There's nothing wrong with sharing files

Editorial
By Dale Wilsey
The Keystone
serving Kutztown University since 1932; Online since 1998.


The downloading of mp3s is looked at as the eighth deadly sin. Ever since Lars Ulrich of Metallica spoke out against Napster, the original peer-to-peer network, mp3 downloading has been harshly criticized. I often wonder what is so wrong about it and I always seem to get the same answers. It takes away money from the artist. It hurts the artists and music as a whole. It is not right because you're not supporting the people who make the music. Personally, as a musician and a lover of all musical genres, I do not believe any of this.

Many people claim that downloading mp3s takes away money from the artist because of decreased album sales. The truth is that the artists who make the music see only a fraction of the money made by album sales, and that's only after a record company collects "recoupment." Recoupment is the amount of money a band must pay back to a record company for producing and marketing their album. That happens before the band sees a dime of revenue.

On average, artists make about $1, out of the $16 that they charge for it. If an album costs $250,000 to produce, print, distribute and market, the artist must sell a quarter of a million records before they break even. Not many bands sell a quarter of a million albums. Unless their record is going platinum and they have a major label behind them like Sony, chances are they're not in the Top 100 sales chart.

File sharing doesn't harm musicians the way some believe. Musicians get most of their support by touring and merchandise sales. Musicians also receive support from their fans just by word of mouth. With the Internet, someone can introduce a friend across the country to a local band in his area by sharing an mp3. People used to make mix tapes and trade them to introduce friends to new sounds. This, by the way, is how anti-piracy advocates Metallica reached their popularity in the Bay Area thrash metal scene. If it was not for their fans trading bootleg copies of their demo No Life Till Leather, Metallica would have been another obscure band in metal history. Ironic. All this reminds me of the hardcore punk pioneer and owner of the independent Dischord Records, Ian MacKaye.

In an interview with DownhillBattle.org, MacKaye made a comment about musicians wrapped up in how much money they are making, or, for some, not making.

"If people lose their incentive to make music because they're not making money, they're not musicians. They're business people. Musicians don't have a choice in the matter, you gotta make music. There's no choice," said MacKaye. I could not agree more.

Downloading mp3s does not hurt music, unless of course, that is all you are doing. The Internet can be a virtual mega-library of music. File sharing can be a good thing. I know that when I hear something new and enjoyable, I immediately research it. I show my friends, I go out and I buy the album or the band's T-shirt. I even try to find a venue to see the band. I can't count the number of bands I have seen simply because I downloaded their mp3.

Still, I'm left to wonder whether downloading music online is good or bad. If all you do is download the songs to bypass purchasing the album, then you're in the wrong. But, file sharing isn't evil. It helps musicians get noticed and it allows many to share in someone else's talents.

There is nothing more important in my life than music. To hear an obscure metal band from Scandinavia, a hardcore punk band from Russia or Brazil or a southern rock band from Georgia that never leaves the state, is amazing to me. As a musician, there is nothing that would make me happier then for someone somewhere to hear my music whether or not he paid for it.

Dale Wilsey is a junior English/Professional Writing major and Treasurer of KUR.

"Downloading music files is wrong" is the BIG LIE that the RIAA has propagated incessantly. To a large extent, it has worked. Most people believe it, and the recent copyright laws reflect that point of view.

The reality is that music sharing is FREE ADVERTISING for artists and most benefit from it. I would never have heard of many recent artists if it weren't for sharing of music files (whether P2P or from friends). As the article points out, most artists make little or no money from music sales anyway. Free advertising by file-sharing is their ally. It gets them known and brings people to their performances. Talented artists who grow their careers slowly, creating a buzz by performing, word-of-mouth and, yes, file-sharing, can build real careers, independent of the whims of the record labels. It's only mediocre artists who need the promotion machines of the big labels.

The huge variety of music sitting on millions of hard drives all over the world represents a vast repository of musical history and culture. File sharing may enable much of this music to survive which would otherwise be lost.

The recording industry is a dying, old-economy business, along with movie theatres, cable TV, and newspapers. The RIAA is trying to sustain an obsolete business model and will do anything they can - get legislation passed that destroys fair use rights, sue customers and businesses, over-charge for products and cheat artists, hobble new technology with hard-wired DRM, limit customer choice and freedom - to prop up their industry. It isn't working. Music sales continue to decline and many savvy young artists are seeking to bypass the labels and go indie. Expect this trend to continue.

Another thing...copyright law isn't about morality. It is utilitarian. It is meant to balance the needs of the artist with the best interests of society. Copyright law was always intended apply for a very limited term, to give incentive for artists to create, so that society would benefit as much as possible from the free availability of creative works. Copyright has shifted dramatically in favor of the copyright holder in recent decades and that is to the detriment to society. Why aren't the works of deceased artists of, say, the 40s, 50s and 60s free? Why should their children receive royalties? This is not for "the good of society".

If you like an artist do the folowing:

Download their stuff and make a donation to them.

Give Zip to their label if they are RIAA member (save of course for the Lavigne label because they took upon themselves to defend one of their customer)

Support the good guys!

"If it was not for their fans trading bootleg copies of their demo "No Life Till Leather", Metallica would have been another obscure band in metal history."

Hypocritical Lars (and the rest of the gang) still would have made a living somehow, anyway.

Filesharing definitely helps the small label/indie bands by giving them more exposure. For the big famous super-rich bands, file-sharing is a mixed bag, most likely they suffer on balance.

The RIAA affiliates can argue correctly that if they don't sell enough albums due to everybody file-sharing, they will not have as much money to promote bands via giving lots of money to radio promoters to keep RIAA material predominant on the radio. But of course this is a broken system; what we have now (and have had for a long time now) is a situation whereby payola does indeed exist - but you have to be super-rich (i.e. a major label) in order to be in the game.

Who listens to terrestrial radio anymore (except possibly for talk radio)? It's mostly mainstream crap.

I highly respect Dale Wisley... he has the same exact views as I (and most underground supporters) do.