File-sharing not a threat to musicians and artists File-sharing not a threat to musicians and artists [font=verdana, arial, geneva, sans-serif][size=-2]ITworld.com, Ecommerce in Action 12/08/04[/size][/font] [font=verdana, arial, geneva, sans-serif][size=-2]James Lewin, ITworld.com [/size][/font][font=verdana, arial, geneva, sans-serif][size=-1] Internet file sharing has been one of the hottest-burning controversies for years. A new survey of musicians and artists promises to throw gas on the fire. [/size][/font]The report, "Artists, Musicians and the Internet," is the first large-scale survey of artists and musicians about the Internet's impact. Its findings contrast with the information that has come from the RIAA and other industry sources. Two-thirds of the musicians surveyed said that file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all. In fact, artists and musicians are more likely to say that the Internet has helped them make more money than they are to say it has hurt them. Most musicians and artists that download music think that downloads have either increased or had no effect on the amount of money that they spend on music. Highlights of the report: American artists have embraced the Internet as a creative and workspace, where they can communicate, collaborate, and promote their work. Many artists say the Internet has been a boon to their marketing efforts. The Internet helps artists network with other artists, communicate with their fans, and stay in touch with friends when they are on the road. Artists are not deeply concerned about the file sharing that happens online. They want control over their creations, but don't consider Internet piracy a big threat. Artists are split about what constitutes fair use of digital material. Online artists are also active consumers of media content online. But those who download files say if they get content for free, they usually support the artist or author in other ways. No Wild-West Attitude While artists and musicians have embraced the Net, they don't buy into the "Information wants to be free" attitude of some Web users. The Pew report found that musicians and artists think that unauthorized online file sharing is wrong and that current copyright laws are appropriate. There are some major divisions, though, about what constitutes appropriate copying and sharing of digital files. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Artists, Musicians and the Internet [font=verdana, arial, geneva, sans-serif][size=-2]James Lewin is a system engineer and Web analyst. He has worked in digital publishing since 1987, and with the Internet since 1995. His articles have appeared in a variety of offline and online publications including IBM DeveloperWorks. Reach him at: lewingroup.com, or via his web site at: <A href="http://www.lewingroup.com/">Lewin Group< /a>. Find his most recent ITworld.com articles here. [/size][/font]
The internet is a great tool for up and coming artists to get their music heard and establish a solid fan-base, and even get record deals. The major record companies seem to be the people who are complaining the most, because they are obviously the most effected. They make their money off of a band's album sales. Bands are losing a bit of money from illegal file sharing, but can still make money on tour. But filesharing overall can negatively effect the industry because major record companies aren't making as much money as they want to be, so they are ditching their less valuable artists, forcing the artists to either go back to the underground (which is better, IMHO), or struggle to find a new major label. So the best path for a band to take would be to get themselves established in the underground, get signed and release an album (on a one album contract), go on tour, and then build a studio in someone's basement and fund and record all their future albums themselves and sell them to the highest bidding record company instead of having to deal with the legal bindings of a long term contract. That's my plan, anyway.
I could have told them that. A few years back (shortly after Napster was shutdown) my brother was constantly downloading music from various bands, many he had never heard of before. If he downloaded a song from a band he liked he would buy their CD(s). Now he has a small collection.
My main argument for freeing up file-sharing relates to the work ethic of musicians. The less well known artists, who are nevertheless as talented, if not more so, than the mega stars are busy building their careers thru the hard work of live performances. Their sales of albums and royalties on airplay are an insignificant part of their income and that has always been true. Large income only comes to a few artists and even fewer get to enjoy long term super-wealth off the back of a catalogue of recorded work. The question is really whether it is morally right for an artist like, say, Ozzy Osborne, to make millions from his MTV fly-on-the-wall series and then more millions on top from the boost in sales and (iTunes/Napster/etc.) downloads of work that he did decades ago? If I was going to pay a buck for 5 minutes of music I'd rather pay it to a fresh talent who had just sweated it out in the last few weeks than into the bank account of a fat-cat has-been who used to work hard for the money but now he/she/they don't have to he/she/they can't be bothered. And when they can be bothered to get out of bed, other than to appear at a C list party or on a chat show, they book a football stadium so they don't actually have to perform every single day ... and guess who pays for the private airplane to fly them home to St. Moritz or Aspen or wherever between gigs? Sorry ... rant. Raw nerve.
