Piracy and the Music Industry
Once one of the most booming industries in entertainment, the music industry has found themselves slowly falling apart. When they became aware of their situation, they desperately began seeking a way to keep sales high, however their changes were that of a traditional business and in no way followed new technologic trends and their own tactics proved futile. Ultimately, rather than embracing the very technologies (i.e. the internet) that they felt threatened by, they chose to blame them for the recession, dubbing free music file sharing among individuals as piracy and copyright infringement. However, contrary to their claims, an examination of economic patterns, the views of music artists, and even an exploration into the history of the music industry all point to piracy not necessarily affecting the industry in a negative manner.
When music sales were at a high in 2000, major record labels began merging in an attempt to broaden their distribution and tap into other forms of entertainment. For example, in 2000, Vivendi became Vivendi Universal through acquisitions. Warner Brothers and EMI also attempted a merger, but it proved unsuccessful. In 2001, music sales had fallen 5% from 2000. By 2002, the drop increased to 9%. At this point, the companies began to think that merging was still the best way to cut costs. When this method proved unsuccessful still, the industry began to blame a new demographic: music pirates. Then, in 2002, a company called Napster which had begun allowing internet users to easily share digital music freely over the internet in 2000, was shut down after the major labels claimed it violated copyright laws, but at this point a number of smaller sites had already began replacing the media giant. The industry then in 2003 changed its focus to the everyday, individual file sharer (“The Music Industry”).
Obviously, the music industry is the primary attacker of the pirate scene. They claim that the distribution of pirated records “cost recording companies and artists billions of dollars annually” (“Recording Industry”). The industry holds that sales of recorded music shrank by a fifth between 1999 and 2003. When there was a small rise in physical sales during the first half of 2004, the industry contributed it to the stabilization of piracy due to lawsuits. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, an anti-pirate organization, claimed at this time that the number of freely available music files online had dropped from 1.1 billion to 800 million (“Music’s Brighter Future”). Regardless, the industry has failed to make a case directly ascribing their losses to music downloading. They simply defend their position by asking how else to account for the significant drop in sales by 139 million albums from 2000 to 2002 (Schwartz).
More recent studies are asking new questions: what is music downloading’s affect on the industry really, and if not piracy, what has been plaguing the industry? Critics now are answering the industry’s question with statistics which point to “a slow economy, fewer new releases, and a consolidation of radio networks that has resulted in less variety on the airwaves” (Schwartz). It is entirely possible that there was an abnormal explosion in CD sales in the nineties fueled by the people’s desire to replace their now-defunct vinyl collections. Perhaps interest in music is just falling victim to new technologies. In a survey asking why people did not buy music, only 10% reported the availability of free music online, the other 90% cited other reasons (“CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims”). One such reason could be the increase of DVD sales from zero in 1999 to over $170 million Canadian Dollars during 2004 (“CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims”). Professor Oberholzer-Gee points out holes in the industry’s reports in his report. He brings attention to the fact that anti-piracy studies consider each and every download a lost sale, when in reality people are downloading music freely available on the internet because the music is freely available on the internet; they usually wouldn’t have bought the music in the first place. A change in the industry’s menial approach to business today may also contribute to their decline. As of late, major labels have been releasing increasingly more “one hit wonder” style bands. Acts tend to tour less and release fewer albums than in previous decades, so any opportunity for a strong fan base to develop is lost (“Music’s Brighter Future”).
The music industry likes to tell people that piracy is hurting all our bands, but more open, revolutionary artists are finding out that the opposite is true. One paper concludes that although the top 25% of artists probably are hurt by file sharing, the bottom 75% is actually prospering! Jim Cuddy, front man of the Canadian musical group Blue Rodeo, admits that he can’t determine whether music downloading has hurt his band (“CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims”). Dave Peters, front man of the American rock group Throwdown, is more open on the issue, stating “Fans and friends ask me all the time how I feel about ‘stealing music.’ I just told someone yesterday ‘I have a hard time seeing it as stealing, when I don’t see any money from the sales to begin with’…I encourage our fans to acquire our album however they please. The philosophy I’ve adopted is that if you’re supporting disc sales, you’re keeping the old model around longer… the one that forces dudes like me to tour 9 months a year if they want to make ends meet with a career in music” (“Frontman to File-Sharers: Steal Our Album, Help Bury the Label”). Music superstar Curtis James Jackson III, or more popularly 50 Cent, shockingly enough has a similar view on the issue. He says “The concerts are crowded and the industry must understand to manage all the 360 degrees around an artist. They [the industry] have to maximize their income from concerts and merchandise. It is the only way they can get their marketing money back.” 50 Cent explains that “a young fan may be just as devout and dedicated no matter if he bought it or stole it.” He says “what is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists” (“50 Cent: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hurt Artists, Industry Should Adapt”). 50 Cent admits that his own label, G-Unit Records, is not holding up well in modern times, but hip-hop, a youthful genre, must keep up with the innovations in technology faster than fans of more traditional types of music. He concludes by criticizing the industry for focusing less on the developmental needs of the artists than as before file sharing (“50 Cent: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hurt Artists, Industry Should Adapt”). The Swedish rock band Lamont has already taken a step towards embracing the latest innovations in technology, and in 2007 they offered their new album for free on ThePirateBay.org, receiving over 100,000 complete album downloads in under 24 hours. Naturally, the band is ecstatic about the immense free publicity. The administrator of The Pirate Bay has said that his site, the largest peer-to-peer site on the internet, is more than willing to support bands willing to share their music through Bit Torrent (the program used by The Pirate Bay and many other sites for data transfer), and expects more artist to take advantage of this in the future like Lamont did. He believes that projects like Lamont’s are living proof that a band mass distributing their album for free is not only not a bad idea, it actually aids the artist (Ernesto).
Today, most artists are doing as well as, if not better, than ever; the only one falling behind is the traditional industry which refuses to comply with new innovations in technology. After all, this is the same industry that thought the radio would be the end of music as we know it! Some steps towards an alternative have been taken with programs such as Canada’s Private Copying Levy, which allows for legal, personal, non-commercial copies of music without permission by the copyright holder by repaying artists with a small levy taken from devices such as CD-Rs and Mp3 players, but nothing like this has been created, however, in the capitalist capital of the world: the United States of America (“Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: an Examination of the Canadian Experience”). Testimonials by several artists and deeper examinations into the role of piracy on the music industry reveal that there is more to this issue than meets the eye and provide significant data to support the fact that piracy has not negatively affected the music industry.
Works Cited
Engimax. "Frontman to File-Sharers: Steal Our Album, Help Bury the Label." TorrentFreak.Com. 8 Dec. 2007. 10 Nov. 2007
Enigmax. "50 Cent: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hurt Artists, Industry Should Adapt." TorrentFreak.Com. 8 Dec. 2007. 8 Dec. 2007
Ernesto. "The
Geist, Michael. "CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims." MichaelGeist.Ca. 2006. 10 Nov. 2007
Geist, Michael. "Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: an Examination of the Canadian Experience." FirstMonday.org. Apr. 2005. 10 Nov. 2007
"Internet." The World Book Encyclopedia.
"Music's Brighter Future." The Economist 28 Oct. 2004. 10 Nov. 2007
Pollock, Rufus. "P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry." Rufuspollock.Org. 2005. 8 Dec. 2007
"Recording Industry." The World Book Encyclopedia.
Schwartz, John. "A Heretical View of File Sharing." The New York Times 2004. 27 Nov. 2007
"The Music Industry." The Economist 28 Oct. 2004. 10 Nov. 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment