10/10/2010
According
to recent statistics, only 2% of music downloads are paid for. Now, not all the
remaining 98% of audio downloads are illegal with un-copyrighted and free
registered downloads comprising a minute percentage. However, the vast majority
has been copyrighted by the artist and unpaid for by the downloader and
considered to be stolen. It stems from Intellectual Copyright Laws that protect
intangible creations like music.
Next week a Bill goes before the US Congress
proposing to begin a form of increased censorship of online peer to peer
information sharing services. The implications for internet users and not just
mass downloaders are serious. It could result in the mass restriction of any
forms of file sharing including posting of favourite songs and videos on social
network profile pages and Youtube.
As it
stands in Ireland, Eircom are the only providers to target illegal downloaders.
If you are caught they issue a warning that if not complied with will result in
cutting off your internet supply. But the movement toward the further
protection of copyrighted material is occurring in the USA and it may not be
long coming across the water. It has sparked concern from libertarians,
supporters of the free culture movement and folks who just don't want to have
to pay for their music.
When
the Mp3 format was standardised in 1991 audio file sizes were significantly
reduced thus allowing them to be downloaded cheaper and quicker. Seven years of
minor file sharing continued until the USA passed the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act and Mp.3 players along with digital copies of music were released.
To the music industry and the technology producing moguls the plan was
flawless, Until an 18-year-old freshman computer-science student rocked the
boat. In June 1999 Shawn Fanning launched Napster, the first centralised
peer-to-peer file sharing system and within two years it had exploded.
Since then music industry heads
have witnessed the mass decline of CD and digital sales. The RIAA-Record
Industry Association of America -and the IFPI - International Federation of the
Phonographic Industry - have become little short of militant lawyers who are
ready and willing to sue the ears off anyone who so much as hears a decibel of
an unpaid for tune. Labels representing their artists have sued those who have
downloaded their music without paying for it. The parents of children who have
shared a track or two (thousand) have become targets and major file sharing
sites have been forced to close. It should however be noted, that overall paid
for digital downloads are on the increase. So the industry is making money,
just not as much as they would like.
At the same time many major
artist has shown their support for the sharing of files. In a now infamous
interview 50 Cent dropped a bombshell "What is important for the music
industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists.” 50 Cent
and many more like him appreciate the value of a young fan stating that they
"may be just as devout and dedicated no matter if he bought it or stole
it". He then went on to note that the only way for the industry to make
the money back is to maxamise profits from concerts and merchandise.
And oh
have they what. Any avid concert going will have noticed the prices of tickets
soar over the past few years, far beyond that which can be blamed on inflation.
Nope, artists are simply unwilling to take the hit to their income and roll
with the punches, so they are charging much more for performances. As Dolly
Parton joked in Dublin "I know ‘yall’ paid a lot to come and see me here,
and I’m sorry, but really does cost a lot to look this good."
But it
is not just major artists whose voices should ring clear. Whether legal or
illegal, peer-to-peer sharing provides smaller unheard of artists with a
platform to have their work available to a much wider audience. Even if the download
is illegally gained, the artist may not see the profit from the legal purchase
but the listener might otherwise never have heard it. They might decide to go
to a show, they might even go to a few and buy some merchandise. The Script’s
front-man Danny recently noted how much his band rely on illegal downloaders
and the futility of the battle against them.“You can’t combat that. I think
that they’re quite important people. They’re like the taste-makers,” he said.
He also commented on how the more widely available his music is online the
higher the numbers at his shows are. “You can’t download the live experience,
living and breathing these songs live.”
There
are many an example of unsigned artists making their music freely available on
Myspace or free to download and gaining mass following from it, resulting in
either being signed or being in a position to release independently. In fact
there are many insiders who would dissuade an artist from signing with a label,
stating that they are likely to see the majority of their profits go to
bureaucrats and managers rather than into their bank accounts. Radiohead’s Thom
Yorke recently commented “I like the people at our record company, but the time
is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one.”
Some
of the more popular artists, whose sales are practically guaranteed, have moved
away from their record labels. The likes of Madonna and Courtney Love grew
tired of seeing their potential profit being divided among industry heads,
distribution companies and the all round administrators of the music biz. It
was no longer of any appeal and they have begun to release their music
independently. So although their sales are down, they are now seeing a higher
return on the sale of a single CD or digital download than before.
Perhaps
the aims of bands and artists looking to make it big may need to change to
survive in a future where file sharing is a part of everyday life. Instead of
living in the hope of being discovered and signed to a major label they need to
take another road. Commenting on the issue recently Joe Pugg noted thet “It
(illegal downloading) is starting to push people out of the business who were
in it for the wrong reasons.” Artist can no longer hang about in a studio and
sit back and watch the cash roll in when it’s released. They have to go out
there and work for their money. And many of them are not happy about it. But
the same measure it is exposing those who are in it for the right reasons and
are who are truly talented to an audience craving some long awaited originality
and genius.
You
can make money in the music industry, just not what people were making pre
1995. For a long time their lifestyles did not match their contribution
humanity as a whole. They are artists and entertainers, the majority of whom
are a part of a manufactured industry where everything from what they create
and how they are perceived is controlled by public relation managers and
marketers.
In the
end, no one is saying that artists should not be compensated for their work. They
just shouldn’t be able to fly in private jets, live lifestyles that would have
made the court of the French aristocracy blush and be exempt from the same
rules that apply to the rest of us. Short of going the route that the Chinese
government has taken (god forbid) for the foreseeable future (although the view
is slightly obscured by the looming US Congress hearing) file sharing will
continue and genuinely talented unheard of acts will deservedly go global and
major player musicians will have to work a little harder to maintain their
lifestyles.
Published www.highway67.net October 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment