Since the emergence of file-sharing websites there have been arguments supporting and condemning them. Although there are definitely some negative issues regarding file-sharing, such as employees within the industry receiving less money for their work, I'd say as a whole, file-sharing is much better than some people make it out to be.
The most common method for buying music nowadays is downloading it. People can browse through a whole range of music without having to move from their seat. Free music can be beneficial to everyone in different ways. For a start it gives musicians the opportunity to absorb as many influences as possible to enhance their creative output without having to spend anything. It also allows unreleased music to be accessed and appreciated by many, albeit from a lower quality recording.
The possibility to receive the whole discography of an artist within a few minutes seems preferable to giving money to large corporations. It also gives less well known artists, who earn small amounts anyway, a chance to promote their music across the world. People who have the chance to listen to all their music are then more likely to attend their concerts. Those who wouldn't be willing to spend money on music, due to fear of disappointment or generally just loss of money, still get the chance to listen. If they are impressed then they will inevitably tell others about it, which increases awareness for emerging musicians.
Companies such as iTunes don't technically give you any possessions from downloads. They let you "borrow" music and give you a strict set of parameters on how you are legally allowed to use it. As stated in the terms and conditions of iTunes:
"iTunes is the provider of the Service, which permits you to access, purchase or rent a licence for digital content ("iTunes Products") for end user use only under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement."
The fact that they are selling you a licence rather than an actual copy seems a bit hypocritical when they are against file-sharing. If you actually want the copy of a song or an album as your own, the alternative they leave is to download it for free. They know that the average person is unwilling to spend time to read the length of their terms and conditions so the majority of people who purchase anything from the iTunes store are unlikely to read this section. This leaves the consumer in a vulnerable position if they are unaware of their illegal actions.
Not only do iTunes manipulate their customers into spending a fixed amount of money for a limited product, of which they take a large portion, but according to Pete Townshend of The Who they also give the artists they are promoting minimal support. Below is his speech from 2011 at the BBC John Peel Lecture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15528101
Although I agree with file-sharing being positive, there are also some downsides to it. Free file-sharing websites are illegal and therefore aren't thoroughly monitored for malware. I don't illegally download any music for this reason. The links on these websites are untrustworthy and could contain viruses that can be downloaded straight onto a computer. However, if these websites were to be legitimised then file uploads could be regulated by law and the optimum quality recordings could be released for free.
Most of the music I listen to is at home on free streaming websites such as YouTube. I also have a free account on Spotify. As music is my main hobby and hopefully future profession, access to both of these and other streaming websites is ideal. If I do buy a physical copy of music then it is usually from a second hand store which means that none of the money I spend there reaches the artists I listen to. Although I would like to support artists that I like and I do occasionally buy music via their websites I am usually hesitant because I know most of the money I spend goes to the record companies. I am in no way implying that these people don't deserve this money but I disagree with paying more money to a company who pay the original creator of a song next to nothing. Similar to most people in my age group, it is rare that I need to purchase music as I have the use of YouTube on my phone wherever I go.
A technique for selling music which I think may be adopted by more people in the future is to allow the consumer to name their own price. An example of a band who used this technique is Radiohead. Radiohead released a download of their 2007 album "In Rainbows" on their website where anybody could pay whatever they wanted for it before the physical version was released. According to NME the money generated solely by this download, before the physical release, was higher than the total profit from their previous album "Hail To The Thief."
http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444
Obviously this might not work as well for less well-known artists but the idea still has potential benefits. The age groups most likely to download music online are teenagers and young adults. If they are aware that they can download a new release on an artist's official website then they are much more likely to use that than an unreliable torrent website. I would imagine most people would download the new release for free, however some may feel morally obliged to spend at least a couple of pounds. Others may be willing to spend a lot more on an artist they respect or give a chance to emerging artists. This means the consumer knows that they aren't required to pay a fixed amount on iTunes or Amazon for example and more money will reach the artist.
Some people might argue that downloading music online from file-sharing websites is similar to theft although what they are actually obtaining from it is data. The artist doesn't actually lose any physical property as the data can be duplicated as many times as they want. Profit may seem to diminish if music is downloaded for free however studies show that those who download the most music for free also spend the most money on music. I know people who download music for free as a test to see if they like the music. If they like it then they go ahead and purchase it from elsewhere. If they dislike it they delete it from their computer, causing no loss to anybody. File-sharing sites can therefore be used as a "try before you buy" system, which could potentially boost sales.
In regards to my own future within music, I will try to embrace file-sharing positively. Rather than thinking of it as loss of money I will think of it as free advertising and look for better ways to generate income using file-sharing to my advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment