Tarzan Economics

An older but essential perspective on the music industry.

"The war is over. I call it Tarzan economics. They think they have to cling to a vine of revenue because it's the vine they're used to, and if they let go they fall to the jungle floor. You very quickly grab the next vine, but until it's there for you, you cling to the one you've got. It's a question of timing - when that vine will appear. We live in a time of transition.

They need to make the fundamental realization that control is not going to come to their rescue. We in the arts like to believe in the deus ex machina - this machine that in the third act of the opera that comes down and rescues the heroine from the flames. But there is no deus ex machina.

Lawyers and technologists continue to sell this snake oil of control, whether it's from the court and the police [RIAA legal jihad], or whether it's coming from technology [DRM]. Bill Gates for one has worked hard to convince people that the fat lady is going to be rescued by the machine. Once you reach the realization that it isn't going to solve our problems, then you begin to embrace the alternatives.

The publishing people know this, and they're quick to realize this. They were quick to recognize Napster. So we're left with a group of sound recording owners that's looking for a few more years of this resistance against the onslaught. But the war is over."

Griffin, Lessig, et al all buy into this same concept that since we can't control anything anymore, we should just quit trying. Or, essentially that a cost-benefit analysis would show that we'd be better using resources to find alternatives than wage a costly legal war. And clearly, it's an appealing sidestep of morals.

Copyright laws are hardly a point of moral relativity, and it's sad to see so many intellectuals dumb down theft to something that can only involve physical products. These people probably argue that only the "public" should own "art", that the Mona Lisa is everyone's. That DaVinci's personal drawings and diaries are the property of "the world" and too great a treasure to be hoarded. But you simply can't extend the argument to its end--at some point, theft is theft. Some art was not intended to be art--consider the demos of Dylan or the Beatles that were never officially released. Or the artwork given by Picasso as a personal gift to a friend. Or any creation that is used in ways that were unintended by its owner. That's the underlying problem right there, that music (or any art) is created under certain parameters or legal understanding. The point of creation endears certain rights that shouldn't be weakened down the road without express permission of the creator. And if we're so willing to dumb down intellectual theft, why are we so unwilling to dumb down physical theft? At some point this issue must be confronted in a more intellectual manner.

Still, Griffin is correct that the hand is being forced for cultural change. The point going forward is that owners of intellectual property need to focus on protecting the past and giving in to the future. This is what Griffin and Lessig never seem to address very competently--that you can't pretend the past doesn't exist simply because the future appears more compenent or reasonable.