It is difficult to estimate the number of articles and blog posts that have used as an example,the way the Grateful Dead allowed its fans to record concerts and share those recordings. Often, the Grateful Dead's approach was used as a counter-point to the "aggressive" policies of the RIAA. Some even suggested that this approach pointed us toward a future "enlightened" approach to fair use and other copyright policies toward music that reflected the ways people actually used and wanted to use music, especially as part of a community. Some even argue that the approach points to a highly-effective alternative business model for musicians.
Recently, Deadheads and more than a few pundits were surprised by a drastic change in the Grateful Dead's policy.
Dave Bollier's post called "The End of a Long, Strange Journey" does a nice job of summarizing the story (and launching a flurry of references to Grateful Dead song titles).
He reports:
As reported in today’s New York Times (November 30, 2005), they are trying to stop downloads of Dead music from an independent website that has made thousands of recordings of Dead concerts available. The band has asked the Live Music Archive – part of the indispensable Internet Archive run by Brewster Kahle – to make the music available for online streaming only, not downloads.
This has enraged many fans, who consider this move a deep violation of trust with the community of fans. They consider it a betrayal of the band’s deepest ideals. A petition drive has been launched calling for a boycott of Grateful Dead recordings and merchandise unless the decision is reversed.
Yes, in other words, and here comes the obligatory Grateful Dead title reference, the fans plan to keep on truckin' this petition until the policy gets changed.
Why is this important? As Bollier says, "The long, strange journey of the Grateful Dead has taken a new twist, one that forces us to ask – Who really owns music, the artists or the fans? Who owns the value (and values) generated by a band and its fan base, and how should that “wealth” be controlled and allocated? "
And the money quote:
A band spokesman, Dennis McNally, told the Times that Internet music-trading is radically different from the previous kind of sharing because the former does not build community: “One-to-one community building, tape trading, is something we’ve always been about. The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn’t represent Grateful Dead values.”
For a band that once celebrated its mystical idealism and blithe defiance of mainstream culture, this explanation has the whiff of lawyerly b.s (emphasis mine). Market control and profit maximization were never high on the list of Dead values. The band was cavalier about intellectual property because its members reaped an ample livelihood, not to mention great fun and joy, by concentrating instead on their be-here-now performances and humanity. The Dead’s franchise was based on their passion and purity, forged in collaboration with an adoring fan community. This not only made them a legend. It was a fantastic business model.
Has that been jettisoned by what remains of the Grateful Dead, who now want to cash in on their archives? Is this the real end of the long, strange journey – a fork in the road that the fans will reject?
The outcome of the dispute will say a lot about who really exerts control in the networked environment and where value resides. It’s a struggle that is playing out in countless permutations in other corners of the Internet. For myself, I’m betting that the Deadheads are likely to be the more enduring and powerful champions of Dead values than the band itself, R.I.P.
That's a big question: Who really exerts control in the networked environment and where does value reside? Another big question is whether our current copyright laws balance those interests and answer that question in a way that makes sense in our networked environment and reflects people's reasonable expectations and, in this case, a pattern of practice upon which people have relied?
In any event, I could not agree more with Bollier that "it’s a struggle that is playing out in countless permutations in other corners of the Internet."
It also raises one of my favorite questions: why isn't it OK to purchase/own a recording of a live concert that you bought a ticket for and attended?
Expect fans to be living under a dark star until this issue gets resolved.
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
1. SadHippie on December 1, 2005 11:03 PM writes...
This is such a slap in the face to Jerry's memory and to John Perry Barlow, who besides being one of the lyricists for the Dead is a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that has fought tooth and nail to keep the internet free and open, created the notion of "creative commons" and helped establish the internet archive.
This is Bob Weir's doing, not Phil Lesh's.
Being that Bob was raised in Atherton, Ca., an enclave for the superrich next to Palo Alto (Larry Ellison lives in Atherton), Bob is just coming home to roost.
Many hippies would like to think that because the Dead made the music that they love, that the Dead are hippies too. That might have been the case for Jerry and Phil (an artist with an honorary PhD from Stanford), but Bob was born with a diamond-encrusted silver spoon up his rectum. Of course, they were all wealthy because of the band, but they were artists first and foremost. I know a few folks that know Bob, including somebody from RatDog, his solo band. Bob Weir is and always was a spoiled rich kid for whom this whole "strange trip" always was about the money. He has the arrogance to match. Of course now that they are taking a hit on concert tickets, they (Bob) are trying to monetize their recordings.
As is, Bob Weir is just milking the last of the Dead legacy dry, and touring with Jerry "sound alikes" as opposed to really moving forward with his music. He could easily live for years on end on the money he has and never feel a pinch or keep on making a name for himself as an artist with current art. He'd rather
rest on his often coked-out (this I say from talking to folks that know) ass and rehash old songs that will never be the same because Jerry isn't alive to give those songs (even Bob's songs) their magic. He just doesn't have the creative juice to be original and relevant anymore, if he ever did. Without Jerry's tutelage, it's not obvious he would have lasted long enough in public memory to have the option of pissing on his fans 30 something years later.
Bob betrayed his fans years ago, and only now they are catching on.
Permalink to Comment2. Fred D. on December 2, 2005 9:24 AM writes...
It looks like the Dead have promptly retreated:
http://tinyurl.com/8jzrd
"What a short, strange trip it was. After the Grateful Dead angered some of its biggest fans by asking a nonprofit Web site to halt the free downloading of its concert recordings, the psychedelic jam band changed its mind Wednesday.
Internet Archive, a site that catalogues content on Web sites, reposted recordings of Grateful Dead concerts for download after the surviving members of the band decided to make them available again. . .
[T]he band consented to making audience recordings available for download again, although live recordings made directly from concert soundboards, which are the legal property of the Grateful Dead, should only be made available for listening from now on."
Permalink to Comment3. Dave! on December 2, 2005 10:12 AM writes...
Yeah, given the reactions from even *band* insiders:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/29/barlow_on_death_of_g.html
http://www.phillesh.net/philzonepages/friends_stuff/hotline.html
This whole debacle raises a lot of interesting questions including, just who is running their organization!?
Permalink to Comment4. Sad Hippie on December 2, 2005 2:08 PM writes...
You know, I turned on to them when I was 14. It used to be that you would see entire families at shows...3 generations sometimes despite the negative (druggie) elements in the scene.
I'm 40 now. I have a 13 year old now. Nobody that she knows in school know anything about The Grateful Dead except those few that have parents that still like the Dead... and of course, many have moved on.
Many folks my age don't have CD buying on thier list of priorities like they might have when they were young.
So at this point, when and if they buy a Dead CD over something like John Mayer or something else current their kids will like too or whatever, it is a function of returning the good will of the joy the Dead brought them back in the day. They drop the cash even if they know there's bootleg soundboards out there, even if they have bootlegs themselves. They drop the cash exactly because they know the Dead are so cool as to allow their shows to be online for free. It's all about good will at this point. A Dead CD is no longer a "must have" item. They spend the money because they still support the idea of them.
The Dead lost the good will by doing this... and you can still find soundboards easy enough in other places. By losing the good will, they are nothing now. The magic has left and they are no longer special beyond the nostalgia value.
If the members of the band can't see this function they have always played and now it's all about money it's because they are as out of touch as George Bush at a NAACP dinner. Yeah, and Bob has just become that pathetic aging rock guy whose addictions cloud him from seeing that he's no long relevant and has become nothing more than a bad cliche. Worse yet, I know that his personal wealth finds him with too many sycophants in his circle to tell him otherwise.
So have another line Bob, and pay people to tell you that you still matter and still are special because of some originality you had in your youth. You are just as ordinary as the next guy now. Nothing is more common than greed...and this from a band that once was special? Quite pathetic indeed.
Permalink to Comment