| The Music Downloading Controversy by
Kenda Johnson |
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. After recording companies experienced record
losses over the last few years, contributed largely to
this controversial practice, the RIAA has made its
position clear. They commenced to "take legal
action against thousands of people for illegally sharing
music files". They view this as the fist step to
encouraging file-sharers to stop illegally downloading
music. According to the RIAA, over 2.6 billion song
files are unlawfully downloaded each month. While the
RIAA had substantial losses, they are not the only
parties potentially harmed by illegal file-sharing. The
artists who work to produce these albums, arguably
short-changed from the beginning, are losing money as
well. Recording artist Anastasia feels that "if you
dig an artist that much, then you should want to help
keep that artist alive by purchasing the actual
recording". As a matter of moral and financial
significance, file-sharing is a considered a large
threat to the entertainment industry. However, audiences
question which the larger factor in this struggle is.
Furthermore, prosecuting "individual kids seems to
generate more anger than worry," says Harvard Law
School professor Jonathan Cittrain. So, while the RIAA
and many recording artists stand staunchly opposed to
illegal downloading, people continue to download every
day. 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? Kenda Johnson- TwentySomething
Inc, Unsigned Underground (http://unsignedunderground.blogspot.com/)
|
| Kenda Johnson is a writer
and editor for TwentySomething Inc, twenty-somethin.blogspot.com
and unsignedunderground.blogspot.com, dedicated to a new
revolution in music recording and distribution. Our
company is the best source for new musicians, models and
enterainers. |
___________________________________________________________ |
