File Sharing - A Threat to the Music Industry? --American Chronicle

By Kevon Campbell
August 16, 2005
“There's no minimizing the impact of illegal file-sharing. It robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, and it ultimately undermines the future of music itself, not to mention threatening the jobs of tens of thousands” (Cary Sherman, Recording Industry Association of America President, USA Today, 18 September 2003).

With the advent of Napster in 1999, file sharing has become one of the most common of online activities, with the software, music and movie industries being most affected by this. On the Kazaa Network, there are approximately three million users on at any given time. Surely this has to impact on the above industries, as this must mean at least three million less items being sold.

The music industry has recently gone into a slump. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), continuously bemoans the fact that honest retailers of music are losing, along with the record companies themselves, and most importantly the musicians, songwriters and producers who would fail to receive royalty payments through file sharing.

In order to combat this menacing threat, the music industry has seemingly adopted the stance of “sue all these pirates”. After all, it is these mindless thieves who are causing the industry billions of dollars, and who are emptying the pockets of hardworking music industry personnel.

What exactly is the effect of file sharing on the music industry though? Research has been increasingly supportive of the view that file sharing has only minimal, if any negative effects on record sales, and may in fact be beneficial for the industry itself.

Research conducted by the Harvard University and the University of North Carolina professors adds credence to this notion, asserting that their findings are inconsistent with the claim that file sharing is the primary reason for a decline in music sales.

Another study conducted by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. Of course, one may argue that on controversial issues such as this, persons may feel that telling the truth is not an option. However, one may also look at the fact that the software, videogame, and movie industries have grown tremendously, even though they are all also heavily downloaded.

Other factors may thus account for the fall-off in music sales. First, as Liebowitz (2003) notes, high levels of sales in the 1990s may just be a mere reflection of individuals replacing older formats with CDs. Of course, one cannot escape the suggestion of a poor economic climate as a basis of explanation for low record sales. Furthermore, one can find an explanation in the increasing growth of other forms of entertainment, in particular, DVDs, which have rapidly become a very affordable alternative.

Beneficial effects of file sharing for the music industry are generally presented in the vein that file sharing merely impacts on the consumption of the music, opening up the music to persons who otherwise would not be able to access it. After all, it may be argued that the majority of file-sharers would possibly not have bought the music anyway. Additionally, new ears may be brought to the music, increasing a fan base and concert sales.

One’s view on file sharing is inherent on how one is affected or perceives him or herself to be affected by it. Definitely though, increasing research tends to be pointing towards the belief that the negative effects of file sharing on the music industry is limited. The members of the music industry will no doubt refute such claims with research of their own, leaving one to attempt to analyse the credibility of the various researches. As some sociologists will note however, such research and the statistics presented can be seen as mere reflections of the interests of the researcher.

While, the economic impact is thus inconclusive, moral questions remain. Is this plain and simply theft, as industry insiders put it? Is this really tantamount to stealing a CD off the shelves? Copyright laws are valid whether online or offline, and it is clear that these are infringed upon through file sharing.

File sharing is spread across all countries of the world. The RIAA has proceeded with lawsuits against thousands of "pirates", but it seems largely unlikely that everyone who engages in file sharing will be brought before the courts. The music industry has been provided with increased leverage through a Supreme Court ruling in June 2005, which found that distributors of popular software for sharing of music and videos online can be held responsible for theft if they encourage or induce their users to illegally swap copyrighted works.

What the music industry needs to do though is to re-innovate itself and become adaptable to this new and changing environment. As Kaleb Kain of Warez.com states, the software industry has adapted, offering, “full demos and discounted upgrades”. The music industry needs to also be innovative, and find ways of offering the consumer more than can be available online.

Kevon Campbell is an idiot and a shill.

"“There's no minimizing the impact of illegal file-sharing. It robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, and it ultimately undermines the future of music itself, not to mention threatening the jobs of tens of thousands” (Cary Sherman, Recording Industry Association of America President, USA Today, 18 September 2003).
"

The only people robbing songwriters and artists are the RIAA.

Music has, does, and will always have a future. Just not the one the greedy scumbags in the RIAA want. Music has done just fine before draconian copyright laws and will do just fine after.

“There's no minimizing the impact of illegal file-sharing."
The RIAA minimized the impact yesterday saying it is second to CD burning. So take your own words and eat them.

"Surely this has to impact on the above industries, as this must mean at least three million less items being sold."

Why? Because you are so delusional to think that because they downloaded it that they would have paid for it? Maybe, and most likely, the downloaded song was CRAP. Pull your head out of your ass already.

"and most importantly the musicians, songwriters and producers who would fail to receive royalty payments through file sharing. "

They already fail to receive royalty payments under the current system either through creative accounting, outright fraud
by the RIAA or the ever popular " we couldn't find them" excuse.

"After all, it is these mindless thieves who are causing the industry billions of dollars, and who are emptying the pockets of hardworking music industry personnel."

We may well be 'causing' billions in free marketing but that's not our intent. I intend to empty the coke bags and BMW laden diveways of useless, clueless, nonworking, predatory, obscenely overpaid
music industry execs and lawyers. The artists will be fine, the middlemen will suffer.

"The music industry has been provided with increased leverage through a Supreme Court ruling in June 2005, which found that distributors of popular software for sharing of music and videos online can be held responsible for theft if they encourage or induce their users to illegally swap copyrighted works."

The Supreme Court Ruling in June 2005 found no such thing. The word theft is never even mentioned.

Kevon Campbell, a threat to journalistic credibility?

"There's no minimizing the impact of illegal file-sharing. It robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, and it ultimately undermines the future of music itself, not to mention threatening the jobs of tens of thousands” (Cary Sherman, Recording Industry Association of America President, USA Today, 18 September 2003).
"

Bullshit.

The only reason the livelyhood is threatened in the first place is because they are too laxy, and stubborn to deal with any challenges that change technological aspects of music.

As for it undermining the future of music - again, pure bullshit. The digital age makes the creation and distribution of music easier, and those who can master the waves will succeed, while the others, three guess who is the first of the group, will drown out.

*lazy, not laxy. I really have to be more careful.

Oh and,
" After all, it is these mindless thieves who are causing the industry billions of dollars, and who are emptying the pockets of hardworking music industry personnel."


More RIAA lies and bullshit - or sarcastic comments?

Kinda reminds me of the time they were saying Home Taping Is Killing Music

Good ole RIAA Cowpie retoric

Wow.. you guys need to read TFA...

This guy's article puts into question the industry party line.

Rather than attack the author you should laud him.

The RIAA should create it's own free legal file sharing network for independent artists.

The RIAA should create the pathway for more innovations.

And, they need to STOP this madness by creating restrictive measures by releasing copy protected CDs that only gives you crappy WMAs, DRM that restricts use of downloaded content "except for putting those on illicit sites and giving copies in full to a friend".

What they instead need to do, is to set up legal file-sharing sites, where every file shared gives a small fee to the artists, greatly loosen up the locks on the copy protection, and take advantage of the technologies.

And as far as the MPAA goes, please strip those pesky unskippale adds off, and let the consumers make some copies. It's time for you to take advantage of the tech and perhaps it could very more help than hurt you.

Gee, JDonahue... Are you saying that you are AGAINST DRM? Are you saying that you believe that artists should be compensated? Are you saying that if you buy a cd or a dvd, then you own it and should be able to copy it and skip what you don't want to hear or watch? Then I agree with you for once.

Why would the RIAA create anything for independent artists? They want you to listen exclusively to their very dependent artists.

As far as the article is concerned, I agree with awehr. The other posters should read a little more carefully... The writer was merely quoting the RIAA from 2003 in his opening paragraph and questioning the lawsuits against filesharers and the so-called damage that's being done to the music industry by filesharers.

They only read the first few lines. Twits!

This article is JUST what we have all been saying all along. There is no concrete porrf that filesharing harms copyright holders.

proof even.

awehr ,

Sorry, I was just way too over-tired and arsed at thte time to read it, especially since I was up until 3AM for the past few nights, and the tiredness was really getting to me.

Yes, please actually read to the end. He is being sarcastic at the beginning.

"On the Kazaa Network, there are approximately three million users on at any given time. Surely this has to impact on the above industries, as this must mean at least three million less items being sold."

How many people are listening to Clear Channel? They must all be lost sales, too, if one accepts this logic (which the author does not).

There was never any proof that file sharing has had an economic effect on the industry any different than radio. The only "proof" they have of their new/old claim that CD-Rs are the problem is only based on how many people buy. It arrogantly assumes they are all being used to copy RIAA music when, in fact, data backups for business and consumers probably consume most of them.

It's all lies from the RIAA. Always has been; always will be.

Yeah, but they sure know how to spin it, don't they?

It seems to be a fairly balanced article to me.

this whole "waaah, downloading music is killing us" bullshit is just that. How in the world is this any different than back in the pre- CD days when we recorded songs from the radio and had our friends record songs for us?

The RIAA and it's members are a bunch of greedy bastards that only care about every penny they can squeeze out of consumers. Fuck them. Did I ask for those jerks to stop making cassettes and force feed me CD's? NO!!!

If the RIAA wants an explaination as to why music sales are falling, maybe it's because it's the trash they are shoveling out in front of us! Why not put good musicians and singers out there instead of all these twits like Jessica Simpson, and the disgusting rap music that glorifies violence and demeans women?


Look in the mirror RIAA, you have yourselves to blame for this mess!

I read TFA.
It's still 90% spew.
Campbell is a shill, period.

Only his last paragraph :"What the music industry needs to do though is to re-innovate itself and become adaptable to this new and changing environment. As Kaleb Kain of Warez.com states, the software industry has adapted, offering, “full demos and discounted upgrades”. The music industry needs to also be innovative, and find ways of offering the consumer more than can be available online."

makes any sense.

Before the software industry adapted, it tried very hard to prevent copying. That only prompted an arms race, where protection systems were invented and broken constantly. History repeats itsself.

One of the few unbreakable copy-prevention systems I have seen is that which is used by many online games - a serial number authenticated by a central server. In most cases, this is effective in preventing those without legal copies playing online (not completly effective - but it can take many hours to locate a cracked server, leaving little time for actual gaming). However, it is still ineffective against those who only want single-player functionality.

Its amazing how people are attacking the author for obviously supporting their own viewpoints.

“There's no minimizing the impact of illegal file-sharing. It robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, and it ultimately undermines the future of music itself, not to mention threatening the jobs of tens of thousands” (Cary Sherman, Recording Industry Association of America President, USA Today, 18 September 2003).

His opening paragraph, whihc is obviously the only thing most people read is a statement made by the RIAA president, which the authour makes fun of later on with obviously sarcastic comments :

After all, it is these mindless thieves who are causing the industry billions of dollars, and who are emptying the pockets of hardworking music industry personnel.

The authour further goes on to attack the premise that most RIAA arguments stem from by presenting research findings which show that filesharing does not impact on sales and he further states that :

file sharing merely impacts on the consumption of the music, opening up the music to persons who otherwise would not be able to access it. After all, it may be argued that the majority of file-sharers would possibly not have bought the music anyway. Additionally, new ears may be brought to the music, increasing a fan base and concert sales

HIs fial paragraph attacks the industry itself and calls for it to reinnovate itself to keep up with this changing world :

What the music industry needs to do though is to re-innovate itself and become adaptable to this new and changing environment. As Kaleb Kain of Warez.com states, the software industry has adapted, offering, “full demos and discounted upgrades”. The music industry needs to also be innovative, and find ways of offering the consumer more than can be available online.

This article is obviously supportive of filesharing and attacks the basic premises on which the RIAA presents its arguments.