upon us why are they illegally downloading major label music?  Aren't those listeners making the statement "We are into your music but we want to take you down because you've created music that we are into but say we aren't."  That statement is about as confusing as the hypocritical 'anti-big label' sentiment.  I'd rather they just say, "We want something for free and we don't really care who it hurts or helps."

 Illegal downloading will only serve to help a handful of fortunate artists and will eventually make music worse.

The main point though is that the supporters of LimeWire really don't care about whether it hurts the artists/songwriters/labels/managers/agents/promotors or not.  It really doesn't matter to them.  The supporters are getting something for free and they want to continue to get something for free.  Music is also not deemed as something 'worthy' enough, in their eyes' to pay for.  Even if it is deemed worthy enough, the 'free-downloaders' would rather have something for free than pay for it. 

Again, let me clarify that I have nothing against free downloading of music if permission has been obtained from the artist/songwriter, label or representative of those parties.