Yesterday, to show some support for three participating PFF Fellows, I attended "Copyright Controversies, Freedom, Property, Content Creation, and the DMCA," a lovely event held at CATO. Jim and Patrick have already blogged about their impressions here, here and here but, a few comments made my ears perk up. Here's one that had me thinking about the future of the music industry.

Technology has made it cheap to produce music.

The panelist who uttered this statement was making the case that intellectual property protection is the equivalent to a government sanctioned monopoly. Now that technology has made it relatively cheap to produce music, there is a strong movement against the historical monopoly that controls public access to it. Yes, technology has made it relatively cheaper to produce music but, is there really a tide against the great "music monopoly?"

Right this moment, I could use the "sound recorder" function on my computer, hum a few notes, and call it music. I could plop it on a My Space page, e-mail an mp3 file, burn it to a CD, etc to circulate my "music." Yes, very low cost. Now, I can't sing so, no one would want to share or distribute this, much less listen to it.

Now onto scenario number two. As some of you may know from my previous postings, my husband is a musician. At home, he has Cubase (a recording program - list price is $800) and a Firebox (a small box that you plug the instrument into - list price is $500). Now, add the thousands of dollars worth of instruments and all the various bells and whistles, which are now available to musicians thanks to technology. For distribution, my husband can burn this right onto a CD or put it on his website. The cost in this scenario is increasing and is quite labor intensive but, not near as much as a professional studio.

Okay, scenario number three. The industry standard for recording software is ProTools. For a top of the line Pro Tools HD you are looking at "just under $10,000." Now, this does have a hard drive component but, you get the idea. Add on all that equipment described above and a producer who really knows what they are doing? Once the initial set up cost is paid for, the cost per piece definitely drops exponentially but this is still more expensive than the two scenarios described above.

Yes, it can be cheap to produce recorded music now. Technology has made all three scenarios above a reality. However, and this is an important point, there are also varying degrees of quality described above. Hence, they are in no way perfect substitutes for each other. Yes, there are now millions of songs available for free on various websites by many talented people. There is also a wealth of so-so and just plain bad (in my opinion) material out there. So more options are available but you wouldn't necessarily find all of them worth listening to.

As touched on above, it is also true that the Internet has opened up a whole new avenue of distribution for musicians. However, the one component of this equation that hasn't been mentioned is promotion. Just because you post something to the Internet doesn't mean that millions of people suddenly flock to your page. You must do some sort of promotion and marketing. If you are doing this yourself, you are not only forking over cash but also huge chunks of time. All while competing against the other thousands of bands doing the same thing over the same medium.

So, does the relatively cheaper means of recording, as well as a new method of distribution available, really mean that the "monopoly" over music is about to be disbanded? I'm not so sure. While artists no longer have to gain financial backing in order to produce a physical CD, there is still the all important promotion factor. With a few exceptions, it's tough to get people to notice your work in a great sea of artists all competing for listeners. Without promotion, it's easy to get lost in the shuffle.