File-Sharing
My favorite blog speaks on the economic impact of file sharing, citing this article:
Beyond this basic result several other very interesting facts have emerged. First is the differential impact of file-sharing on an artist depending on their existing popularity. According to Blackburn who investigates this issue the �bottom� 3/4 of artists sell more as a consequence of file-sharing while the top 1/4 sell less. Second is the first tentative estimates (by Waldfogel and Rob) of the welfare consequences of file-sharing. Waldfogel and Rob�s dramatic result is that file-sharing on average yields a gain to society three times the loss to the music industry in lost sales. While, as they emphasize, this result is preliminary and based on limited data it indicates the urgent need for more research on this issue as well as the possibility to have a win-win situation in which both creators and the public get a better deal via a change to alternative compensation system such as a levy.
File sharing has led to a much faster spread of digital music, just as blogs have led to a faster proliferation of ideas. Both are a positive for the typical person. I agree wholeheartedly that lesser known artists are greatly helped, which is another positive good for society. If the more popular artists are hurt by this, I think it's an acceptable trade-off (and considering my opinion of popular music, maybe even a positive one). In time, pay products such as iTunes will become more sophisticated, benefiting the consumer; something that would have developed much slower without illegal file sharing. Given all of this, I fail to see the negative. Sometimes activities that are considered illegal or even immoral are signs of where humanity will progress. Fortunately, our society is open enough that these can exist, with limits.
For my personal use, I follow several rules. If I want to hear a new band, I have no problems with downloading a song to try it (I'll often do that with a bootleg, if possible). I will then either delete the song, or buy the CD. I've found this works pretty well, and keeps my conscious clean. If the song was never released domestically, I have no trouble downloading an album. If the record companies have not even given me the chance to buy, I don't feel obligated to pay thirty dollars for a British release. I also think that b-sides are often a rip-off, and have no problem downloading them for free. I'm not going to pay seven dollars for a single to get one song that wasn't even good enough for the album (I would pay 99 cents, though). I think these are fair, but you may disagree. How do our readers use file sharing?
posted by Mike @ 11/22/2005 11:20:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I don't have stats in front of me, but the file-sharing (or pirating, or whatever you want to call it) deal has often led to higher sales and more popularity, especially with TV, where "Chappelle's Show" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000" both got boosts from underground sharing.
Just as your blog mentions, it only helps the struggling artists because it gives them more "air play" where the radio shuns them. After awhile, if a song is good enough, a guy might go to the store and say, "Hey, I really like that one song the radio never plays, I'd like to hear more."
Popular music is so awash in saturation, I don't even see how they measure the difference. You can hear those songs anywhere, without having your own copy (as a general rule, I don't buy any Top 40 stuff because I'm already tired of it even if it's any good).
I don't download much at all, really. I usually just go buy the CD. I don't buy much music anyway, so I keep costs down.
Well, my general feeling on it is that I don't do it.
I like your logic on "sampling" a band, and then deleting the song and buying the CD. That works for me. And I can see the download of a British-released album since you can't buy it in stores here for cheaper than $30...but I'm not likely to start doing that myself. I do think your conscious can be clean, so I'm not trying to say my feelings on it are superior to yours--I don't think you're doing anything morally objectionable.
It's just that my philosophy is to stay as far away from anything that could even remotely be viewed as illegal or immoral. While I could argue and defend the download of the "import", I could probably also argue that just because we can't buy it cheap here doesn't make it right to go get it free online.
Am I making sense? It's a grey area to me...so I just stay away from it. I wouldn't judge anyone who used your methods and rules of file sharing, though.
For instance (a hypothetical): Let's say a friend of mine uses his computer to rip and then burn DVDs. This is perfectly legal if you own the DVD and don't turn around and sell the copy. But my friend is burning DVDs he does not own. He's burning DVDs he rents from Blockbuster. Now let's say his logic is that paying a rental fee is similar to purchasing the thing.
Now I don't agree with this behavior. I wouldn't do it myself. But I wouldn't get in my friend's face and say, "You're wrong!" And, in fact, there are tens of millions of Americans doing this very thing, who would agree with my friend.
I just try and stay away from anything remotely shady. I'm sure I don't always succeed.
There's my two cents.
Oh, one more thing. I also wanted to say that just because it's only the top percentage of artists (top 40) that get hurt and just because file sharing actually helps the underdog artists doesn't affect the legality of the issue.
Sure, if file sharing is so helpful to lesser-known artists, then maybe we should re-address the law to create some means of making it legal. But as far as straight legality, those top-tier artists who are hurt by file sharing--no matter how small a number of them there are--deserve to be protected.
I think file sharing is the worst crime ever!! Don't you ever watch MTV Cribs? These poor artists are living in boxes and driving 1976 rusted out Pintos all cause people have shared 2 of their songs. It's a damn shame! Just think, if it wasn't for Napster all the members of Metallica could have bought those hair plugs they so desperately need to stay young. Damn you Napster!!!!
Ok, back to reality. I agree with KW. Do what you want to do. If you want to share and risk breaking laws, go ahead. See above paragraph to prove you really aren't going to hurt anyone but yourself. Are they still monitoring downloads? It seems like they did, mailed out some letters, made some threats, and now it's over. BTW, I do know someone who got a letter. He laughed and threw it away. He's still sharing like crazy and has never been contacted again! There are still plenty of file sharing sites but I stay away from them. The fact is that making music (good or bad) is the artist's job, and the yes men do take a big cut. But please, please, please, quit telling me I'm taking food off your plate. Can't feed your family? Sell your 9th car!
I do pay for my online music at mp3search.ru (shameless plug!) Every song is 10 cents and you get a 10% discount on the whole CD. Sure it's a huge discount from others, but most albums still come tagged with album art and encoded licenses just like from Napster or Itunes. While I have a tiny angel telling me not to do bad things, he isnt telling me to not get a good price!!
I don't think there's an argument about the legality of the issue--I think we try to find the "greater good," or bad, that the law (which is many times not logical) doesn't recognize.
Yeah, I get that the original post isn't about the legality of it. I just wrote what I did in my second comment because it seems as though the general public uses the argument that "it's only hurting the mega artists" as a suggestion that those artists don't merit protection.
I did know someone in Louisville who's internet connection was shut-down because of file-sharing. But the guy was downloading so many free movies that I think it was completely justified.
Post a Comment
<< Home