First atempt it is not what I expected could do with alot of improvements which I will talk about in my evaluation.
The filesharing debate that's been raging for close to a
decade often tends to deal in absolutes from both sides: "filesharing is
killing the music industry", "filesharing is good for artists",
"filesharing is bad for record labels, but good for artists" (which
turns into "record labels are evil" or "record labels are
necessary for artists"), "filesharing is inevitable so get used to
it", "filesharing should and can be eradicated". The reality, of
course, is a lot more complicated.
The latest people to weigh into the debate are U2's manager,
Paul McGuinness, and Philly Byrne, the frontman of Irish thrashers Gama Bomb.
McGuinness wrote a piece called How to Save the Music Industry in the August
issue of GQ, saying that demand for music to be free is unsustainable. He acknowledges
that it's not as big a problem for his band as it is for others, but
"indigenous music industries from Spain to Brazil are collapsing".
While stating his opposition to lawsuits against filesharers (a tactic record
labels are now largely moving away from), he endorses the gradual response
initiative set out in the recent Digital Economy Act, which also suggests the
music industry develops partnerships with ISPs for music subscription offers.
In an open letter to McGuinness, Byrne calls the manager's
article "well-reasoned, well-informed and commendable in its aims – though
it's crazily short-sighted".
Byrne's main argument is that it's impossible to police the
internet, hence fighting filesharing is futile and artists will have to rethink
how to profit from it. "Endorsing the idea of free content is the route to
profit, creating a 'goodwill' industry," writes the singer. "Usenet
groups currently charge users around £18 per month to download unlimited
material. This is the best model for the future, with corporate tie-ins and
advertising monetising the interactive space in which people will swap
material." Which, I guess, means that he agrees with McGuinness, to a
certain extent (though McGuinness does not believe ad-funding is a valid solution).
In an effort to put their proverbial money where their mouth
is, Gama Bomb released their album Tales from the Grave in Space as a free
download via Rapidshare in November 2009, with the blessing of their record
label, Earache. Their aims, they say, were to increase their fanbase and
promote their CD, which was officially released in January 2010, as well as
concert ticket sales. They also hoped the exercise would give the album some
media attention.
So has this experiment worked? The album has sold almost
exactly the same number (7,653) of CDs to date as their previous album, Citizen
Brain (7,665). "Not a spectacular result, but an interesting one,"
says Byrne.
"We expected a big increase," says Digby Pearson,
founder of Earache. "Didn't happen. Our reading of the situation is the
free album – downloaded over 40,000 times – undoubtedly helped the band's
'profile' with casual fans."
It appears US fans were less open to part with their cash
than European fans, as sales in the US were down 36% compared to the previous
album, while European sales were up 26% – a gain the label attributes to the
"overall cheap price of a CD". "Overall the sales, while decent,
are also nothing spectacular, compared to similar bands in the new thrash
scene, some of which sell 35,000-plus," says Pearson. "I don't think
the experiment of sharing a free album on the internet has been the runaway
success it promised to be, but I'm glad we tried it."
Here we see a perfect illustration for my view on the
subject: creators should be allowed to choose what happens with their music,
and if the artist has decided to sign a deal with a label, getting investment
in return for the copyright ownership, then it should be the choice of the
copyright owner. If they want to use a Creative Commons licence, for example,
then that is their choice. If they don't want their music to be given away for
free, that should also be respected. It's important to distinguish illegal
downloading from filesharing.
It's also worth noting that what may work in the thrash
metal scene may not work for artists in other genres, as live shows and
merchandising are a big part of metal culture. The bands also tend to write
their own music, so there is no question of compensating songwriters who can
only make money from the actual song, and don't share any ancillary income.
However, there's usually a producer who needs to get paid for their work. As
producers traditionally get an upfront fee, plus royalties from the record,
this would mean that the upfront fee should be higher if the album is given
away for free (though, according to the producers I've spoken to, the upfront
fees have gone down considerably in the last five years).
Is there any right answer in the filesharing debate? And
what's in it for the record label? "We've got a 360-degree deal with the
band," says Pearson. "We share in the income from records, publishing
and merchandise – but not live income. So it's probably more like a 270-degree
deal. But this is basically why this label can spend money on making an album
to give away ..."
In fact in 2008 over 50% of music downloaded were illegal,
which is a coincidence that at that year lily Allen was at her peak of her
career.
In year 2000 the world famous music download company napster
was shut down and fined $85million for allowing illegal downloads.
Napster allows users
to download software which allows them to access MP3 files on each others' hard
drives.
In this year alone 2012 so far 95% of music downloaded was
illegal. Trying to stop file sharing is pointless because so many people are
doing it. It has now become the primary source of music downloading. It is
quick easy and fun. In recent facts it states that people who download music
legally are disappointed which the songs and wish they could get a refund. It
is also states that more than 60% of people who illegally download music are
more likely to buy tickets to concerts. ‘ibiza concerts’