File sharing won’t go away
p2pnet.net News Opinion:- Today’s The New York Times carries an OpEd by Kembrew McLeod, assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Iowa and the the author of “Owning Culture”. It was inspired by the Big Music record labels’ latest rabid attack on people who share music online.
The labels as usual have their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) doing their dirty work under the pretence of protecting artists’ rights, serving customers, and et cetera – the standard line routinely spouted by Mitch Bainwol, Cary Sherman, Jay Berman over at the IFPI, and the rest of the crew so the mainstream media can repeat it as if it came from credible sources.
Over yonder, the likes of senator Orrin ‘Terminator’ Hatch continue to diligently put the interests of the entertainment industry before those of their constituents by fronting bills such as the INDUCE Act.
The Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf paper which found file sharing has had no measurable effect on music sales is mentioned in the Op-Ed, as is a Pew Internet & American Life Project report which found the number of people who share music through the p2p networks has actually increased from an estimated 18 million to 23 million since the November-December 2003 survey.
What’s to be done?
“Various lawyers, professors and organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation … have offered workable solutions,” says McLeod.
“Simply put … given that the movie, video game and software industries continue to grow – and file sharing’s harm to the music industry is debatable – additional fees needn’t be exorbitant. The foundation’s plan calls for generating a $3 billion pot of money – the amount the industry says it is losing annually – by charging consumers a $5 monthly licensing fee. The fee could come bundled with, for instance, a consumer’s broadband Internet access bill and would be similar to paying a cable bill. Rather than replace the music industry’s business model, this would supplement it with a steady revenue stream.
“Some critics call these plans unrealistic, but a legally sanctioned cable television system also seemed like a pipe dream in the 1960’s because of the television industry’s resistance.
“It would be dishonest, and foolish, to suggest that hammering out a compromise palatable to all sides is going to be easy. But the alternative – to do nothing, or to pass new industry-backed legislation – would continue to criminalize the everyday behavior of millions. And it would continue to stifle an innovative way to distribute artistic works.”
Earlier, McLeod states, “With its new round of lawsuits, the recording industry association is once again demonstrating its failure to recognize the obvious: file sharing isn’t going away. Consumers have grown attached to it, and more and more musicians believe file sharing can help promote their music in an age of limited play lists at radio stations. Given its hold in our culture, downloading, in some form, must be part of any solution to this impasse.”
‘Downloading’ could be interpreted as being a one-way activity but in fact it’s about sharing – an exchange.
The labels treat customers fairly and offer them value for money and in exchange, customers in their millions buy music.
Nor does it end there.
At things stand the men, women and children who share files – all of them potential entertainment industry customers – are stygmatized by the Big Five record labels’ RIAA as criminals. But they’re not. They’re ordinary people.
As McLeod and thousands of others suggest, instead of using lawsuits as a marketing tool (If you don’t buy our product, we’ll sue you), the entertainment industry must develop business models which turn the Net from something to be feared and, therefore, dominated, into an engine of commerce running on cooperation and respect.
Moreover, employing the Net as a marketing and distribution vehicle would cut overhead and free up resources for use against the true criminals – the counterfeiters and duplicators who really are costing the industry billions of dollars as they peddle underground product on the streets and blackmarkets of the world.
Companies such as Google, Amazon and eBay – make the Net work for them. There’s no reason why the entertainment industry can’t do the same.
June 25th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
We have our congress people who are 70,80 years old trying to pass legeslation for my generations and the generations that come after me. These people couldnt see a technological innovtion if it was shoved under there nose and smelled badly.
I find it sad that people continue to vote for the likes of Orrin Thatch
June 25th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
As much as we’d like to think so, the Recording industry isn’t stupid. niave mabey. I think they do what they do because they falsely believe they can still maintain control. that’s what all the lawsuits and legislation is about. power and control. not adapting or compeating
June 25th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
” the entertainment industry must develop business models which turn the Net from something to be feared and, therefore, dominated, into an engine of commerce running on cooperation and respect”
Right. But you’re assuming intelligence where none exists. The entertainment guys are cunnng, sly, devious, and so on. That doesn’t equal smart.