So I know you're trying to be all satirical Mr. Kid Rock. But you are so serious I think kidz would think otherwise. Have you thought about making a movie? J Lo does it... really really well.
-James
PS
I am continuing with this blog like I had initially intended Prof. Hoffman. Please don't grade anything beyond the first 13 posts.
My personal thoughts and opinions towards music piracy are somewhat ambiguous. Do I own any form of stolen music? Absolutely! Do I illegally download countless songs and albums? No! Most of the music I obtain is either through a CD I purchased, or a CD that a friend purchased that has been burned onto my computer, or through purchasing songs off of iTunes. My friends and I also obtain a lot of songs through sending each other iTunes files via email. Obviously this is still illegal, but at the end of the day either I or the person I know is paying for it. However, I will say that although I do think that entertainers make an exhorbant amount of money should not be complaining about a lack of profit, I do think that at the end of the day they provided a service and they should be compensated for it. The music industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and someone has to be getting paid.
The problem is, many of these downloads are only compatible with software owned by the distributor. For example, iTunes has songs with DMR protection and these songs are only compatible with Apple products. Once I buy the song I should be able to put it on whatever device I want. In addition, has anyone ever noticed how SOME songs on iTunes are now $1.29 as opposed to the $.99 they were before? That is because the songs that are $1.29 have the DRM protection in it. My problem with this is, many individuals say that if the rights of the creators are not protected there will not be any money to produce new material. However, only some songs have this DMR protection, so is what they are telling me is that only some artists are worth of having their creativity protected?
As stated earlier I do not think it is right to continuously download music and albums without paying any money for it, however, I don’t see the harm in file sharing as long as one of the individuals actually purchased the music. The problem occurs when the music industry tries to break music piracy down to something that is morally wrong, when in actuality, there are companies that are capitalizing on DMR and only protecting the artistic creations of certain artists, and through doing this they are forcing us to buy only their products.
An article found in The Lantern, a student run newspaper talks about the effects of music piracy and its huge impact on the music industry. It talks about this from an economical point of view a does not address any moral issues or social concerns surrounding the debate. It explicitly talks about the individuals working in the music industry, excluding artists. They are referring to the individuals who work 9 to 5 jobs and how their positions have been eliminated due to the lack of revenue and inability to produce new and upcoming music. The article can be found at:
On one point the article talks about a British student whose iPod was confiscated and it was believed to have over 800 illegally downloaded songs on it. Following this statement the author states, “Regardless of the accuracy of those numbers…” That statement alone makes me question any quantitative evidence referenced throughout the article. However, after this statement there are no other forms of quantitative evidence found throughout the article. In an argument with a predominately economic framework, wouldn’t it be appropriate to use numbers?
Regardless much of the article is spent focusing on the inability of recording artists to produce new music because of the increase in illegal downloading and music/file sharing. I think it is important to look at a couple of different factors. The first being how the economy has changed. With our country in the midst of an economic downfall the demand for music and entertainment is not as high as it used to be. Especially with increase online resources encouraging interactivity such as YouTube and Pandora Radio etc. Also, it is important to look at how the music industry is changing. The popularity of shows such as American Idol has stars gaining popularity in a variety of ways, through reality television, YouTube videos, and social networking sites. Why would any new artist pay to have their record professionally recorded, when they can upload themselves on YouTube or try out for American Idol with the hopes of being discovered at virtually no cost. Personally I do not believe the economic shortfalls of the music industry are a direct effect of music piracy, and the lack of quantitative facts this author has to support this claim is enough for me to continue not to believe it.
Having spent some time thinking more seriously about the issue, I've grown increasingly disgruntled at the framing certain groups, like the RIAA, set out to make "illegal" music downloaders look like the villains. In doing so, they make the "legitimate" music industry look like the victims who are simply trying to earn an honest buck.
The following videos and articles merely scratch the surface of and stand as but a small representation of music or creative theft that occurs within the industry itself. So let us dive in.
Pardon the length of this first video, but it's a real doozy. (IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!!!)
In 2004, Nate Harrison put together this lovely project to narrate the history of a 6 second music clip from the b-side of a funky album from a funky group --The Winstons -- back in 1969. A sample to be forever known as the "Amen Break". This one sample was used extensively since the late 80's to the point that it has essentially ascended to the status of a cultural norm in respects to music. Harrison does a beautiful job discussing the history of the beat, the nature of art and creativity, as well as addressing the timeless issue of creative ownership. The point here being that similar to math and science, music and other arts are created and furthered only by building off of what has already been created. That is to say, if we wish to see the creation of new music, we have to stop controlling what has already been made.
Speaking of sampling... GIRL TALK!
In 2004, music mashing sensation Greg Gillis -- aka Girl Talk-- released his fourth album titled: Feed The Animals. Like most of his works, Girl Talk composed the entire album from music samples taken from previously written songs. Songs that were written by other artists. The sample styles ranged as wide as hip-hop sensation Jay-Z to early 90's rock group Huey Lewis and the News.
Now here is the kicker. Girl Talk's record label, Illegal Art, put up and and is still currently up for sale in a "pay what you want" style. According to an interview with Girl Talk (as seen on Metrowize), his main goal behind the album was to "make it easier for people to get their hands on the music" Those who choose to pay nothing for the album have to explain why they are choosing to do so. The options range anywhere from "I have already purchased this album" to "I can't afford to pay" There is even an option that explicitly says "I don't value music made from sampling"
It's in that last option that much of this link speaks to me. Because the reality is that most of the music that is considered "mainstream" is in fact produced heavily through the use of sampling. This idea should be nothing new to anyone, but the fact still remains that the the music industry itself has been making use of music theft for quite some time. Granted the conditions are slightly different, but I can't help but think, "what a load of hypocrisy" when I am being called a thief when the those very same supporters of anti-piracy are doing effectively the same thing as me. At least some folks like Girl Talk are reasonable and accepting of the facts.
And finally something more for the scholarly...
If you manage to get your hands on this one I would highly recommend it. It's not an easy find.
"Legends of the Fall: Behind the Music" by Gary Westfahl
Mr. Westfahl put this lovely novel together back in 2000 and it takes a look at a number of cases over the years of sampling, or creative theft, that even date back as far as the 1950's. One famous example that the book mentions is a blatant theft of the famous bass line from Queen's song, Under Pressure. For those of you who for some reason fail to know what the hell I'm talking about... allow me to elaborate.
and then this bad boy...
So here again we have yet again another example of creative theft that has occurred within the music industry. Obviously this one yet again speaks for itself.
But you have to wonder, where does one draw the line? It is known that Vanilla Ice eventually paid David Bowie and Freddie Mercury for his blatant theft, but the concept of musical sampling has exploded since then. Sampling regulation has become just as difficult (if not more difficult) than controlling music piracy. In many cases, as you have learned, samples have been repossessed by the record labels themselves, claiming that their samples are completely original. (Note - if you didn't watch the whole video I initially posted... watch it NOW)
I guess if there is anything to take away from all of this it's that the music as an industry has changed to the point that regulation is futile. The creation of newer music production technologies and the internet have unleashed a flood that like all forces of nature, cannot be stopped. But the beauty is that like all "natural disasters", we are able to adapt to our new surroundings and find the potential in it. So wake up music industry and head for high ground.
As customers we are continually being perceived as the bad guy as we make our impact on the 60 billion dollar music industry. “Pirates” they call us – as we “steal” the music they sell at $12 a pop (per CD). This in essence could be considered stealing from the hand that feeds them. But that is beyond the point. What I am trying to get to here is how the music industry hypocritically steals from those who keep their business afloat- the individuals who actually pay for their music.
I would like to highlight three sources that all speak to this issue. Each argument expresses the music industries use of DRM’s (Digital Rights Management) and how these are used as sanctions to restrict the music consumers pay for. The Truth about DRM and Its Effect on MP3 Downloading Online
Author: 1st-free-music-download
The first source I would like to mention is that of the website “1stFreeMusicDownload”. You can find them at http://www.1st-free-music-download.com/ This particular site includes an array of information about the music industry- from free legal music, to reviews of sharing entities such as Napster. The article of my focus is “The Truth about Digital Rights Management”. Here the site explains how DRM effects MP3 downloading. Currently every online music store that operates in the United States uses some form of DRM- so if you’re paying- you’re affected. As you buy songs or full CD’s online DRM’s limit the number of times these songs can be copied or burnt to a CD. Not only does it affect the amount of CD’s music is put on- it also limits the number of computers the songs can be put on to five.
Although this may seem fair- think of a customer’s purchase of a physical CD. That CD can be copied as many times as the consumer wants and placed in an unlimited amount of computers- these restrictions are unnecessary. Customers buy music just as they would buy a T-Shirt- they like it, they want to use it, and they want it as theirs. These provisions make it so the songs individuals are buying are not entirely theirs- but shared with the music industry and sharing centers. They punish the people they should be valuing- and that in itself could move a customer from a sailor to a pirate.
-1st free music download suggests visiting Epitonic.com, Garageband.com, eMusic.com, and Amazon.com for free music downloads- check them out!
The Battle over Music Piracy
Author: Lev Grossmann
The second source that spoke to this issue is The Battle Over Music Piracy, written by Lev Grossmann and found in TIME Magazine. This article focused on Amazon’s use of DRM and what they are doing to be fair distributors and even bigger competition for iTunes. iTunes has publicly made it known that if it weren’t for the record labels- they would not enforce these DRM codes. But because they have to, they have worked for their customers to come up with a compromise with one label- where DRM free music is offered but at a higher price from 99 cents to $1.29. Great initiative- but not enough for Amazon. They are being prepared to offer completely DRM free music while maintaining price and quality.
Both changes seem to lean in the right direction for customers, although concerns still remain. In relation to iTunes DRMless music- the compromise came with one record label, therefore millions of songs remain restricted. This leaves songs that cannot be entirely owned by customers, and continues the monopolistic qualities iTunes uses DRM’s to maintain. Apple’s DRM system and software configuration makes it so music purchased on iTunes plays on and only on Apple products. On the surface their work with one record label looks great, but Apple isn’t stupid. They have used the DRM system to restrict competition by restricting customers- and I just don’t feel that is fair. But just wait- there is a silver lining to this cloud. As Amazon is creating a DRM free zone- iTunes will continue to feel the heat- and I believe inevitably resort to the same. This will open up the playing field on the hardware side of this issue- as more outlets will be allowed to be played on Apple systems, and give the customers what they deserve- the freedom to do what they choose with the music they buy.
It paints a pretty picture for us as customers- but only time will tell.
Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right: Music Piracy and Pricing in a DRM-Free Environment
Authors: Rajiv K. Sinha, Fernando S. Machado, & Collin Sellman
Lastly is American Marketing Association’s article in the Journal of Marketing- Don’t Think Twice, its All Right: Music Piracy and Pricing in a DRM-Free Environment. In this particular article the authors discuss how DRM’s have affected producer revenues and profits. It points to two studies of more than 2000 college students that showed evidence stating if DRM’s were eliminated from online downloading produce revenues, and profit would rise along with consumer welfare. The reasons for this positive change lie in once illegal downloader’s turning into paying customers, and an increased participation by low-value consumers. It truly does make sense.
I believe this article draws the two articles explained above perfectly. It encompasses the last piece of this puzzle that states and justifies the reasons behind getting rid of DMR’s. Not only would the elimination be beneficial for consumers, it would be equally as beneficial for produces and the music industry as whole. I understand the rationale behind restricting those who do wrong (ie- music pirates) but I do not by any means see the validity in imposing sanctions against those who are in the right. There is no logical explanation as to why the music industry would hold onto a system that so negatively affects its customers and its prosperity- I think it’s about time for a change!
If you would be interested in even further explanation as to the positives of DRM free music- take a look at “DRM-Free Music Reduces Piracy, Marketing Study Claims” posted by Thom Holwerda on his blog: http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/
In article 8 Logical Rebuttals of Anti-Piracy Arguments, author William Barnes makes an attempt to rebuttal points RIAA layers have made in court regarding piracy. First coming across the article I knew I would be in for a treat- unfortunately I was sadly disappointed. The arguments made by Barnes had the ability to be strong and compelling- taking RIAA’s words and turning them on their back- but just like the music industries fight against music piracy- the argument fell a little short. I would like to bring about the 4 weakest arguments Barnes presents – and maybe give him a little advice as to how they could be made stronger:
Here are the rebuttals made:
1. It’s not that expensive to just pay for it
Plain and simple- this one is a lie. Which I think we have all come to know through CD prices and Online downloading capitalizing on newly released singles. There are tons and tons of statistics and argument that could back this one up. Barns justifies the ridiculousness of this claim by stating that if you spend $500 yearly or more on music- which in his opinion “could make the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on someone’s couch”, you should be allowed to steal music. I am sorry- but weak sauce. This particular point has so many great statistics on the rising price of music, and how the music industry is exploiting our buying power by profiting big time from CD prices they have made ridiculously high because- well….they can.
2. Music piracy causes huge amounts of economic damage
Here Barnes is basically giving us stats to agree with the RIAA. He points out how music piracy causes $12.5 billion in losses every year, and a job loss per annum of 71,060. He follows this depressing statistic by General Motors and Chrysler estimated 40,000 job losses- trying to argue by comparison. It’s plain and simple- he’s arguing against his case- not for it.
3. It’s so much easier to use a pay service
I completely disagree with this one- but not with Barnes rebuttal. I believe it is just as easy to download illegally as it is legally- sure it takes a couple more steps- but the process is a sinch once you figure it out. Barnes argues against this one by showing a UK report that stated the average teenager in the UK has 800 pirated songs on his or her digital music player of choice. Come on Barnes- we all know that teenagers are the most tech savvy generation there is. The evidence is in-sufficient – and could have been made better by a study using older generations- or no study at all! I think all that is needed here is the fact that so many people successfully illegally download- if it was really that hard- no one would do it!
4. Pirated music is lower quality
Again- I don’t agree. But- then again I don’t agree with Barnes explanation. He states that if the quality of music is indeed lower- that “pirates” learn the lay of the land and become acquainted with digital music terminology in order to select higher grade songs. Although he presents the presence of high grade music - he does the RIAA justice by acknowledging the fact that low quality music does exist. This argument could have been made stronger by comparisons- what qualities affect quality and what similarities are
So I was shooting around the good ol' "series of tubez" when I found myself at the RIAA website. At first glance I couldn't help but notice how pleasant the whole site seemed. The format ironically reminded me of a file-sharing website I regularly find myself at... despite it's annoyingly slow download speeds. Maybe this was all a sign. Regardless, I looked around for a little bit when I noticed that they had a page on their site devoted to students doing reports. I couldn't believe how convenient it all seemed to be... because hey... I'm a student doing a report.
It wasn't but two seconds later that I realized their "For Students Doing Reports" page was nothing more than a regular websites faq page. And that raised a brow. Why the hell couldn't they just call it a faqs page like a normal site? Was their viewer base comprised of so many youth -- who just also all happen to be working on reports like myself -- that they thought it better to specialize their faqs page to just... students doing reports? Needless to say I was interested.
And then in some sinister and mocking fashion they drop this load on you:
"Thanks for being interested in the musicindustry and our positions on various issues. We get many requests from students and others for information for papers and other research needs. We’re happy to help and share our perspective. Unfortunately, we can’t always answer every question. So below is a list of commonly asked questions and hopefully insightful answers. Please take a look. We hope you find it useful and informative. Good luck!"
Two things.
1 - Why can't you always answer every question? I totally understand if people are asking really ambiguous questions that require extremely long, winded responses, but are you expecting me to ignore the fact that like any other group with a cause there are some questions you would rather not have asked?
2 - What are you wishing us good luck for? Maybe it was the way I was reading it, but that good luck reads a little sarcastic to me. Almost like they know that I am not going to find anything they have to say useful or informative.
I should have taken their word for it because I didn't find their "For Students Doing Reports" page useful... at all. In fact I learned more about illegal downloading from a wiki page than I did straight from the source.
I suppose on some level I expected the RIAA to have some insight and knowledge on the issue that most lacked. I hoped they would be able to shine a light on some views that I failed to see. Perhaps calling it a "For Students Doing Reports" page was all some subliminal ploy to share the truth about illegal downloading to students in a fashion such that they could nip this problem right in the butt: in the schools via childrens current event projects. Maybe they would even be able to persuade me to stop illegally downloading music. Unfortunately for them... I am going to go download some jock jams. Right. Now.
Before the dawn of the Internet, a lonely and friendless time I imagine, sharing meant the physical material exchange of a specified good. Now that good has become immaterial, and the exchange no longer has to take place face-to-face, or even through mail.
The good at hand is music. A file, which can be compressed into MP3 format, and sent out for anyone and everyone to hear. We may call this relationship ‘sharing’ but in reality the majority of people sharing music online have no concern for whom they are sharing it with. Nor do the people illegally downloading it consider where they are getting it from, short of it being the source for some next generation super virus. File sharing seems to be a victimless crime. Clicking a mouse can’t make me responsible for someone’s financial ruin, can it?
No, actually, because just one click doesn’t seem to matter much. But once the group mentality begins to unfold, we could find thousands, potentially millions, of people illegally downloading a single song or CD. Some believe if there’s a victim, it’s some superstar diva, or over the top rock star that will be losing money, and they already have more money than they know what do with. This may be true, but it is not the whole truth. There are three things we must recognize about the way music is traditionally sold. First, is how the sales of a single CD or album breakdown.
This is the breakdown of the average CD priced at $15.99, a price you would often see at retail outlets such as Best Buy, Target, or Wal-Mart, which, together, form half of all major label distributions. This also means that the artist themselves only receive around 10% of the final sale of a CD. So if you plan on illegally downloading a CD online, instead of paying the outlandishly high price of $15.99, think about the union, the packager, the publisher, the retailer, the distributor, the overhead, and the record label itself. Also keep in mind the effective ad campaigns, and marketing that went into making the consumer aware that the artist has created new stuff, and where you can buy it. Promotion makes 15% of the CD’s profits, 5% more than the artist themselves, which tells us that there must be something 50% more valuable about a promoters job than the artists work itself.
The other issue of concern is the way the artist makes his or her money. In the record business an artist signs a record contract with a music label, hopefully a major one. This label will give the artist an advance. They are making an investment in the artist and their music. The advance will seem very generous, 1 million dollars. This will be split among the band members and manager(s) and taxed until $1 million turns into $100,000, for a four record deal. The record contract will come with the condition of high sales. By contract, the artist is required to sell X number of CD’s. If the artist doesn’t make those sales, he or she will be in debt to the label.
Most artists are currently in debt to their label.
They remain obligated to perform live concerts, which bring in great profits for the label and allow the artist to make extra cash through merchandising. In fact, for an artist to reach the sales expectations it would take to push them out of debt, their album would need to hit gold within the first year. That is over half a million records sold. This puts a great deal of pressure on the artist to sell well, which often times remains out of their control from the mistakes made by those in marketing and promotion.
The final issue is the actual effect illegal downloading can have on major record labels, artists, and the music industry itself. RIAA.com references a study that shows the decline and effects of music piracy. “One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes. For copies of the report, please visit www.ipi.org.”
If these statistics are accurate, 71,060 jobs should be more than enough to cause concern. However, these statistics may be supported by some anti-piracy organization or even worse, completely unrelated to piracy in the first place. What we should recognize is that the music industry is a very large part of the American economy. And much of this illegal downloading takes place outside of our country, where our anti-piracy laws are of little use. So the next time you hear a song on the radio from a new artist you enjoy, figure out where you’re going to get $15.99, drive to the nearest music retailer, find out they don’t have it, drive to the next retailer, realize they don’t have it either, go home and pay a buck a song to download it on iTunes, (which has no packaging, promotion, distribution, or material value) only to figure out the other 11 song on the album totally blow, consider the icky feeling you would have felt on the inside if you would have stolen that CD online by illegally downloading it.
The RIAA recently presented some new possible tactics to battling music piracy in a new and changing media world. You are going to love this. They proposed that...
Spyware be installed on people's computers so downloads can be better regulated or restricted
Internet providers utilize filtering technology to regulate the spread of copyrighted material
And last but not least... Continue using agencies to track down illegal downloaders
Doesn't that all sound just swell?
Well while the tactics may seem startling... the overall approach is nothing short of stale. You see, what the RIAA has failed to realize is that this issue goes far beyond just politics and economics.
You see before the internet, the music industry was completely limited to how many albums it could press. On top of that, all of those clunky vinyls, tapes and CD's needed to be shipped out in order for the consumer to purchase it, let alone enjoy it. These production costs add up, so the producer assesses how many consumers want the product given the market demand and only produces enough to satisfy that market. This way, they can prevent unnecessary production, and ultimately, unnecessary spending. And that's scarcity in a nutshell.
However, when you look at our current potential -with the internet and all- you realize that scarcity disappears. That is because once the MP3 is produced, the cost to make a copy of it is almost nothing. All of a sudden you find yourself with an abundance of music, and there is no limit to how much something can be produced.
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
On top of all that, the internet has created a cultural environment that has completely changed the way we take in media. Once upon a time, people used to fill up their piggy banks just so they could buy new albums... the focus of this sentence being "Once upon a time". You see, regardless of the legality of obtaining free music through illegal downloading, it is hard to justify paying for an album when you know the exact same thing is available everywhere else for free. This is especially the case with downloading an album from iTunes or Amazon, where you are not even getting a hard copy of the album. This brings me to my point.
One can argue all they want about the legitimacy or legality of illegal downloading. But it doesn't change the fact that we have already opened Pandora's Box. People have experienced what it is like to live in a culture with such freedom. It seems foolish to go back and throw 15 bucks for an album that you either can't actually touch or you can only upload to so many computers.
And I'm not necessarily saying that we should continue with the way things are. Far from. The music industry has failed to realize that the economic situation has in fact shifted. They, for one, obviously have to change their approach because we live in an age where the exchanging of information spreads at an unbelievable, and uncontrollable rate. And to try and control that risks limiting peoples' experiences. Rather than trying to regulate the entire internet, the RIAA and others should be focusing on adjusting their business models to fit the force that has already been unleashed.
Should file sharing really be considered a crime, punishable by large fines as well as jail sentences? It seems like there is much more criminal activity going on from the labels and distributors themselves. With the average cost of a CD soaring to the ridiculous price of $15.99, sometimes for only nine or ten songs, it seems that buying music may not be worth it anymore.
File sharing would strike the average music consumer as a much cheaper way to take in the things they only plan on enjoying for two weeks max. But there exists a stigma associated with file sharing, most of which is propaganda perpetuated by the record industries themselves that are losing their asses due to poor asset management and marketing. Illegally downloading music may have had a negative impact on the record industry, but in a free market, the consumer should be able to find other ways of attaining their product than strictly having to deal with a handful of well connected record labels and only a few major distributors. We have seen three perks that have come recently, most of which are direct responses to music piracy and file sharing.
The first is lower album prices. Labels, like Universal Music Group for example, are creating new maximum prices for CD sales. Instead of the usual $15.99, the new cost structure will keep a CD’s price under $10. This direct market response is free market economics at its finest. Unlike the other record labels that sat idly watching their capital melt around them, Universal has recognized that they could create an advantage by simply lowering costs. It is still unknown which portions of the CD’s cost will be eliminated. Maybe cheaper materials. Possibly less costly marketing. Or maybe (but highly doubted) a chop from the top. Whether or not this cost scheme will work is something we will be forced to wait and see. But it remains a response for record labels to the complaint of lofty record prices.
The second benefit of file sharing is the promotion benefits. People aren’t willing to buy a CD for 16 bucks if they aren’t sure they’ll enjoy it. Sometimes people want to hear new music, but don’t want to invest too much into it. There is a lot of shitty music out there, and buying a crappy album is like going on a bad date; the first few minutes seem interesting, but after listening to them for an hour you wish you wouldn’t have wasted the money. A lot of artists are more than happy to share their music free to the public. The more fans they find, the more tour dates they can set-up. And for musicians, live performance is where the profits are. An article from Time Online discussed a band known as Arctic Monkeys from the UK. Their rise to fame is attributed to the songs they allowed fans to download for free from their website. But now, after hitting platinum, they’ve got hired cyber guns tracking down unauthorized leaks so as not to curb record sales. File sharing may benefit up and coming artists, but for accomplished artists, it proves to be a problem.
The final benefit I have found to file sharing is bands that specifically circumnavigate the record label system and sell their music online at a reasonable price and only for self-profit. Some bands, usually those with an already well-established fan base, find this to be the most profitable way to sell their music. This is a double-edged sword. It works to avoid the studio system, and to make sure that the artists directly receive the money they should be earning. This can also come at a very minimal cost to the consumer. The fall is that this may only be profitable for those who have already had a popular album released by the record studios. Also the production quality of the music may be of poor value when artists try to record without proper studios or experienced producers.
File sharing may be illegal, but it certainly isn’t the cause of the record industry melt down over the last several years. It may be one of the contributors along with shitty artists, shitty producers, shitty promotions, and an even shittier economy. Through file sharing we have found the benefits to the free exchange of music online. CD prices may fall in response, unknown artists get access to a greater market, and certain artists can work around the studio system.
So there is legal and illegal downloading- obvious by this blog. But what about the middle man – that grey area that always exists in a world that is so not black and white. I would like to call those the free streamers of the music world and this topic in particular. They serve as alternatives to customers like me- who don’t want to steal – but don’t want to pay the price for music they don’t even know if they will like.
The first alternative I would like to explore is that of Pandora “It’s a new kind of radio- stations that play only music you like” they say. It was created to put the “Music Genome Project” in our hands- which is best explained by Founder of The Music Genome Project Tim Westergren:
The Music Genome Project®
On January 6, 2000 a group of musicians and music-loving technologists came together with the idea of creating the most comprehensive analysis of music ever.
Together we set out to capture the essence of music at the most fundamental level. We ended up assembling literally hundreds of musical attributes or "genes" into a very large Music Genome. Taken together these genes capture the unique and magical musical identity of a song - everything from melody, harmony and rhythm, to instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, lyrics, and of course the rich world of singing and vocal harmony. It's not about what a band looks like, or what genre they supposedly belong to, or about who buys their records - it's about what each individual song sounds like.
Since we started back in 2000, we've carefully listened to the songs of tens of thousands of different artists - ranging from popular to obscure - and analyzed the musical qualities of each song one attribute at a time. This work continues each and every day as we endeavor to include all the great new stuff coming out of studios, clubs and garages around the world.
It has been quite an adventure, you could say a little crazy - but now that we've created this extraordinary collection of music analysis, we think we can help be your guide as you explore your favorite parts of the music universe.
This music genome is put together in an easy to follow format packaged for its consumers. Pandora acts as a radio station where you are given the freedom to “create stations” based upon your input of a favorite artist, song, composer, or music genre. This provided information is then combined with the work completed by the genome project to offer listeners a radio station comprised of songs they want to hear. It’s sophistication at its finest. Consumers are able to bookmark songs they like, listen to 30 second samples of songs on their own and other listeners bookmarked tracks, read summaries of bands and songs, and add other listeners stations to their own.
I love Pandora- so in a way I will admit I am bias. Their rejuvenation of the radio spectrum is pure genius. Instead of listening to songs you have to listen to – you’re listening to songs you want to listen to. It caters to its listeners while also providing a platform for new music and new artists to be found and heard by the millions. I can honestly say that I have heard hand full’s of tracks that I ended up buying due to the exposure of Pandora. Just like a radio station- it helps the music industry as it promotes legal downloading, while also acting as a catalyst for old, current, and new music to be explored. Not only does Pandora provide free music- but it provides information. It gives consumers information as to music festivals, shows, and up and coming songs by bands of their liking- which all contribute to the music industry and their prosperity. It is an entity that is safe, easy, fun, and LEGAL and a definite breakthrough in the fight against music piracy.
Article: Pandora Releases Sharing Features Author: Michael Arrington
For more info on Pandora: Mashable.com/journal- Pandora’s Social Features
This is one I had never heard of before- and frankly I wish I would have. Spotify advertises itself as “All the music, all the time”. Spotify allows you listen to songs on a one time basis through your computer or phone. With 8 million tracks and counting they provide a library of genres and musicians- all for our very ears. Andres Sehr of spotify states, “This (their hybrid p2p system) allows us to deliver the long tail of music which may not be very popular, as well as quickly serve up the latest hits that the majority of users listen to.” Basically- it tailors to the masses, creating a system that provides the oldies but goodies, newbie’s, and the up and coming’s that could use a break. In this way it brings music that doesn’t have much exposure- and exposes it. The entity plays songs live- therefore there is virtually no download wait- because there is no download. Spotify works to bring you songs you want to listen to now- no saving of files is involved- which means no overcrowding to your iTunes library of songs you might not even want to keep. It allows customers to share everything you listen to- as you can pass along tracks and create playlists- continuing the exposure of not only legal downloading, but artists alike.
This idea is pure genius! I can’t believe I hadn’t heard of it before- and that its popularity hasn’t sky rocketed! It’s a Pandora made even more individual- you select the song- you listen once- you get your fix. Without screwing over the music industry (in my opinion). I believe this entity acts as a personified radio- if your phone has the ability to download and play music- create playlists, sing a tune, and continue your day with the music you want to listen to. It acts as a perfect “middle man” where songs are not being stolen, new music is exposed to listeners- the good listeners who would rather hear a song once than steal it forever- and who are most likely to buy songs if they find one they enjoy enough, and importantly- isn’t illegal. This alternative is tailored towards not only customers but the music industry- which I believe is an initiative we all can be thankful for.
Blog: TorrentFreak- Spotify, An Alternative to Music Piracy. Author- Ernesto
If you are interested in further info on Anti-Piracy check out the Anti- Piracy Organization at: www.BSA.org/reportpiracy
Everyone and their mom, and even grandma, is familiar with the YouTube website. YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, share and view videos. It pertains to the music industry in particular in the way it allows individuals to search and listen to music, or music videos of their choice. Thus the site virtually provides free music. Although this is great and dandy- I would like to focus on how YouTube positively affected the indie rock band Barcelona, who caught the attention of nearly a million YouTubers. Following the post of their track on YouTube the band experienced a boost in their album sales (on iTunes), concert visits, and fan following. The band initially was put on YouTube via a fan, and now- following all of the benefits received from that post- the band itself continues to post new videos on YouTube.
As you can see- just because music is free doesn’t mean it’s bad. YouTube is a completely legal entity that is another one of those “grey areas” that is targeted for harming and hurting the music industry. My personal opinion- the music industry should be thanking YouTube over and over again. It allows listeners to get a taste of music- establish whether or not they enjoy what they’re listening to- and if so continue their exploration with the new tunes. All aspects point to the purchasing of music. It makes perfect sense- listen to a song on YouTube, enjoy it, and want to listen to it again- so you buy it. It can almost be considered a preview- where customers are able to see what they’re getting before they buy it- and as purchasers I think they owe that to us. It encourages legal buying behavior and an outlet for musicians and bands to promote their music online in a creative fashion that is reached by millions. Overall YouTube is a powerful mechanism that has been shown to change our culture! It’s huge! And not only is it powerful – it’s helpful- especially to the music industry and their continued efforts against music piracy.
The discussion surrounding whether or not file-sharing (or as law abiding citizens call it: music piracy) has been a long drawn out debate that truly is unnecessary. Millions of people around the world have access to the Internet, giving them the ability to download music at will. However, those same music lovers are still out purchasing albums and supporting artists they have grown to enjoy. The fact is music file-sharing does not have a major effect on the sales of albums. A study done by Felix Oberholzer, a Harvard Business Professor, discovered there to be no effects of file-sharing with the sales of albums. Not only through researches like Oberholzer’s are there no effects on the outcome of sales, but we as an audience and fans of musical artists see and hear about successful album releases of artists that we enjoy.
The concept of file-sharing is simple. A person “leaks” or uploads a song or an album on to the Internet, and from that places it into a network where others on the Internet have the ability to download that file. The process has had a tarnished reputation ever since its upbringing with the network Napster, because many felt that it stole millions of dollars from artists. However, these accusations are simply untrue as documented in the essay “File-Sharing and Copyright” by Felix Oberholzer in 2009. The ability of file-sharing has actual seen an increase in the amount of sales for various artists. For me, when ever I hear a good song and get it from a friend, I have been more prone to purchasing the album. Oberholzer made a great historical comparison in his essay with regards to file-sharing. He found in an article done by Ronald Coase called, “Payola Radio and Television Broadcasting”, that “Music companies fought the introduction of radio in the 1920s, fearing the new medium would provide close substitutes to buying records. Since that time, the numerous attempts to bribe radio stations in the hopes of influencing playlists suggest the industry has come to see radio as an important complement to recordings.” Although in this day and age it is difficult to pinpoint the exact amount of downloads compared to purchases, file-sharing is seemingly the newest medium to marketing albums. Oberholzer supported this theory later on in his essay by claiming, “Popularity of a release increases both file-sharing activity and sales.” And in a collection of a majority of the studies done about the effects of file-sharing on sales, although mixed, supports the theory that an increase in file-sharing increases the amount of sales.
Not only are Oberholzer’s findings a result of years of research and study, they are also consistent with artists that I am fans of also. In the recent documentary of Lil’ Wayne, “The Carter”, which was filmed during the release of his album “The Carter 3”, there were situations that resembled Oberholzer’s research. In the film Lil’ Wayne’s manager discovers from Universal Studios that the album has been downloaded nearly one million times about ten days before release. However, after one week of the albums release Lil’ Wayne had sold over one million copies of his album making him go platinum. This achievement correlates nearly exactly with Oberholzer’s research stating that an increase in file-sharing causes an increase in sales.
Both Lil’ Wayne’s album release story and the research done by Felix Oberholzer reveal that file-sharing has no effects on sales. Instead, file-sharing should be seen as a medium for marketing artists and albums. Music fans enjoy having free things, but also enjoy supporting artists they listen to every day of their lives.
Hey guys!
I am Lizzy Burkwald- avid music listener and recent researcher of the pirates invading the tunes we all love so much. After researching both sides I feel as though this topic is a double edged sword. You can weigh the benefits and pitfalls to being for and against music piracy- and what I feel it all comes down to is what means more to you as a music listener. As for myself- I feel music piracy allows for listeners to become acquainted with new music they wouldn’t have been exposed to pre-piracy days. Think of the Pandora’s and you tube vid’s out there- I don’t know if you would consider them music piracy- but I know I jam out to both and gather new music for free- from both. Through venues such as these I am able to expand my musical horizon- exploring music I come to love or hate. If I enjoy something enough I typically buy their songs, and ultimately become a fan that – as a concert enthusiast- will most likely pay to get in on a live performance. Ultimately this form of “music piracy” brought a once uninformed individual to a group or singer; and generated more money for the band than if I would have never heard their music in the first place. This story is a typical one- creating a platform where artists are receiving more exposure thus gathering a larger fan base. Music moves people- as does this topic. I just feel the power of music should be assessable to people looking to become acquainted with the old, new, and up and coming- which music piracy allows.
I guess if there is anything to take away from all of this it's that the music as an industry has changed to the point that regulation is futile. The creation of newer music production technologies and the internet have unleashed a flood that like all forces of nature, cannot be stopped. But the beauty is that like all "natural disasters", we are able to adapt to our new surroundings and find the potential in it. So wake up music industry and head for high ground.
It wasn't but two seconds later that I realized their "For Students Doing Reports" page was nothing more than a regular websites faq page. And that raised a brow. Why the hell couldn't they just call it a faqs page like a normal site? Was their viewer base comprised of so many youth -- who just also all happen to be working on reports like myself -- that they thought it better to specialize their faqs page to just... students doing reports? Needless to say I was interested.
I should have taken their word for it because I didn't find their "For Students Doing Reports" page useful... at all. In fact I learned more about illegal downloading from a wiki page than I did straight from the source.
great profits for the label and allow the artist to make extra cash through merchandising. In fact, for an artist to reach the sales expectations it would take to push them out of debt, their album would need to hit gold within the first year. That is over half a million records sold. This puts a great deal of pressure on the artist to sell well, which often times remains out of their control from the mistakes made by those in marketing and promotion.
Everyone and their mom, and even grandma, is familiar with the YouTube website. YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, share and view videos. It pertains to the music industry in particular in the way it allows individuals to search and listen to music, or music videos of their choice. Thus the site virtually provides free music. Although this is great and dandy- I would like to focus on how YouTube positively affected the indie rock band Barcelona, who caught the attention of nearly a million YouTubers. Following the post of their track on YouTube the band experienced a boost in their album sales (on iTunes), concert visits, and fan following. The band initially was put on YouTube via a fan, and now- following all of the benefits received from that post- the band itself continues to post new videos on YouTube.
Posts
