File Sharin' n' whatnot
Rye-Dawg has been makin' quite the stink over at Rantin to dev/null/ and I guess I wanted to chime in with my 1.5 cents. Everybody is pretty aware of the new RIAA promise to prosecute file sharer-ers by the hundreds, and while that wigs me out a bit, I think it's understandable from their perspective. You can't really expect these folks to not go after those who stand as a potential threat to their economic well-being...but that's not my point...
But file-sharing, at least the file-sharing that stands as a real threat to the big record companies is in essence the downloading of popular songs instead of purchasing the CD's in record stores. The cycle goes something like this: Big Record Store A pours tons of money into the market, image, and production of Artist A, including massive amounts of airtime on radio stations across the country. A listener hears a popular song by that artist, and instead of buying the artist's album download's the popular song instead, saving himself $18.99 and denying the record company said money.
My point is though, that the record industries have created a marketplace of quick consumerism. Artists today have a shelf life of about 6 months, and record companies just crank out the one hit wonders and have little interest in pursuing artists that put out quality coherent albums. Now, that's their perogative, I'm not judging these record companies for this.
What I'm saying is that when you produce a product that is intended to be quickly and en masse consumed you should not be surprised when your consumer responds in the fashion in which he has been dealth, that is, quick and easy and forgettable consumption.
Little Johnny using Kazaa doesn't care about the artist or the music, he just wants his quick pop fix and it's simply easier to get that off the internet as opposed to driving down to the local record store and purchasing an album. While it may not be right, it certainly shouldn't be unexpected.
I think the big record companies need to raise the bar of their product and consequently the quality, tone, and level of respect for artists and music. If the marketplace respects and values the industry and has any more compulsion whatsoever, then they are going to be more inclined to deny themselves the quick fix of file sharing (which would go contrary to the atmosphere of the industry) and instead do the more sensible (for lack of a better term) act of purchasing the album.
Gosh, I hope that made sense.
Josiah Q. Roe | By Josiah Roe | 06:15 PM
Comments
Sure, but record company A's president and slew of lawyers isn't going to see it that way. That's obvious just by looking at the news. You say the record co. shouldn't be surprised that the public flocks to Kazaa, etc. to get their music, and I agree. However, the folks using the software should likewise not be surprised when the record companies decide to do something about all the downloading. Unfortunately, these days "doing something" almost always means suing somebody's ass off.
Also, I think the musical production/consumption cycle is a vicious circle. People enjoy candy-pop music, so the companies pump out as much of it as they can, which fuels its consumption, which in turn fuels its production. At the same time, people wouldn't have started liking it in the first place if it hadn't been made available to them, so you can't tell at whose feet the blame should lie. I think the market and the producers teach each other to buy disposable music, which is sad.
Posted by: gosey at June 27, 2003 08:09 PM
even in the unlikely event the record industry were to adopt the changes you propose, i don't think legitimate album sales would increase.
people download music because they're cheap by nature, their argument being, "why pay $15 dollars when i can just download it for free and burn it on a $0.25 CD-R." i've never heard anyone say, "i download music as a means of protest and making known my distate for the recording industry's low level of regard for the artist."
i think the record industry needs to accept that filesharing is here to stay, and should do something sort of like apple's iTunes store as something of a compromise. surely they realize that the days of people being willing to part with $15 or more dollars for a CD are going/gone... though i'd venture a guess that a substantial numbers of music fans would probably pay 4 or 5 bucks to download an album, given the added convenience a set up not unlike apple's aforementioned online record store would provide. A delivery method whereby they user could know the album their seeking is going to be available, that the files will be complete and of high quality, and that they won't be disconnected in the middle of a download. i've checked out the iTunes store, and it's really cool... but at $.99 per song it has no real advantage over buying real CDs or getting them off Kaazaa.
under the status quo, file sharing copyrighted music is illegal and the RIAA is certainly well within their rights, but i don't think anyone's arguing that...
i'm going to take the stand of "no symapthy for those caught after the warning's been issued."
doesn't mean i think it's right... just that if you play with fire and get burnt, it's nobody's fault but your own.
Posted by: dwayne at June 27, 2003 09:23 PM
If I may briefly weigh in . . .
I believe an underrated factor in the whole fileshare debate is the individual artist. Based on personal experience, the ability to download music has introduced me to many musicians that I otherwise would not appreciate. I find that only from select recommenders will I go out and purchase a cd, but if someone mentions artist A as someone whose music I may appreciate, I'll probably download a few songs. If I resonate enough with said artist, I will probably frequent their website, purchase their new cd, and go to their concert when they come into town. All of this is money the artist would not have brought in otherwise. For this reason, it seems to me that it is in the best interest of musicians to promote filesharing.
Perhaps I'm off on this, but I think that the ability to attract listeners, even cheap listeners, is a good thing, and filesharing definitely is a great way to advertise. But apparantly the big labels and Metallica don't see it that way . . .
Posted by: paul at June 30, 2003 10:55 AM
Check out:
EFF: Let the Music Play
They have a good point. The problem is not file-sharing, it's just that an appropriate distribution system does not exist yet.
Posted by: Matt at July 3, 2003 01:19 AM
Post a Comment About "File Sharin' n' whatnot"
Email "File Sharin' n' whatnot" to a friend!
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/231
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference File Sharin' n' whatnot:
