Arrrrrr matey, piracy

Guitarist, composer, arranger, and producer extraordinaire, Jeff Parker, recently posted a dialog on his blog on the topic of the taping and distribution of live shows through the internet. While he offered a brief introduction to the subject, the bulk of his post was made up of a letter from a fan to the artist Douglas Ewart, and then his ensuing response. The response is rather heated, containing some vivid imagery and pulling no punches to show where Mr. Ewart stands on the subject.

I want to preface any discussion of the subject by saying that I have the utmost respect for both Jeff Parker and Douglas Ewart, having seen them performing numerous times and purchasing many of their recordings.

I think Jeff's position strikes a good balance on the subject - he states that he allows taping of his shows but he believes that the artist's permission is necessary to make it a legitimate practice. I completely agree with this - to record an artist's performance without their permission, or even worse, knowing that they are against the practice, is not an ethically sound practice. And that's what this is essentially, an ethics debate.

Mr. Ewart has a similar but different position, stating that the artist's permission is necessary (although he goes on to say he believes that artists who condone this practice are incorrect in their reasoning for doing so), and he makes this analogy: "Your/their actions are akin to visiting a museum, paying an admission fee, and, then stealing a painting and disseminating prints. It is also akin to going to someone's home for a party and then stealing their jewelry, plates, cups, recordings, etc. I have never gotten any concerts or sales of my recordings as a result of this practice of piracy. It is just plain wrong!"

While I don't want to argue with his own personal views, I believe that this is not a particularly apt analogy. Painters do not perform live and many musicians, as is the case with Mr. Ewart, only have a handful of recordings available for purchase. If there were copies of the live recording available for purchase and then someone distributed them for free, that would be similar. I see his point though - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Mr. Ewart also writes: "We, as artists, are already struggling to stay afloat in this difficult business called art/music making. I cannot stop the practice of piracy, but I want to set the record straight that this is a very damaging practice. I think any artist that sanctions or endorses piracy is totally incorrect; of course, if they do, that is their prerogative. My recordings are not out of print or in a cutout bin. This practice of piracy usurps and lessens the impact of putting out unreleased live recordings. I don't need anyone to determine what is good for me. I don't need exposure, I am already sun burnt. We need shelter, support, help, advocates, concerts, workshops, money, health care, insurance, vacations, equipment, access, etc. Are these people that are getting the free recordings arranging work for the artists; are they sending monies to the artist whose work they get for free? I don't think so! I certainly have never received anything. Obtaining our work without compensating us is not respecting or caring about the artists that so many claim they Love."

On one hand, I can totally appreciate and respect the "support the arts" stance, as I work in a cultural arts organization that concerns itself with exactly this mission. I'd agree with his position that having so many free live recordings available lessens the impact of releasing live recordings officially if it weren't for the fact that most of the traders of music I know actually are ethical in their practices and do want to support the arts by purchasing official recordings.

Then there's a historical argument to be made for the practice, that if many of these shows hadn't been recorded on the down-low, so to speak, they would have been lost in the air never to be heard again. The jam sessions at Minton's with musicians like Thelonious Monk and Charlie Christian are available for our ears because someone took the time to record them. As someone who considers himself interested in the music in a scholarly capacity in addition to being a fan, I can't help but be in favor of documentation.

However, documentation does not necessarily imply distribution, and the internet  distribution of digital music in the form of p2p bittorrent sites makes it easier than ever for piracy to occur. I think, as I have posted previously on the subject of digital downloads and the music industry, that the answer to issues like this isn't to try and ban a practice that will continue to occur anyway, but rather to monetize the trading in a way that compensates the artists involved. Advertising revenue (see YouTube for a model) and subscription based situations could provide a step in this direction.