AUSTRALIAN record companies will not follow US leads and sue music file sharers.
The Recording Industry Association of America took court action against 261 Internet music file sharers yesterday. It also announced an amnesty program for file sharers to confess to sharing music illegally.
Late yesterday, the Australian Recording Industry Association said it would not follow suit.
That decision comes amid research figures that say 3.4 million Australians illegally downloaded music in a recent six month period. Last year, music sales fell by 8.9 per cent, from $629 million to $573 million.
ARIA's anti-piracy unit's Michael Speck said its web surveillance program was adequate enforcement. ARIA has worked with Internet service providers since 1997 on copyright.
"We have been successful in identifying targets and dealing with them one way or another," Mr Speck said.
"We rarely find an Internet infringer who wants to argue the point. There is no grand philosophical debate about their right to be around.
"The minute we identify them, they disappear."
Mr Speck said the RIAA's actions "should not be seen as controversial in the least".
Let's face the reality of the situation here. Regardless of if you believe file sharing is a good or bad thing, there is no way now that it can be stopped unless (and this does sound dramatically drastic) they were to actually dismantle the internet. Like all great situations, both sides actually have strong cases. On one hand, we have the peer-to-peer (from here on known as p2p) users who are taking money away from the artists and the record companies, creating job loss and huge debt. On the other hand, we have the money hungry and egotistical record companies who believe that, because of their size and might, can't be taken out by the slingshot armed p2p users. Thanks Goliath!
When Napster first arrived on the scene many years ago, it was literally a revolution in music. For the first time ever, many people could access music that they had a passing interest in, or that had long been deleted. As a result of this, there was actually an increase in music sales during the first year, as people became fans of newer and more diverse music, and continued to feel that a file on a hard drive wasn't really a 'real' thing. Additionally, for the music collector, it created a utopia where rarities, white label mixes and live recordings were merely a few key punches away. Even to this day, mp3 is the most searched term on the net, even more than sex, and certainly much more that www.lol73.blogspot.com...
It was at this point in time that the record companies in the US should've worked in with Napster. Napster was insanely popular. It had a massive user base. If a record company had come in and remoulded this working distribution model, it would've been the breakthrough that both modern technology and the music industry needed in bedding their relationship. Instead, the US record companies raised their pig headed arrogance and demanded the death of Napster. Not happy until Napster's head was brought to it on a plate, they slaughted Napster without thinking about the possible ramifications that could occur. Sure, they may have killed Napster but it was a very empty victory, as the reality of the situation proved to sway far more in favour of the p2p users.
Almost immediately, alternate p2p programs popped up to replace Napster, from Audio Galaxy to Soul Seek to KaZaa to Morpheous to Win MX... And as they had scattered like a sworn of bees when the Napster hive was shattered, it was harder to try to stop one entity when there were several that were constantly growing out of nowhere. No matter what action the RIAA take, it still will not kill the p2p movement. It may drive it a little more underground, but for each step forward they take, it is only a matter of weeks before creative and innovative programmers take it five steps forward for their cause. Additionally, it could be argued that their hardcore tactics in trying to cease p2p file trading could only lead to a stronger resentment towards the RIAA, which is perhaps something that they would need to address.
Now, don't get my rants and observations wrong here. I'm certainly not trying to speak for or against the act of p2p trading. However, as an observer, I can recognize the pros and cons to both sides. The situation does need to be addressed. While people my age and slightly younger will probably always prefer a hard copy arted finished product of our favourite music, we are breeding a generation of kids who not only will be happy with a file on a hard drive, but who will honestly believe without moral objection, that music should be free. Of course, if you were to draw an analogy between them working for free and artist working for free, they'll throw their hands up in disgust stating that it is an entirely different situation, and of course most already resort to blaming 'greedy record companies' as an apparent valid reason to commit this act.
However, we also have to look at the attitude and actions of the music industry, who are entirely behind the eight ball with modern technology and have been resistent in addressing the situation for the longest time, mostly, one would suspect, from a lack of truly understanding it. It was only a few years back where if anyone working in the music industry dared suggested that there was some merit to p2p programmes, they were labelled a rebel (you're reading the writing of one for a start). They foolishly believed that the threat of copyright infringement would honestly be enough to deter people from downloading and then scratched their heads in confusion when their well meaning campaigns about 'stealing' music didn't work. Perhaps cause you're insulting your customers, morons! And certainly labelling them criminals and taking them to court isn't going to encourage them to support the music industry either. I guess it hadn't occured to anyone to actually try to make people aware of what record companies actually do, what they spend their marketing budgets on, and how the whole industry works... what kind of jobs exist now... and what kind of reality that industry face if the threat of revenue loss continues. How many people realise the multitude of roles in the average record company, made up by hard working people who are not all greedy money hungry corporates, but by people who care about their artists, care about music, and are generally in the job because they want to be part of music history and make a difference. I never wanted to get into the music industry to be rich, and god knows it never made me rich either... I wanted to be part of something bigger; to be part of seeing an artist develope, grow, and become something universally acknowledged... that was my dream.
I still remember when I was working in music retail, there was one evening where a group of young teenagers came in. They stared at the latest Human Nature CD that was out at the time and made comment of how they didn't want their money supporting them but then went on within the same breathe to acknowledge the new Something For Kate, who were still relatively unknown then, and how they should be 'more popular'. The irony is this - both acts are through SONY. Now, what they fail to often understand is that it was the success of artists like Human Nature that helped fund the way for acts like Something For Kate to become as successful as they are. Infact, from my past experience, I would often estimate that for every five to ten acts that a company may try to establish, one or two will work. The rest will be, sadly, a loss. Without proper funding though, there will be little option other than to drop those acts in the future, thus cutting their careers increasingly short. There will be unrecouped costs that the band will never make because their albums didn't sell. Sure, at the end of the day, it is a 'business' and you have to take calculated business risks... but then people shouldn't get so upset when a business also goes out of it's way to protect it's interests.
If you don't support the artists, how do you expect them to continue creating? As much as an artist creates to articulate their soul, they still need a roof over their head, food on their plate, bills paid, and perhaps a bit of luxury for the disadvantages of the lifestyle that they (potentially) end up leading. Even aside this point, would you work for free for the love of it, no matter how much you enjoy your job? It just isn't really a realistic prospect.
And then there is the basic misunderstanding of what a record company actually does and how it operates. Niave artists are saying that the internet will serve to be their liberation... from what exactly? Yes, there will be nothing like having a million and one bedroom musicians flooding the net with their half arsed attempts at 'music' with no one actually having any way to decipfer the difference between the good, the bad and the just freakin' ugly. Have you tried downloading some of the (ahem) 'white label bootlegs' that appeared on the net? Someone out there actually created that gobshite, thought it was good, and put it on the net with their name to it for general consumption... and you expect them to be any different when they suddenly develope stars in their eyes and think they can make a career as a serious musician. Isn't it bad enough that we already have people like Saint Ken in the world who think their 'dance mixes' are actually worthy of any level of credibility? No, Amnesty International should be brought in to deal with people who torture the works of art in the way they do. Sure, they can remix for the fun of it, but please don't inflict it on innocent people, and especially those with limited bandwidth...
So, first point - record companies distinguish (and yes, this point is debatable) between the good and the bad. They then use their marketing prowess to help establish the acts in the media sectors (radio, television, print media, cyberspace), retail sectors (record stores, cyberspace again) and anywhere else that is possible. They help define the artist, fine tune their abilities, and assist in trying to create for that artist a long term career... something that is getting increasingly harder through a combination of many factors, namely the fact that kids are judging artists moreso on a song by song basis lately (easier to download) and the fact that established long term artists are losing sight of what kids out there actually want.
I won't sit down and go through an average album marketing budget now... that could be a whole other blog... but you can rest assured that money goes very quickly in the world of artist marketing. This notion that record companies are swimming in money is certainly an inaccurate one, especially in Australia, and people would probably be more likely to question the costs third parties charge than to point the finger at the alledged greedy record companies. It certainly doesn't help when companies like Universal in the US suddenly create a new industry standard by dropping their CD prices by 1/4, a move that will effect every other company in the US and potentially filter out to around the world, dropping the available budgets companies have to market and get their artists out there. If people are complaining that the quality and choice in music now is pretty dire, I can promise you that it will only continue to get worse as companies are limited in their resources to help cultivate and develope new and relevant talent.
But back to the point at hand... or the point of this thread... record companies, the internet, and the consumer. The recent Apple Ipod stores have developed the right idea, and seem to be working accordingly. There is little doubt that, if the price is right, people will use the technology in a lawful manner and continue to pay. On the same token, record companies need to start thinking about new and innovative ways to package and present their product. The fact is that there is so much more now for the average consumer to contemplate now than there was even just a decade ago. Now we have not just music, films and social lifes, but mobile phones, the internet, playstations and gameboys, broadband, DVD, and all manner of new technology that is rapidly changing that will win the limited dollar. Apart from the fact that this is slowly going to change the way business operates, and therefore the way people actually live, technology has moved faster forward in the past ten years than it ever has before and many industries have both benefitted and suffered as a direct result.
Now I feel spent... but I guess i'll end with this point, as someone who until recently worked for a record company... it is too easy to assume that when an artist releases something and it is received brilliantly, it is because the artist is a genius, and yet when an artist releases something and it bombs, it's all the record company fault. All i'm saying is that there are always two sides to a story and it's too easy to make a scapegoat...
