In Steve Albinis Rede auf der "Face The Music"-Konferenz geht es nicht nur um die aktuelle Lage der Musikindustrie, Eigentumsrechte und das Internet, sondern auch um den "violetten Zwerg" Prince und Miley Cyrus' Musik.
Bei der diesjährigen Musikindustrie-Konferenz „Face The Music“, die am 14. und 15. November in Melbourne stattfand, hielt der US-amerikanische Produzent Steve Albini (Pixies, PJ Harvey, Cloud Nothings) eine Rede, die den heutigen Stand der Musikindustrie thematisierte.
Die großen Veränderungen durch das Internet und wie es die Musikindustrie zum besseren wandelte, waren die Kernaussagen seiner Keynote-Rede. Das Thema Copyright fand ebenso Erwähnung. Dieses untermalte Steve Albini mit einem Beispiel, das er kritisch betrachtet: US-Sänger Prince.
Exklusive Eigentumsrechte bringen absurde Konsequenzen mit sich, so Albini. “If your little daughter does a kooky dance to a Prince song don’t bother putting it on YouTube for her grandparents to see, or a purple dwarf in assless chaps will put an injunction on you. Did I offend the little guy? Fuck it. His music is poison.”, wettert er offen gegen Prince.
Auf die „giftige Musik“ von Prince ging er nicht weiter ein, aber auch von Miley Cyrus zeigte er sich wenig begeistert. „Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough.“, stellte er seine Ansichten deutlich klar.
Abgesehen von Prince und Miley blieb Steve Albini weitestgehend bei den Themen Copyright und der Musikindustrie. Seinen kompletten Vortrag kann man bei The Guardian nachlesen. Hier ein kurzer Ausschnitt der Rede, die Eigentumsrechte von Musikern betreffend:
From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to.
There is great public good by letting creative material lapse into the public ownership. The copyright law has been modified so extensively in the past decades that now this essentially never happens, creating absurdities whenever copyright is invoked. There’s a huge body of work that is not legally in the public domain, though its rights holder, authors and creators have died or disappeared as businesses. And this material, from a legal standpoint now removed from our culture – nobody may copy it or re-release it because it’s still subject to copyright.
Other absurdities abound: innocuous usage of music in the background of home videos or student projects is technically an infringement and official obstacles are set up to prevent it. If you want a video of your wedding reception – your father’s first dance with a new bride – it’s off limits unless it is silent. If your little daughter does a kooky dance to a Prince song don’t bother putting it on YouTube for her grandparents to see or a purple dwarf in assless chaps will put an injunction on you. Did I offend the little guy? Fuck it. His music is poison.
Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough.”
