Music
piracy was once devastating to the industry’s record sales due to the
convenience and simplicity of peer-to-peer file-sharing. In the early 2000s, Napster and Limewire
enabled Internet users to illegally download and distribute as many files as
they wanted in mere seconds. These
file-sharing services were responsible for massive amounts of music being
instantly and illegally distributed to computers across the world. Big wigs in the music industry claim that
piracy has been severely detrimental to the industry since then.
The
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), an organization
representing 1300 record companies, says that 26 percent of all Internet users
continue to access unlawful file-sharing sites.
The IFPI boasts “Promoting the value of recorded music, campaigning for
the rights of record producers, and expanding the commercial uses of recording
music,” (ifpi.org). The Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) and The Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA) estimate that piracy has taken $58 billion from the economy, but Rob
Reid of TED.com is highly critical of their justification of the value of
stolen property (Van Camp). He says that
Congress threatens to impose a $150,000 maximum fine to anyone who purposely
pirates a single song, a fine that comes from the Digital Theft Deterrence and
Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 (Reid). Reid says, “This number is grotesquely
divorced from the actual damages and harm caused by a single instance of piracy. As such, it represents a naked perversion of
“the Law”—turning it from a source of justice into a bludgeon for a powerful
and cynical lobby,” a reference to the few corporations that hold the majority
of power in the music industry (Reid).
According
to an article on Business Insider, “The music industry isn’t quite dead—it’s
merely completely unrecognizable from what it once was.” What does this mean? Basically, actual music sales account for much
less revenue for record companies than they did just over a decade ago. In fact, in 2000, record sales accounted for
60% of the industry’s overall revenue, as compared to only 36% in 2013 (Wile). Though record sales were down due to piracy,
there has been a recent increase for various other revenue streams including
concerts, merchandise, and streaming services.
Sites like Pandora and Spotify represent a portion of the alternate
revenue streams that have gained popularity in recent years.
An
article on Time.com by Victor Luckerson says, “According
to the IFPI report, there are currently about 20 million paying subscribers to
music streaming services worldwide, and the dollars they generate account for
about 10% of all digital music revenue,” which makes it clear that streaming
services are a large part of the music industry’s recent recovery. So, yes, record sales have gone down
significantly since Napster and Limewire, but are peer-to-peer sharing services
on a downward spiral? I would argue in favor of this claim. It does seem that people are less likely to
want to own songs nowadays, and instead enjoy the convenience and variety they
get with streaming.
Why, then, are record companies making such an enormous issue
out of a problem that is going away almost by itself due to the growing
popularity of streaming? In reality, the
actual artists are the ones missing out on profits, and they are the ones
making a big deal out of it. According
to Time.com, the New York Times says, “While artists earn between 7 and 10
cents for a song downloaded on iTunes, a Spotify stream is worth only a
fraction of a penny,” (Luckerson). One artist concerned about future losses is
Jay Z, also known as Shawn Carter. While
he may have his disdain for illegal downloading, the rapper turned executive
isn’t going to sit around and wait to see what the future holds for the music
business. He recently placed a $56.2
billion bid on a streaming company called Aspiro. Carter sees the value in the market with the
popularity of Spotify, Pandora, and even Apple’s new streaming service acquired
through their purchase of Beats by Dre (Sanders). The Journal of Media Economics published a
study on the economic effects of piracy and discovered that through ancillary
revenue streams, piracy can actually have a positive effect on the music industry
overall. The study says, “Our model
explores an alternative mechanism:
Should a new contractual arrangement be implemented, piracy could prove
to be profit-enhancing for record companies.
That new arrangement consists in sharing all music revenues between
artists and record companies,” (Curien).
The streaming market, which went up 42 percent from 2013 to 2014,
continues to grow while record sales continue to drop. Download sales for albums went down 15
percent, and single songs went down 13 percent in that same time frame
(Knopper). It will be interesting to see
how the market plays out for artists and record companies alike, and I predict
that the streaming market will take off in the next few years as companies like
Spotify and Rhapsody adapt to the ever-changing technological landscape in
today’s society.
Works Cited
Curien, Nicholas; Francois Moreau. “The Music Industry in the Digital Era: Toward
New Contracts. Journal of Media Economics. 1 April 2009.
21 Mar. 2015.
IFPI. International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.ifpi.org>.
Knopper,
Steve. “Streaming is King as Downloads
Fade Away.” Rolling Stone. 7 July
2014.
22 Mar. 2015.
Luckerson,
Victor. "Revenue Up, Piracy Down: Has the Music Industry Finally Turned a
Corner?" Time. 28 Feb. 2013.
Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
<http://business.time.com/2013/02/28/revenue-up-piracy-down-has-the-music-industry-finally-turned-a-corner/>.
RIAA.
Recording Industry Association of
America. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://riaa.com/>.
"The
Recording Industry's Ability to Develop the Digital Marketplace Is Undermined
By piracy." International
Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.ifpi.org/music-piracy.php>.
Sanders,
Sam. "Jay Z Close To Entering Streaming Music Business." NPR. 2
Feb.
2015. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/02/383362928/jay-z-close-to-entering-streaming-music-business>.
Van
Camp, Jeffrey. "Viral Video: TED Talk Debunks the $58 Billion Cost of
Piracy."
Digital Trends. 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/viral-video-funny-ted-talk-debunks-the-58-billion-cost-of-piracy/>.
Wile,
Rob. "There's Probably Never Been A Worse Time To Be A Musician In
America." Business Insider. 29
June 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/music-industry-revenues-chart-2014-6>.
For as long as I can remember, songs have always been illegally downloaded or streamed via different services. I agree with Mike in the idea that people enjoy the convenience and variety they get with streaming. People love the easy access of Pandora, Spotify, YouTube etc. since it enables users to listen to any type of music they want for free. I mean, what’s better than that? Its good for users but for artists, it still does not help the fact that people are still stealing their work.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a Rolling Stone article, Streaming Is King as Downloads Fade Away, “YouTube, Spotify, Rdio, Rhapsody and other music-streaming services are booming like never before, according to new mid-year numbers released by Nielsen Soundscan.” Although album downloads have dropped, streams have only increased. For example, I love the easy access of YouTube when I’m home hanging out and Pandora when I’m at the gym. These different services are great for many different activities and they never get boring. Music never repeats itself and there is a ton of option. These streaming services are helping the industry but do not change the fact people still pirate music.
I disagree with Mike when he mentions that people are less likely to own songs nowadays. I think there are still people who love having their own music on their iPhones and computers. At least I know all my friends and I still do. People enjoy constantly updating iTunes with new music. Although still, downloaded music is not done properly. Pirating music is very easy and there have not been any consequences to downloaders. The only consequence illegal downloads have affects the music industry and the artists. It’s up to them to come up with a solution or it will never end.
Taylor Swift was an absolute genius when she released her recent album ‘1989’. According to a Rolling Stone article, Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From Spotify, “Taylor Swift has never been the most enthusiastic supporter of free music — earlier this year, she wrote: "Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for." Just like other types of media such as film and TV, music is intellectual property and should be treated equal to physical property. Taylor Swift was smart when she didn’t allow her new songs on any streaming service. I believe that is why people actually purchased her album. No one could find her music anywhere else so it was definitely worth the money. If Swift allowed her music on different streaming websites, not that many people would have bought her album. Because than, it would be easy to download and listen to for free. More musicians should look into what Swift did because it was an absolute success.
Free music is only good for one type of artist and that is new artists. Illegally downloaded music hurts well-known artists from a monetary aspect but for new and upcoming artists, it helps bring publicity. When stuff is free, people are more willing to listen and it is a great way for new artists to get discovered. But apart from that, people need to stop illegally downloading music. It is just as bad as stealing a car. Artists could be making a lot more money if people would just buy their work instead of stealing it.
Knopper, Steve. "Streaming Is King as Downloads Fade Away."
Rolling Stone. 7 July 2014. Web.
Knopper, Steve. "Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From
Spotify." Rolling Stone. 3 Nov. 2014. Web.
Like the film industry, the music industry is also suffering when it comes to illegal downloading and online streaming. Yes, iTunes does make it convenient in a way that you can purchase a song or album and instantly have it on your phone or laptop, but on the other hand, why purchase a song for $1.99, or an album for $14 on iTunes, when you can just stream it or convert a YouTube video into an Mp3. As Mike mentioned in his blog, in 2000, 60% of revenue for artists came from record sales, and most recently it is now down to 36%.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Swift was one artist, who wouldn’t stand for illegal downloading and streaming, and in November 2014, she pulled all of her music off of Spotify, and even had most of the audio removed from her songs on YouTube. According to the article written by Steve Knopper, Taylor Swift said, "Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for." Honestly, this just made me dislike Taylor Swift so much more. Yes, some of songs are catchy, and some people may believe that this was a good way for fans to actually purchase her album, but I can honestly say that I have illegally downloaded all of them because I really do not think that they were worth paying for. But now, it is just annoying because if I want to hear a song from her new album, I have to purchase it, and to be honest, I’d rather put the $14 for the album towards something else. For the record, the only albums that I would ever consider buying (and I actually have bought) are Beyonce and Cher.
But nowadays, I feel as if less and less people are illegally downloading, and are turning to streaming stations such as Pandora and Spotify. According to Knopper, “Video and audio streams jumped from 50 billion in the first half of 2013 to 70 billion this year.” I think it’s more convenient to use streaming services like Pandora. I know for me, when I have to take a long drive, I just put on Todays Hits or 80s Pop and I will be set for the whole ride home because it is playing specific songs that I enjoy. It also gives people the chance to discover artists or songs that they never heard before.
To be honest, I think artists, specifically Taylor Swift, are overreacting just a tad. So what if people are streaming or illegally downloading your songs, musicians make most of their money through other factors, including concerts and merchandise.
Works Cited
Knopper, Steve. "Streaming Is King as Downloads Fade Away."
Rolling Stone. 7 July 2014. Web.
Knopper, Steve. "Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From
Spotify." Rolling Stone. 3 Nov. 2014. Web.
From discussing the issue of piracy in the music industry in many of my classes I came to the realization that I subconsciously believe that music should be free. I mean no harm to the artist and or producers and makers of the music but because of the multiple different platforms that I can access free music, why should I pay for it? There are music Apps such as Spotify and Pandora that can provide me music essential whenever I want, assuming I have Internet connection and a computer- two essential to daily living these days. As Garrett Kamps points out in How Mobile Finally Took Over the Music Industry in 2014, “streaming has brought fans access to any song, any time, anywhere” (Kamps). Through the advancement in technology, the internet, and different music applications music has become essential become a free for all for.
ReplyDeleteThe way I view ownership of a song or album is possibly the same way many kids from my generation view it as well. Because we grew up in an age of Limewire, YoutubetoMP3, YouTube, Spotify and Pandora where we did not need to go out to buy an album in order to hear the newest songs from Taylor Swift or Jonas Brothers we feel that it is our right to have these songs without paying for it. Music has always been there for us to have access to. We might have to search for it, wait for it to download and or sit through a few advertisements to get to listen to the song we want but none the less we still have access to it. We feel entitled to ownership of a song or album without having to pay for it because it is always accessible to us for free so the idea of paying for a song that we might or might not still listen to in a few weeks does not make any sense.
Because of this mindset and the sense of entitlement, artists now must find new ways to gain revenue from their music. But as Mike points out in his blog, artists were only making pennies from their songs. It is the record companies that were truly profiting from the song sales, so maybe this sense of entitlement from the consumers are in a sense benefiting artists and stopping the record companies from robbing the artists. Nonetheless, the artists and record companies do need to adjust to stay on top of this new streaming culture where less and less people are going out and buy songs and albums.
An example of great usage of social media and adjustment to new technology is Taylor Swift and her release of 1986. In the days leading up to her album release, Swift used Instagram to tease her fans with new lyrics and song titles. This created even greater anticipation but possibly the biggest buzz was her decision to pull her music from Spotify. 1986 sold more than 1 million copies within its first week. Steve Knoppen argues that Swift’s decision to pull the album did not contribute to the album’s success but I disagree. Fans had no other way to access her new album within that first week so they were forced to go out and buy the album. I’m not saying that this move will work for other artist but it definitely is a great push to forcing people to have to buy they album. If it is less accessible on other platforms people will be force to buy music.
Works Cited
Kamos, Garrett. “How Mobile Finally Took Over the Music Industry in 2014.” Billboard. 16 Dec. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.
Knoppen, Steve. “Taylor Swift Abruptly Pulls Entire Catalog From Spotify.” Rolling Stone. 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.