Archives For Jay-Z

So central is the idea of the freedom of speech, that the Bill of Rights places it first and foremost as the primary tenet of a democratic republic.  Specifically, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]”  Further, this potent protection providing freedom of speech presumptively applies to all forms of artistic expression: words, images, sounds, movements and more.  In an era where anyone with an Internet connection and a thought can be a writer/publisher, the importance of such a right has perhaps never felt more real to “We the people.”

In addition to this freedom, the U.S. Constitution provides a means of incentivising our creative authorship by protecting it for a limited time from misappropriation.  Specifically, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, affectionately known as the Copyright Clause, reads: “Congress shall have Power to…[secure] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries…[.]”  By granting authors the right to prevent infringers from profiting off of unauthorized copies of their works, Congress provided a means by which creators of copyrightable content could make a living through the ability to monopolize their content for a set period of time.

Therein lies the contradiction.  Continue Reading…

Futurists and industry analysis agree we are on the verge of a revolution in the music business.  Gerd Leonhard posits in “the days of the lauded ‘Internet music revolution’ were just a mere testing ground, like the first kicks of a baby during pregnancy.”[1] Similarly, music business analyst Bob Lefsetz believes “[w]e could be on the verge of a renaissance…[t]he death of the traditional label model could eliminate looks-based music and formulaic radio…[e]verything you hated is essentially gone.” [2] This revolution in the music business has been predicted for well over a decade.
In “The Economy of Ideas” John Perry Barlow draws the poignant analogy of the music industry of the future being like “selling wine without bottles on the global net.”[3] He argues it was the ability to deliver wine (music) in a physical form that the rights of invention and authorship adhered thereto.  The value was in the conveyance of property, not the thought conveyed.  Throughout history “[p]roperty was the divine right of thugs.”[4] The record industry caused it to be “the bottle that was protected, not the wine.”[5] Music, being a non-physical idea, has been converted into property through industry.  Building upon Barlow’s concept, Leonhard argues music will no longer viewed as a product but rather a service.[6] Music only became viewed as a product because of the agenda of an industry that quickly learned “selling the bottle can make a lot more money than only selling the wine…[f]or the future, think of a “record label” as a ‘music utility company.’”[7] It appears the record industry is broken but the music industry has a future.  With the right concept and execution a revolution in the way consumers access music will continue to happen.  The business models of the future bear this in mind.  A growing number of artists refusing to deal with traditional record labels have experimented with the following alternatives:

Continue Reading…