The Music Downloading Controversy
Posted: Wednesday, July 19, 2006
by Kenda Johnson
TwentySomething Inc
As the title implies, there is an ongoing debate about music downloading. As with any controversy, there are those whose positions stand at one or the other polar opposites and those who are moderate or nonchalant. The problem started when a 19-year-old college student created a computer program which allowed web surfers to “download music from other music-lovers’ computer via the internet for free- without going through a third party provider". Shawn Fanning invented the process now know as file sharing, founded Napster and got rich. Soon, however, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) along with several recording artists filed lawsuits against the company alleging that they “infringed on record labels’ copyrights". With the victory of the RIAA there is no doubt that file-sharing with copyrighted music is illegal, but many industry professionals, avid down-loaders and legal experts are still debating whether or not it can be viewed as immoral. There are those who believe that downloading a song without paying for it is not only illegal, but immoral. None-the less, people continue to download songs anyway, rationalizing that the record companies are getting what they deserve after years of overpriced CD’s or that the artists won’t really miss the money. Some people are not sure what to make of the situation, sympathizing in some respects with either side. There are several proposed solutions to this problem, but it has become obvious that there is not easy or clear answer.
Lee Bockhorn, associate editor of the Weekly Standard and author of “MP3 and Me: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Online Music File-Sharing" represents the masses of web users who download music from the internet. Yet, he concedes “that those who download and share copyrighted music online are doing something illegal." Like Bockhorn, many down-loaders realize that this activity is illegal, but they are unclear about how it can be construed as unethical. Many of the individuals who engage in file sharing are teenagers, undoubtedly with limited budgets. For them, the harmful effects of their down load on multimillionaire recording artists are negligible. Furthermore, it is difficult for them to view the situation from the standpoint of pampered artists and greedy recording companies. In the days before music down-loads, cds cost about $17.99. Listeners often argued that they had overpaid because “albums have only one or two good songs and are padded with worthless dross" (Bockhorn). Moreover, artists usually only received a fraction of the proceeds, making recording companies wealthy. These conditions contribute to the idea that many down-loaders have that file-sharing is not wrong because neither the record companies nor the now famous artists will really be harmed by their file-sharing. Although, a few occasional down-loaders might not make much of a difference, at its present magnitude, down-loading has become a major issue, one without readily available answers.
Heather Green, a reporter for Business Week and author of “Digital Media: Don’t Clamp Down Too Hard," suggests that record companies “loosen up on licensing, come up with new product and pricing schemes, and embrace fair use", in order to appeal to down-loaders. She recommends offering services such as subscription sites. Talent manager, Terry McBride stated in an interview that “the parties that are making the money are the cable and telephone companies and the manufacturers of blanks cds." Many people also recognize that these companies are also benefiting from the controversy, but are appalled that record companies do not seem interested in pursuing these culprits. Others believe that downloading music is okay as long as the person does not burn cds and sell them. This leads to suspicions that the controversy is primarily financially motivated, leaving much of the public uncertain of their position on the subject. The theories suggested for reconciling the issue require a complete change in the way music is distributed and a leap forward into the twenty-first century, using the internet in new ways.
Making music more affordable and accessible to listeners in a way that they have grown accustomed seems to be the order of the day. Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get with the down-loading program. However, an end to the down-loading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal down-loaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most down-loaders are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.
I believe that at the heart of this controversy is a drive to bring music production into the twenty-first century. Making cds more accessible, economical and usable benefits all parties (except maybe the CD producers) in the end. Listeners can access music when, where and how they want to for less money, as the have grown accustomed to doing. Musicians cut out the middle man, allowing them to keep more of the profit. This is undoubtedly the future of the industry. While companies are searching for ways to hold on to 90 percent of the profit and to continue to combat illegal downloading, others like TwentySomething are negotiating new terrain to find a way to accommodate a new breed of music lovers and musicians. Musicians are able to make their finished product available to subscribed listeners for less than half what they had paid in the past, in a variety of formats for media devices. With the option of offering mpCDs, artists can keep 95% of their earnings and listeners benefit from cheaper prices. In a world where everything must be more convenient and cost-effective to survive in its market, why should music be any different?
This Article has been viewed 5,375 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)"artists usually only received a fraction of the proceeds, making recording companies wealthy. These conditions contribute to the idea that many down-loaders have that file-sharing is not wrong because neither the record companies nor the now famous artists will really be harmed by their file-sharing."True,neither the artist nor the companies are benefiting from downloading, but they are not losing anything by it. Profits not received are not a loss because they have not happened, but they are not a gain,either.Downloading is good publicity, but publicity seems useless, as most artists dwonloaded from are so well known, and people ask for the next song even as a new one is out.Essentially, I meant to say that if there were no such thing as downloading, the best way to resolve this battle would be to find a cheaper way to publish CDs with the top songs by the artist.That would keep everyone satisfied, even if not jumping for joy.Actually, artists do lose profit from downloading, because with every song downloaded, they lose an oppurtunity for a new customer, and overall are wasting their money trying to publish these songs which will be handed out for free anyway
Well some people might not even know or like the band so that cd would have never been bought, thus no profit loss.Artists should go on tour to make money after the free publivity from downloading.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.