On Downloading
After reading the following Techcrunch article on music downloading, and analyzing the huge number of comments, I thought it would be well worth the time to write my own views on downloading.
Since the internet has been public, individuals have been able to share files. With the advent of applications like Napster though, massively sharing files between a very large quantity of individuals has been made possible. Websites and many applications have also developed under a free model, where the user gets accustomed to having everything for free. This new model has clashed with more traditional models of distributing mainly movies, games, software or music.
The games and software industries are a little different though, as being mainly virtual, they are already part of the new economy, and all in all licenses, keys and proprietary formats have allowed them to protect their products from pirating. The movies and music industry though, have, or so they claim, being heavily disrupted by illegal file sharing. We’ve all heard of cases of teenagers being sued millions of dollars by recording companies, or are aware of how countries like France, New Zealand, Canada or the US are putting pressure on ISPs and users to prevent illegal downloading. P2P is presented by the big industry players as an evil to root out, which is responsible for their losses in profit and also guilty of preventing honest artists from making a living. At first glance you could reason that they are right, and that no individual has the right to copy and distribute copyrighted material. Yet a number of factors blur the line a bit.
First off, it is well known that the majority of files that are being downloaded are already hugely popular and as such have already had commercial success. Just take a look at Mininova’s popular list to see. If you are looking for underground material or an independent artist, you’ll have a much harder time and will have much less people to share with. I think there is a trend, which is not going to disappear and that has to do with the emotional link between an artist and his fans. People tend to be much more willing to financially support smaller artists, because they are closer to them, and feel part of a community. If the artist disappears because he doesn’t make enough money to keep producing, the fan feels the loss.
The long tail effect from the internet also gives smaller artists the chance to make themselves known; just think of the cost of those illegal downloads compared to the costs of launching a worldwide marketing/promotional campaign. Sure, a few people, probably, not thousands, will have copied the artist’s work for free, but again his work will have been disseminated without him having to spend a cent. In the long term it could mean increased popularity and maybe access to a bigger deal.
When condemning P2P, its accusers often point out that the artists are the real losers, as they have to pay for all the production costs, renting of recording studios, equipment, and often even setting up their own tours and promotional campaigns. One first thing to consider is that if the artist hasn’t properly negotiated his contract with the recording company , then yes, the costs he has to face can be unsurmountable, and that has nothing to do with P2P. A good thing though is that the costs of producing are much more cheaper these days, whether you are creating music or movies as you can easily make something good with a good computer and the right software. How many new artists, I’m thinking in electronic music, have popped up out of nowhere with great tracks built with a few loops, a Mac, a sampler and recording software?
An element that all too often is forgotten is that the act of P2P downloading impulses the use of new technology for the distribution of information, and has helped develop new ways of crowd sourcing/interaction with fans. Bittorrent for one is an amazing technology and an innovative way of sharing very large quantities of data over any parts of the world. New techniques in downloading and sharing, even streaming, have given mainstream industries such as the recording companies, a new and highly effective way of reaching their customers. For fans, it’s also a much easier way of accessing files. P2P has also fostered communities and I believe it indirectly influenced the rise of sites such as Last.fm or Pandora. While these example have already cut out deals with recording companies to transmit their songs via streaming over the internet, the community effect and interaction between users they have helped develop are simply incredible. Fans can create their own groups, meet up, comment and all around help impulse the records and artists they like.
I don’t see the current model being sustainable, and I don’t see illegal downloading disappearing, so another way must be possible. For one, indirect revenue streams, like concerts, sale of associated material, or advertising are a solution. One model that seems to have been forgotten is that of the rich benefactor. A few centuries ago, when copyright was not implemented and royalties didn’t exist, how did artists survive? They used to be financially helped by extremely wealthy people who wished to encourage them to produce art and be remembered as the ones who launched the career of these artists. Why do we not see more of that anymore? The question also goes for journalism, which also has a tradition of being sustained via wealthy independent owners.
Things are only going to get worse for the recording industry if they keep wanting to battle P2P downloading, simply because of the free culture of the internet. The tyranny of the masses is not always a good thing, but, like it or not, this is how it is now. Maybe we have to start learning that not everything has to be free, but companies also have to accept that in the new model, the public truly is in control. In the traditional model, companies dictated what people would see at the movies, on TV or hear on the radio and read in magazines. Nowadays, the new mix and match culture of the internet has taught users to be much more active, to create their own playlists, and select what they want, when they want. As frightening as this loss of control might be, it is also an enormous opportunity. There is not one market anymore but millions of individualized, specific tastes that you have to cater to.
I also quickly mentioned royalties before and would like to quickly slide back to the topic. Maybe the whole concept of royalties needs to be changed, as when an illegal copy is distributed that means a royalty is not paid. But when you think about it, why can an artist keep receiving a royalty for a song he made 20 years ago, and a teacher doesn’t receive a royalty for, say, teaching economics to a student, who now is one of the most brilliant traders? Why wouldn’t a surgeon receive royalties for inventing and patenting a new method for treating heart failures? Why doesn’t an architect receive royalties for laying innovative plans for construction? Why doesn’t a journalist receive royalties for writing an article that had a deep impact on what people thought? Should royalties as a payment be abandoned and artists given a more standard type of salary, or should royalties be more common in other professions?
When simply viewing P2P downloading as a crime, I think there is a big part of the question that is left out. First of all, we mix up plagiarism with distribution. It is very different to make an exact copy of something and sell it as an original, then it is to make an obvious lesser quality copy of it. The act of distribution itself is not a crime either. The crime is when somebody makes a profit out of it. It’s not a crime to lend a book to friends, or make a copy of a movie if it’s for personal use. In art, the original is the only one to really have any worth, copies are just copies, and anybody can easily have one but they know it will never be worth the same as the original. The example of books is particularly relevant. Why do we keep buying books and not just mass downloading online copies or spend time illegally photocopying them? Because it’s not practical. There is nothing better than reading from a well printed book on quality paper, with a nice cover and ink which is satisfying to the eye. When choosing an edition, apart from the novel we are buying, these criteria also come to mind. If say the publishing company has retributed the writer well, what harm is there in having a copy of his work? Now it would be a crime to steal an actual book, but everybody is willing to buy one, simply because the medium is worth it. I think that is where another source of income is possible. Make a quality medium for the user and charge for it.
This war is far from over, and there are too many interests, particularly financially, to find a solution, yet let’s look at the opportunities that downloading has opened up rather than the threats it implies. The question is, do we want to stay in the past or are we ready to embrace the future?
