Must We Pay to Play?
Someone please bake a cake. As of last month, 100 million songs have been downloaded from Apple's online music store iTunes. A milestone, to be sure, marking a successful compromisebetween the recording industry and the music downloading public.
A future chapter, as well, in a textbook on industrial reorganization. The practice of music downloading effectively dynamited the recording industries and music retailers. As we sift through the detritus, and watch as companies such as iTunes take hold, we're witnessing capitalism marching into this bold, new age.
A bit of history...
Once upon a time, there were the halcyon days of the original Napster and Scour. All the music on the Internet was free. Then the Recording Industry Association of America cracked down, launching its campaign against record piracy. Some consumers ceased downloading music. Most, however, simply began using other networks. With the rise of peer-to-peer software that avoided a central hub and couldn't be shut down unless each individual user were stopped, music pirates became more difficult to catch.
Now there are alternatives to the unregulated fray of peer-to-peer networks. Apple's iTunes software and the new Napster allow users to pay a small fee for each song they download. Beyond placating the recording industry and paying the artists, these services also protect users from the melee of viruses and other unwanted programs that accompany most peer-to-peer networks. Still, these programs lack the variety of file types their illegal counterparts possess. Plus, many people who have tasted free music simply don't want to go back to paying.
The differences between music downloaders and organizations like the RIAA are still far from being reconciled. Many users of peer-to-peer networks such as KaZaa are still downloading copyright music through the network. Some of these users cite their infractions as civil disobedience; they believe that artists working under most record labels don't get the money they deserve, so they deprive the record companies of any money at all. Others are simply computer savvy people who have been spoiled by free downloads. To them, technology trumps all.
There must be some solution for both the recording industry and the users; after all, television and the Internet are free to use, yet both are multibillion dollar industries. Television channels, Web sites and even the Scene all make their money through advertising, so we pose this question: Why couldn't the same principle be applied to file sharing?
It is estimated than 10 million people use the big peer-to-peer networks. That's no small audience for advertisers. Would companies pay for ads to be on a file-sharing network? Considering the large numbers involved, they might. When the money starts rolling in, revenues from the ads could be divided among the record companies based on how many of their artists' songs were downloaded. Under this model, the music would be free, and the artists would be paid.
The recording industry isn't going to back down from the conviction that people who download free music are outlaws. Nor, it seems, are millions of the file-swappers who, under the threat of prosecution, still download protected files. Unless there's some willingness for cooperation and compromise, this situation will escalate into a vile game of whack-a-mole with the industry smashing one network only to have a different one emerge.
Comments (0)