Music By the People amd For The People

Music; By the People for the People

The rights of the people to download music freely

By Andrew Gewirtz



The music industry has seen incredible changes in the past ten years. Advancements in mass communication and specifically the music industry have been greatly affected by dependency on the Internet. We live in age of social networking including Twitter, Facebook, Tumbler, MySpace and Youtube. These tools allow us to communicate, share and broadcast ourselves in ways we have never dreamed of before. However, the economic impact of illegal media file sharing remains a controversial subject.

One study concludes that illegal downloading of music actually had a positive impact on the distribution of music. Jeff Weisbein explains in his article Illegal Music Downloading: Look At The Facts, “Interestingly, an examination of the RIAA’s marketing and sales charts shows that the real decrease in CD sales actually began in earnest after Napster ceased operating. In fact, during the 2 1/2 years that Napster was operating, CD sales increased by over $500 million dollars from what they were in 1998. Since 2001, CD sales have continued to decrease steadily.” Napster was creating more music awareness to the public. When Napster was forced to shut down, it was as if music listeners lost all respect for the idea of buying CD’s, causing an incredible increase of illegal fire sharing.



The act of paying for music has slowly started to fade out. Despite the convenience of free music, it remains illegal to download media without payment. Downloading violates copyright laws that are owned by the producers. Public Domain Music, a reference for copyright regulations explains, “Authors own the exclusive rights to their compositions. This is called a copyright, and the composition is protected for many years--even if the copyright is never registered with the copyright office. A composition is considered to be "intellectual property" The copyright may be sold, transferred, or inherited--but the copyright still endures.” Due to the rise in file sharing, the music industry must find a way to make access to “intellectual property” free in order to be distributed on the broadest media platform around the world, otherwise the equality of music distribution for consumers and producers remains imbalanced.



Record companies use their rights to “intellectual property” to prevent any further financial loss to record sales. An example of copyright revenge is the 2007 court case RIAA vs. Tanenbaum. “The Recording Industry Association of America is suing Joel Tenenbaum, a 24-year-old graduate student at Boston University, for downloading at least seven songs and making more than 800 others available over the peer-to-peer file sharing system Kazaa in 2004. The companies are seeking $12,000 in damages, and have refused Mr. Tenenbaum’s offer to pay $500 to settle the matter” (World Law Direct). After discovering that Tanenbaum had downloaded dozens of illegal files, RIAA sought to create awareness of copyright laws by implementing a heavy consequence.

The Digital Theft Deterrence Act, determines the amount of money that people will have to pay if they violate certain copy write laws. “The digital Theft Deterrence Act sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. That means Tenenbaum could be forced to pay $1 million if it is determined that his alleged actions were willful.” (World Law Direct) These fines that are supported by the digital theft deterrence act are seemingly un-constitutional for the rights of downloader’s. It is impossible to measure intellectual property with dollar signs. Without harsh force from the RIAA or other entertainment corporations, the people would not feel threatened, and might financially support this industry voluntarily.

It is understood that if you really work hard on something, you want to be given credit for your work. That’s why bands like Radio Head have taken a new approach by allowing its fans to pay whatever amount of money they want for an album. Radio Head released a statement saying that “We’re prepared to take a risk and we might come out looking very foolish. But we believe if your music is great, then people will pay for it” (BLOGS Bnet). By creating a non-threatening message to their fan base, and providing a legal medium for them to access the music, fans were not afraid to download or discover or circulate work of Radio Head’s work.

The experiment of voluntary funding created a new movement for the entertainment industry. It welcomed fans to not only make a choice to consume, but to rate the worth of the product through their payment. “Radio Head was pleased to find that their fans were willing to pay for there music. ComScore (NSDQ: SCOR) data (via release) shows 1.2 million people visited the site in the first 29 days of October (it was launched at the start of the month). The average price paid globally was $6. Americans were more generous, paying an average of up to $8.05 . Including those who did not donate created an average of $2.26 on a worldwide basis and $3.23 from Americans. The most common amount offered was below $4, but 12 percent were willing to pay between $8 and $12, around the typical cost of an album from iTunes. (Blogs Bnet). Radio Head proved that if your going to sell your music today that the best way to do it is sell it for what its worth. Meaning assume that it’s going to be stolen but have faith that your fans we’ll pay for the full quality version.



Overall, Illegal file sharing is just another example of something that our government has yet to regulate consistently. The expansion of Web 2.0 and social networking has become too large to completely control. Music is simply another formation of freedom of speech. It’s hard to imagine that a country like China that does not allow Youtube, Google or Facebook. It is equally drastic that the U.S government allows for copyright holders to sue citizens for millions of dollars for easily accessible and unregulated files. It is clear that the access to Web 2.0 must no longer cause consequence for consumers. While the producers of entertainment industries should have rights and access to profit for their works, they should not be allowed to persecute innocent