Further Research into File-sharing

Along with the Internet, there has come an innumerable and vast array of Internet websites where any music fan of any genre can readily locate and participate in an online community, entirely dedicated and devoted to their favourite style or genre of music. And dance music of course is no stranger to this concept with an endless list of sites, forums and social networking ‘meeting places’ where you can share in the love of dance music with other like minded people. Unsurprisingly, this revelation is nothing new to anyone who lives in today’s technology driven, online society. But the effect of the Internet – both positively and negatively – on the dance music scene is something that is of great interest to me here, and will be the focus my final research paper. So in preparation for this, I shall be introducing you to some sites that will assist me in displaying what is available online, and I will show you some articles which I found during my research that talk about the effects and impacts that the Internet and these sites have on the dance music scene and online communities.

In my search for academic articles on this topic, I came across a really interesting and enlightening article called “MP3s Are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and its Challenge to the Major Label Music Monopoly”, written by Kembrew McLeod (that’s quite the title, huh!). McLeod talks about the prevalence of the digital age, file-sharing, peer-to-peer technologies and the ‘convenient and compact’ MP3 file compression technology has seen the birth of, and encouraged, an ‘audience generated movement’ against the major record labels. Such file-sharing and music loving Internet users are mounting a rather influential and “significant challenge to the hegemony of the major label distribution system” (2005, McLeod). What a shame, I hear you ask? Well, considering the major labels are well known for shady record deals that have left musicians and artists even less than the ‘short end of the stick’, I personally can’t exactly shed a tear for the financial losses these majors have endured in recent years due to internet piracy and file sharing, and I’m sure there are many others who feel the same way.

McLeod also suggests that perhaps the record industry has brought this on themselves, as they were the ones to force digital technology onto the purchasing public in the 80s with the advent of the CD, and the subsequent hundreds of millions of dollars that was made during this time when entire back catalogues of artists and bands were resold to the same people, just in a different format, under the guise of ‘ground-breaking technology’, ‘superior sound quality’, and quite frankly, because “they” (the record labels) could.

This all came about when the record industry decided, as a group, to push this new digital technology onto the buying public, and they forcible ensured that LP’s became outdated due to an introduced across-the-board ‘non-returns policy’, which they implemented, so the tens of thousands of record stores selling their merchandise could not obtain a credit for returning unsold LP’s, nor could they take the financial risk that they would be left with ‘unsellable’ stock. As McLeod points out, this change in format “was a conscious policy instituted by record companies that wanted to make sure this format took off” (2005). Hence, they pushed, and pushed hard for the CD to become the new platform, and with technology constantly advancing into what we enjoy today, it appears that the technology that was once so forcibly pushed onto the public has returned to “bite them on the ass!” (and that’s me quoting myself, not the article!).

Thankfully, these changes in technology has also changed the costs involved in music production and distribution (for the better) so now small labels and independent artists with a bit of savvy and entrepreneurial ability, can now use the internet and cheaper recording equipment to ‘handle their own affairs’, and cut out the middle man. Artists have taken to either signing to smaller independent labels with recording contracts that actually profit share with the artist and band, and taking back the ‘creative reigns’ of their music, as they no longer have to sell 500,000 units to ‘break even’ with the costs of a major record label, before they see a dollar for themselves.

Further on in McLeod’s article, he interviewed several independent artists that have gone down the route of self promotion and distribution, who advised the Internet has not only allowed new audiences to discover and share in their music, but they have actively encouraged this through offering their music for free on their websites. After Chicago-based rock band Wilco was dumped by their major label, Warner, when their album was thought to be “uncommercial”, during their search for a new recording contract, this album was leaked onto file-sharing sites. As a result, Wilco themselves put the album for free download on their website, generating a massive response which translated into huge sales once the album was debuted on the Billboard Charts.

Now, I too thought that if thousands of people had already downloaded the album for free, how could they debut high on the charts with high album sales on its official release? McLeod answers this conundrum also! In his article, McLeod shows through the research of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, that “MP3 usage does not reduce students’ CD consumption patterns. Fully 73 percent of students who downloaded MP3s reported that they still bought either the same number of CDs of more” (2005). Another study by Jupiter Research in 2003 showed “there is compelling evidence that this group… of music fans within the file-sharing community… is the bedrock community for those willing to pay for legitimate (online) music services in the future” (2005, McLeod).

Steve Albini reported to McLeod his documented findings with Nielsen/Soundscan in 2003, based on the growth in the area of the independent sectors increasing market share “in the US, UK and elsewhere” that it has been thanks to the file-sharing community that the independent artists have seen greater success in recent years. He advised that due to the traditional record store and its narrow tailoring of available products, many niche artists and bands were unable to reach anywhere near the same percentage of marketplace as mainstream musicians on major record labels. Thanks to the file-sharing and online community of die-hard music fans with their fanzines (fan-magazines), street press publications, forums, fan-driven websites and the like, that these artists are reaching new audiences that would never have had access to their music in the past. Albini states, “the Internet is making people who would never otherwise come across it find music that they like and then buy it” (2005).

Finally, I would like to finish with a couple of articles from last weeks issue number 702 of “In Music and Media”, where I found the following three short articles, all relevant to the topic and shedding some very interesting and completely up-to-date ‘light’ on the subject of file-sharing, digital purchasing, social networking sites and how they share the common musical interests of its users, and copyright infringements in connection with illegal file-sharing. Unfortunately I didn’t get the chance in this post to discuss more of the social networking aspects and websites that I wanted to, as I didn’t want this post to be too long, but potentially, this is something that I can address in my final paper more thoroughly and comprehensively.

But until next time, keep lovin’ the doof doof!


Study: Most Aussie Internet Users Won't Buy Digital Copies

The number of people who bought music online doubled between 2007 and 2009, according to the World Internet Project Survey conducted by the ARC centre at Swineburne University of Technology. However given the choice, 80 percent of internet users would still prefer to buy music in hard copy form from an actual retail store.

There was little change in the number of users who said that being able to download music had decreased the amount they bought - hovering at 30 percent of internet users.
The most popular source of digital music was "copying one's own CDs", followed by copying a friend's discs.

If they were willing to go digital over hard copy, the average price users were willing to pay was $17, which is a lot less than a physical product.

This article was taken from: http://www.themusic.com.au/velvetrope.php?s=velvetrope


Facebook or Safebook?

The most recent and ongoing dust-up over Facebook's privacy policies has reached a new level of volume that has even the mainstream media tuning in, and threatening the very thing that could make Facebook such an important tool for the music industry.

The key to the digital music future is a service that can do the best job of not only delivering the music that users want to hear, but introduce new music to users who otherwise wouldn't be interested and monetize the entire process. In order to do this, services need to know what kind of music you like in order to recommend other things you may also be interested in.

While the best way to make this happen is by sharing those musical preferences across multiple services, and not to keep it private. Simply put the more private a social network is, the less useful it becomes.

This article was taken from: http://www.themusic.com.au/velvetrope.php?s=velvetrope


Local Hot Wire on Limewire

Last Wednesday U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood granted summary judgment in favour of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which filed a copyright lawsuit against LimeWire in 2006. Wood ruled Lime Group (parent company of LimeWire) and founder Mark Gorton committed copyright infringement, induced copyright infringement, and engaged in unfair competition.

The reaction from the music industry globally has been overwhelmingly supportive, with the Australian perspective today becoming clear.

Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) released this statement exclusively to the Velvet Rope:

"We understand that a large proportion of the close to 3 million Australian illegal file-sharers use LimeWire to share music illegally. Therefore, the US Court's ruling that LimeWire induced widespread copyright infringement may reduce levels of illegal file-sharing of music in Australia. The case is a significant win for creators around the world, including Australian artists and songwriters, whose works were being illegally exploited daily through LimeWire. Illegal file-sharing severely undermines the ability of artists and songwriters to be renumerated for their hard work and it also creates an unfair playing field in the digital ecosystem reducing the capacity of the music industry to develop and deliver legitimate digital content to Australian consumers."

Similarly, APRA|AMCOS had this to say:

"The LimeWire decision reinforces the position that artists and creators have legally recognised rights that must be respected. Music consumers now, more than ever, have access to music through numerous legitimate music delivery models that also ensure payments to artists and creators. The opportunity for content owners is in providing licensing solutions to emerging online music businesses."

LimeWire and the RIAA are preparing for a June 1 hearing to resolve the outstanding issues in the case. If the RIAA is successful in obtaining an injunction against LimeWire or is awarded monetary damages against, it is believed that LimeWire will almost certainly be shut down.

This article was taken from: http://www.themusic.com.au/velvetrope.php?s=velvetrope




References:

McLeod, Kembrew. “MP3s Are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and Its Challenge to the Major Label Music Monopoly”. Popular Music and Society, 28: 4, 521-531. Routledge, 2005.