In his monthly “Moses Supposes” email newsletter for the month of May, music industry gadfly Moses Avalon has shown his true colors, which, apparently, includes various shades of green. In a rant called “THE DRM MANIFESTO: Reality For Musicians, Artists, Songwriters, their Lawyers and Everyone Else Who Clearly Isn’t Paying Attention,” Avalon posits that “It’s Winner Take All in the Cage Match Between Music And The Net” and asks his readers “Are You Helping the Wrong Side Win?”

It a nutshell, Avalon’s argument is that the battle between the copyright cartel and the anti-DRM forces is, in essence, a fight between technology companies on one side and the “Four Families” of the recording industry and their pitbull, the RIAA, on the other. Avalon writes, “in one corner we have the “Tech-Masters,” as I call them: computer/gadget makers and internet service providers. They use pop music as a loss-leader to attract new consumers.” Continuing, Avalon says, “in the other corner, the four major record/publishing companies. To support the huge bets they place on artists, they need to protect their inventory – copyrights.”

The “Tech-Masters,” you see, just want to sell you overpriced electronics and software like the iPod, and they’re merely using free music as the rallying cry for their plans to separate many dollars from your wallet. “If they cannot rely upon record companies to license them music cheap, their logical alternative is to avoid paying for it at all by challenging copyright law, BUT… only as it applies to art—not their software.” As such, the “Tech-Masters” like Microsoft, Apple and their ilk are colluding to dupe us all into supporting their nefarious plan to undermine the recording industry.

Ostensibly, the record labels are the GOOD GUYS, the companies that unflaggingly support “art” by investing in the musicians on their roster. Avalon writes “but if art loses this war, that is to say, if record companies/artists lose their ability to control who gets to license their work and at what price, the music business, as we know it, ends. Music itself will suffer as an art form and the Tech-Masters will buy the labels, bundle their music, and in a few years you’ll buy a lap-top and it will come pre-loaded with an entire catalog of Classic Rock, Rap, Jazz, whatever.”

A world of cheap or free music that sheds its DRM-shackles to play on all devices and easily transfers between systems?  “This may sound great if you're a consumer, but if you're a music company you will make only a small licensing fee and your artists and songwriters will see a paltry fraction of this sum. The trickle down effect for studio owners, producers, lawyers, managers, etc, will naturally be devastation,” writes Avalon, basically forecasting the end of the music industry as we know it.

There are many problems with Avalon’s logic throughout his rant, but perhaps the biggest problem I have with his “us versus them” position is his own considerable self-interest. Avalon, a nom-de-plume for a music producer and engineer that has worked with Grammy Award-winning, Platinum-selling artists, makes his money from the industry that he “uncovers” and criticizes while also defending and profiting from the same industry. Now I don’t care how the man makes his money – that’s his biz – but his bias in this argument is crystal-clear to anybody with even a mid-double-digit IQ.

Avalon argues that the industry has benefited greatly from the “digital revolution,” stating that “in 2006 the music biz had one of its best years ever, revenue wise…revenue from the mobile space and other new licensing sources has and will continue to put billions of new revenue into our space. They don't want you to know this because it would deflate the Tech argument for DRM-free.” How so? The record industry’s profitability (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing on the “Tech argument” for DRM-free music…in fact, it negates it. The industry pulls down $11+ annually in the U.S. and has been hurt only because of its own greed and avarice. The labels are making money hand-over-foot, just not as much money as they imagine that they could make if we weren’t all “stealing” their property. If they’re making money using the current feeble DRM schemes available to them, why would they possibly want to go “DRM-free”?

Avalon also argues that major labels are a necessity in the world of music because they “are the “banks” of our industry. They loan money to 1000’s of artists, who then spend it in 1000’s of studios and with 1000’s of producers, who hire 1000’s of engineers, who buy gear and invest in new artists, who sign with labels, and so on.” Don’t forget that Avalon is also one of these producers and engineers, with a lucrative music biz consultancy on the side. As for technology bringing about the elimination of the major label system, he writes “the fantasy that “if Majors die a Phoenix will rise from the ashes” is very unlikely. The higher probability is that in order for there to be a viable music industry at all Majors need to stay in business.” Bullshit!

Personally, I don’t trust “Tech-Masters” like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs any more than I like label execs like Doug Morrison or Edgar Bronfman. Corporations are an unfortunate necessity under the modern capitalist economic system, and I have no problem with companies profiting from their innovations (like the iPod, for instance). However, I also think that corporations should be regulated and monitored and slapped back down when they cross the line and become too greedy, mistreat their employees, harm the environment or target their customers with frivolous lawsuits. The “corporation” is nothing more than a legal fiction and should not be imbued with the same rights as the individual.

However, as one of the so-called “media experts” that Avalon disparages with his rant, I can honestly state that I have no interest in either side of this controversy aside from my love of music. Outside of the few Google ads that litter my blog pages, which don’t bring in enough cash to pay my annual hosting fees, I receive no income from tech advertising. I don’t work for a software or technology company, and have never worked for the recording industry, either. My entire interest in this debate is to support the musicians ill-treated by both the tech world and the recording biz and to illuminate the truth behind the industry to curious music lovers.  

Here’s the reality of this situation: both sides are wrong! Non-obtrusive digital rights management schemes like watermarking should be part of digital music files, if only for the benefit of the artists. The problem is that the recording industry, historically, has been extremely paranoid and afraid of advances in technology. Just because they haven’t figured out a way to make DRM work to everybody’s satisfaction doesn’t mean that it isn’t viable. Consumers don’t really care a whit about DRM as long as the song files they “purchase” (license, really) all play where and when they want them to play. The “Tech-Masters” and their supporters are wrong about DRM-free music and should come up with their own soft-and-hardware-based solutions to pacify the recording industry, as long as it doesn’t deprive the consumer of their rights.

But the recording industry is equally full of shit. For decades, record labels have lied to and cheated their artists out of royalties and licensing fees, and deprived them of income by controlling when (and what) they record and when it will be released. Yes, record labels do invest money in new artists – more than they need to, most of the time – but they also hold back royalties, extort a piece of the songwriter’s publishing, and take the lion’s share (70% by some reports) of the sale of digital downloads, including highly-profitable ringtones.

Record labels continue to charge the consumer obscene prices for albums that paid for themselves long ago ($18.98 for the Eagle’s Greatest Hits?) while bitching about not making enough money on new releases. By Avalon’s own reckoning, outlined in his book Confessions Of A Record Producer, a major label makes $3 to $4 profit on the sale of each compact disc. They actually make more, since the Four Families also control the distribution chain and get a piece on the backend as well. With almost half of all physical music sales drawn from long-amortized catalog releases, the labels have no reason to cry “foul!” The licensing of new music for a movie or TV show has been extremely profitable for 20 years now, but has gotten ridiculous as labels have demanded upwards of six-figures to license a scrap of a song for a brief performance in a TV show, and millions for use in a commercial.

Contrary to what Moses Avalon might believe, musicians don’t need record labels to keep making music. Artists are driven to make music, and without the major label system, I guarantee you that alternative forms of distribution would be created. The technology that Avalon so quickly dismisses has also made it easier and cheaper for anyone to become a musician, make their own CD and sell it online. Yeah, as with the bulk of both major and minor label releases, much of it is crap. As music lovers, however, discovering a new artist is part of the journey. Without the labels around to “filter” what we hear (a suspect concept at best, as they usually merely chase trends), we’ll all become our own “filters” in the search for new tunes.

Nobody is guaranteed the right to earn a living from their art, and throughout history, the “starving artist” has typically been more of a reality than a metaphor. Back in the ‘20s and ‘30s – through the early-60s, really – musicians depended on live performances to put butter on their bread, and considered recording to be a promotional effort, and maybe a source of a little spare cash on the side. Ninety years later, the industry hasn’t really come that far…most musicians that I have known or interviewed (including some Platinum-level artists) still make almost all of their money from performance income, followed by publishing fees (if they’re songwriters). Digital download sales have added a little extra cash to their pockets (or label accounts), but most label royalties remain woefully out-of-reach.

It’s not “us-versus-them” Mr. Avalon, nor even “Tech-Company-versus-Music-Company.” As usual, the age old dance is “corporation-versus-musician,” and some of us are here trying to make sure that the artist gets a fair shake. 

(Click on the book cover to buy Confessions Of A Record Producer from Amazon.com)