A vanishingly small percentage of the profits in the music industry end up with the artists themselves. The questions whether and how there can be fair circumstances in these economic structures were discussed at the panel on distributive justice.
The example is trivial, but one of the simplest and probably the most equitable form of money distribution in a musical context: “If I throw 30 cents into the hat of a street musician, then the distribution works. Unlike recorded music, which gets to the consumer in many different ways. We have long diverged from a direct artistic creation,” said panelist George Markus Kainz from the association Quintessence about basic musical structures, which have made it difficult to distribute the profits in a way that musicians can earn a living from recorded music. Next to the big challenge of finding some form of justice, the technical developments of the past ten years have also contributed to these already opaque structures.
It is also a legal problem, not least because of the enormous speed of innovation that exists since the digitization of musical structures. Panelist and head of Ink Music, Hannes Tschürtz: “I find all the achievements of the internet very positive, since they have contributed to democratization. But we live in a world where everything is regulated by the state and the state can’t keep up with all this speed happening in the world.”
Panelist Ilias Dahimene from Sea-You-Label has a similar opinion: “Mainly indie labels benefit from the new situation. This is good, I am happy with that, but not with the legal aspects regarding the new structures.” Thereby the panel agreed on the fact that the current situation is not completely new. In the wake of new technological developments, it is a general pattern that those institutions who benefit the most from the old structures, are those who defend themselves against progress with all means.
“Sueing customers, which the majors do, is not a good business model. In addition, you have to realize that the buying behavior has not really changed. There are not less customers that buy music, but lower revenues. In terms of units sold, we are on the same level as before the time of change. Therefore piracy does not necessarily have to have an impact on the sales,” said Ilias Dahimene about the whining in the league of the major companies.
“Before, everything was controllable, because there was no copy mechanism. Today, anyone can get hold of music and spread it just as easily. There is more transparency. In the past it would have been unthinkable that a song like Skero’s ‘Kabinenparty’ would have three million listeners,” said Hannes Tschürtz, who sees a large niche in the direct contact with the audience. “There are many new paths for the audience to show its appreciation for the artists. Many sell well with the merchandise at the concerts. People know that this money goes to the artists. People take the CDs home after the concert as emotional souvenirs. This is also proved by the increasing vinyl sales.”
But are fair music principles on a large scale or new ways of compensation for musicians realistic? Georg Markus Kainz does not believe “per se” in such a model, but can agree on a certain certification for ethical standards in music. Ilias Dahimene: “I am a supporter of the free market, the buyer should decide who he wants to support, but I don’t think a flat tax system is sophisticated enough. Fairness in music also includes justice in contracts, far from capital-intensive processes.” Hannes Tschürtz: “Fairness also means more transparency. In this regard, the role of a label in the past ten years has changed. It’s more of a know-how supplier than an investor. ”
Johannes Luxner
translated from the German by Doris Miyung Brady