By Nick Krewen
TAG Strategic's Ted Cohen has been on
the frontlines of the digital revolution
ever since the words "P2P" and "download" have
entered the mainstream lexicon.
He's worked from both sides of the fence,
for file-sharing services Napster and
LimeWire -- for major labels Warner Bros. and EMI. Cohen has also drawn up the
iTunes and Rhapsody licensing agreements and helped pioneer musical commerce
in our virtual reality.
Bob
Lefsetz is the fearlessly opinionated publisher
of The Lefsetz Letter, an entertainment
attorney, label consultant and music
industry firebrand who places his love
of music -- and its role as lover, healer,
communicator and emotional connector
-- far above the motives of corporate
greed, control and manipulation that
he sees exist and interfere with both
the enjoyment and commercial exploitation
of that music.
So at the Ontario Room, the sparks flew
the debate of who has control over the
music on our cyberspace and its rather
tenuous -- at the moment -- future.
Not surprisingly, for those who know
him, Lefsetz grabbed the ball early and
dominated most of the hour. His first order
of business: dispelling what he feels is
a myth.
"There's a phrase that's constantly
repeated in this business, and I want to
tell you is a complete load of crap --
that 'content is king,'" declared
Lefsetz.
"Content is not king.
Distribution is king.
"To prove the point, if you are the
new Beatles and no one can hear it and
no one can buy it, it's like you don't
exist. And what we're arguing about here
in the major label model is distribution,
because the majors have control of distribution."
Ted Cohen tried to take it a step further.
"We've moved beyond where distribution is king to where attention is king," he
noted.
But Lefsetz wasn't buying it.
"That's a crock of sh*t," said Lefsetz. "Music is a very powerful
medium, and the reason the dollars are
going elsewhere is because the music -- as certainly as it is distributed and
exhibited on a mainstream level, is not good enough."
Furthermore, Lefsetz argues, bands and
artists have to be more careful about cultivating
their celebrity.
"If you happen to be good and people
believe in you, they will give you their
money," says Lefsetz. "Every
dollar they have."
The problem at the moment, he contends,
is that artists are going for the quick
bang through instant media exposure and
not the slow and organic build that will
ensure them life beyond a few years.
He singled out Montreal's Arcade Fire.
"They appeared on Saturday Night
Live," he squawked. "If
they're on SNL, I can't believe in them
anymore."
He suggested that bands model their careers
after Pearl Jam.
"At one point Pearl Jam said, 'The whole thing is overblown - we're not
doing any more videos,' says Lefsetz. "It's
15 years later and Pearl Jam can still
sell out arenas.
"People don't believe in Jay Z and they don't believe in Diddy, but they
still believe in Pearl Jam."
Lefsetz also blamed bad music for some
of the industry's current ills.
"Talent is 50 per cent at most! The
other 50 per cent? Raw f*cking desire," said
Lefsetz. "If you are good, people
will beat down the door."
Bringing the conversation back to Arcade
Fire, Cohen asked Lefsetz that if he considered
the band's SNL appearance a misstep, what
the Montreal outfit's proper next step
should have been.
He said in this era of instant media gratification,
they should avoid mainstream publicity.
"It's now about being the manager and saying, 'No,'" cautions Lefsetz.
"Today we have Entertainment Tonight. We have YouTube. You can be famous
instantly and it hurts your longevity."
And longevity is becoming an increasingly
rare commodity in the music biz.
Lefsetz mentioned Jewel and her first album
Pieces Of You, which sold "double-digit" millions
in America and was very heavily promoted
by Atlantic executive Ron Shapiro.
"By the third album, she was done," said Lefsetz.
Switching the topic to compensation for
music on the Internet, Ted Cohen worried
about people's reluctance to pay for it.
"The disconnect for me is that people's passion for music and their passion
and desire to acquire and to own it and
have it on their iPod, along with this resistance to feel it's worth any compensation
for it -- because being a fan and being passionate and committed trumps rewarding
the artist," Cohen
said.
Lefsetz immediately retorted by saying
it wasn't the public that was the problem,
but the labels that control the music.
"The problem is that the labels do not let people pay for it in the way
they want it," replied Lefsetz.
He said that labels didn't care about
people stealing music, just the fact that
they weren't controlling the circumstances
surrounding the theft. He describes it
as a game of control.
"They don't want to lose control."
Lefsetz even accused the record companies
of spinning their own press and purposefully
refusing to monetize digital outlets.
"People are acquiring millions of
tracks all the time, but the record companies
don't want to look to that," he states. "They
want to argue as to whether (Apple's) Steve
Jobs has got it our for them."
Ted Cohen took the floor to ask how many
people would pay for file-sharing service
LimeWire (the PRO version cost $18.88),
and was surprised when nobody raised their
hand to indicate they'd consider it.
"Is there a monetized business system or are you just not willing to pay
for music at all?" Cohen asked.
That launched another Lefsetz tirade.
"The story with the Internet is that allows more people to own more music
and that is good for everybody. You have
to license the ISP level. You just have
to modify what's presently existing."
Lefsetz mentioned a university tracking
system about to be implemented in China.
"I've been down that path of tracking at university levels and nobody
wants to pay," says Cohen.
Lefsetz rifled back that there are issues
of liability with the students, but if
you go to them for a solution, they will
pay for that solution, "if you
give them the legal alternative."
Lefsetz said that if he was offered LimeWire
for $10 a month and he could as much music
as he wants, "I'm there forever."
"Then it's incumbent upon the purveyors
to continue to make great music so people
will continue to want their subscriptions."
Of course, conditioning them to accept
subscription-based models after years of
inactivity could be another challenge altogether.
"All I know is that for eight years,
we've had files sitting on the Net in an
ever-increasing level with absolutely no
monetization," comments Lefsetz. "We're
ultimately going to delivery on the media
of a non-ownership model. But how long
is it going to take us to get there? We
already blew eight years where we didn't
get paid."
When Cohen mentioned a "rental" fileshare
service like Rhapsody as a viable alternative,
Lefsetz brought up a fundamental point
about the current ability of downloaders
and file sharers.
"Presently, you can acquire (music) and own it, " said Lefsetz. "So
I should rent it with restrictions and
be happy?
"The problem with Rhapsody is when
your server goes down, you lose your music.
If I have my iPod, I don't lose my music
when I do my exercises. It's about convenience
and practicality."
Which brought Cohen back to his initial
concern.
"I worked for the original Napster," he states. "I just finished
six months with LimeWire. I love concepts
with unlimited access to music, but I can't
get my arms around the idea that it's because
you can get it for free that justifies the experience."
Lefsetz they can argue about the moral
and social implications all day, but the
reality is that people are stealing music
and downloading it onto their CD players.
"Nothing we have done has stopped that," says Lefsetz.
The duo batted around a few more suggestions,
with Cohen suggesting that an ISP subscription-based
startup in a new territory like China could
work and that embedded watermarks could
keep track of songs to indicate accumulating
royalties, while Lefsetz said that an appeal
to "parents of America" that
low-priced subscriptions would prevent "their
kids from being sued for relatively small
amounts" might yield positive results.
"I believe a certain number of people would buy that proposition," said
Lefsetz.
Either way, both parties agreed that a
consensus should happen sooner than later
to offset lost revenues that the music
industry, collectively, can ill afford
to bear.
|
