In 2000 when
Napster, a program that allowed anyone with a computer to illegally download an endless amount of music files, was sued by the National Music Publisher’s Association, it set off a chain reaction in the recording industry that flowed all the way to the consumer. In 2007 Bertelsmann AG, the company that financially supported Napster, agreed to a $130 million settlement with the National Music Publisher’s Association to pay off the original case’s final copyright claims. This case in particular was a battle between Big Business and the Average Music Consumer, being represented by Napster, and that seems to be the most complicated part of the issue of illegal file sharing of music.
The main issue of music downloading, from the consumer point of view, is whether or not downloading music from a website or sharing music with another person is actually “stealing”. Many have argued that once one person pays for a song or an album it is theirs to do with what they wish. These people often use the Audio Home Recording Act to justify this claim. The Audio Home Recording Act was expanded to include digital audio recording devices and media in 1992, which seemed to grant a loophole in this issue of file sharing. In a peer-to-peer network, it could be argued that the initial purveyor of the file is operating lawfully under the Audio Home Recording Act, thus those who acquire the same file are also not subject to law enforcement.
The issue really lies in the hands of the bands, however. Some bands have chosen to give away their music for free on their websites such as
Nine Inch Nails and
Radiohead (who had the option to pay “whatever amount” the consumer deemed necessary), with good results. Other bands, like
Metallica, have fought fervently against music pirating and the consequential spreading of those files all around the globe. Were there no discrepancy in this part of the argument, it seems that the argument could possibly be null and void.
The main enforcer against music piracy is the
Recording Industry Association of America. They serve as a watchdog of some sorts over the Music Industry, it has commenced high profile lawsuits against file sharing service providers, as well as initiating a series of lawsuits against individuals suspected of file sharing, notably college students and parents of these file-sharing children. In my opinion, the RIAA overstepped their boundaries to some point, thoroughly destroying the life savings of some college students, some even here at Ohio University, and singling them out in a worldwide problem.
I think that there shouldn’t be restrictions placed upon file sharing and downloading of music; thusly, my reason for this lies in the fact that the best way to distribute your product as a musician is to give it away for free. Also, there are many respectable music consumers in the world that actually will pay for music if they like it enough, and this also encourages people to go out and see the bands that they like and spend money on concert tickets and merchandise than an album. This is an encouraging thought when one takes a step back and looks at the main source of income for a band or an artist, which is touring and merchandise, and not CD or digital sales.
The problem with the Mp3 file is the overall convenience of it. It is possible to transfer thousands of these files in a short amount of time, an infinitesimally short amount of time compared to the length of time it took to create. The ease with which we as consumers can gather years and years of the releases of a single artist is at an unprecedented level. So, one might think that there is more reason now to try and stop file sharing, but I still bring the point back to where the money is made.
By touring, a band can grow and develop a following, which has positive influence on the amount of money made by that band. A CD sale cannot possibly match the revenue gained by the sale of a
t-shirt, for example. In theory, if everyone who downloaded a song for free, a song that they may not have paid for, and decided to attend a concert based upon that song and maybe purchase a t-shirt, the revenue for the band in general greatly outweighs what it would’ve been had those people not consumed the song in the first place. So, I think that the mass-distribution of music through the means of file-sharing is a positive thing when it encourages people to attend concerts.
Of course, there are always a few rotten apples in the bunch, and those people will consume mass amounts of music and share mass amounts of files without ever purchasing anything, but everyday there are purse snatchers in city streets that aren’t caught as well. But, the problem is, the Record companies (Big Companies) don’t see the revenue from the t-shirt sales; they see the revenue from the CD sale. So, if there aren’t CD’s being sold the Record companies are left out of the revenue stream, which is not a positive thing; because, without Record Companies, bands wouldn’t have enough money to tour (unless they are already wildly successful) and expand their consumer fan-base. If consumers and the Big Companies in the Industry could somehow come to a compromise, that would be ideal for the artists as well.
How do we come to the compromise? The “360 Contract”. This is a contract that some bands, such as the
Jonas Brothers, have signed with Big Record Companies that gives that company a chunk of the revenue stream from touring, instead of simply CD sales. The problem, however, is that the artist makes less from merchandise and ticket sales in the long-run; but, in a compromise there is always something given on both sides. What the consumers must give is more money for merchandise and concert tickets. For example, Jonas Brothers tickets for VIP ran upwards of $250 for a single ticket, and t-shirts were no less than $30. But, if the consumers aren’t paying for the music, they have other areas in which they must make up for that, so it all evens out in the end.
Because of this reasoning and somewhat-solution I think that file sharing and music downloading is a positive thing that can be turned into revenue for Big Companies and Artists alike. The idea of “stealing” the music would be gone if something like Radiohead’s plan was instituted, and I’m willing to bet that more than a few people would still purchase the music, much like what actually happened with Radiohead’s In Rainbows album.
So what did Napster actually do for us as music consumers, artists, and Big Companies in the Music Industry? It created a revolution in consuming. Since the ruling was made to turn Napster into a pay-per-song service like iTunes or Amazon Mp3, there have been more and more ways devised to share songs. Even though CD sales have suffered, Bonnaroo Music and Arts festival still draws a crowd of 80,000 people every year, most of which, I’m willing to bet, have some music on their iPod that they didn’t pay for.
But, to me, downloading music for free isn’t “stealing”; it is simply consuming in a matter which perpetuates a later purchase. This may not be true for everyone that downloads music “illegally”, but in the Radiohead case their album reached #1 on the
Billboard Top 200 and sold over 3 million digital and hard copies, all while still having the option to not pay. After those sales, their tour was one of their most prosperous ever, expanding to a worldwide scale.
Hopefully, those that download music for free, either from a peer-to-peer type service or otherwise, do their best to contribute to the band’s paycheck with the purchase of some concert tickets or merchandise. To me, seeing the music performed live is what I want to pay to see, and then I want to wear the concert t-shirt around so everyone knows that I was there to see it. Also hopefully, the 360 Contract can keep everybody happy for the time being, at least until a better way to spread music is conceived, in which case more problems will undoubtedly arise between Big Companies and the music consumer.
The important thing to draw from this argument between the two sides is that neither will ever be totally satisfied, so a compromise is the best option. The issue shouldn’t be whether or not downloading and sharing music files is “illegal” it should be whether or not people are going to concerts and buying the merchandise, and enjoying the music that they may or may not have paid to put on their
iPod. If everybody was out at the concert listening and having a good time, I think that could put this issue to rest and enjoy the music the way it was meant to be enjoyed:
Live.
Peace, Love & Rock
