I AM NOT DEFENDING DOWNLOADING. Not sure how many times I can say this. All I am doing is trying to present an alternative solution to the RIAA's current strategy. I'm asking "what can we learn from the way people consume music?" without touching the moral implications. What are people's motivations for downloading, either illegally or legally? And is there a better way to ensure the health of the music industry other than the traditional paradigm?
I've posted links to studies that show people purchase the music they download. I'm really not making this up. The Olberholzer-Gee/Strumpf study (Harvard Business School :
Music Downloads: Pirates—or Customers? — HBS Working Knowledge ) is the most recent cited source for this. You can see another article here:
Net music piracy 'does not harm record sales' - 30 March 2004 - New Scientist
Look, "downloading is bad, m'kay!" The far more salient point to this discussion is that since there are other lucrative revenue streams thanks to the same technology - licensing for video games, ringtones, legal downloads, use in movies, etc - decriminalizing music downloads
might make business sense. If you lose the $5 profit per CD but make it up in $7 of additional revenue through a diverse network of revenue streams, doesn't that at least present as a valid argument?
I believe majors are trying to control the traditional outlets and promotional venues in an outdated bid to maintain their monopoly, which will hurt them in the long run. Adapting to a more modern paradigm makes sense to me. Again, without the moral baggage, if we look at indie bands, does it not make sense to give up the music on which there is a $5 profit margin for perhaps a hoodie, with a $15 dollar margin? My point is that I think there is a way for majors to capitalize on the idea of an artist as a brand, and the music as a gateway to get people "into the brand". This business principle has been around as long as capitalism - give away 15 cents of soda to sell the $3 burger. Look at the free promotional materials labels give away to promote CDs - shirts, posters, stickers, etc - and imagine if they merely reversed that, gave away the music to sell shirts, stickers, and posters! Add to that revenue from licensing, radio, DJs, performances, ringtones, video games, movie soundtracks, commercials, and hard copy items (people are still going to want CDs and the attendant bonus materials).
I just think there is a better way for the RIAA to be spending it's time and energy. I understand the "stick" but can't they also develop "the carrot"?
More and more albums are being streamed by labels, which also seems to help eliminate some of the downloading. The more law-abiding can get the benefits they want from downloading - hearing the whole album before they buy, hearing it when they want (which they get from internet radio as well) - and is the type of solution I am talking about. The idea is to make downloading a less tempting alternative so that the people who are on the fence, or download for specific reasons have legal pathways to deciding how they want to spend their music money.
Yikes, Trent Reznor is making Garageband versions of (eventually) EVERY SONG available for free on his website. I'm really not asking you to take my word on the validity of these ideas.
My argument is NOT " you can't do anything about it", it's that if the RIAA was serious about piracy, they'd go after the P2P/torrent people, not the end users - look at WB's $13 million settlement from Kazaa. That's equivalent to 4300 lawsuit settlements. Honestly, the financial impact of downloaders is a complex issue that too many of you seem to be putting into black and white. I think there is a huge difference between piracy for personal use, and piracy for profit - I would personally care less about personal use than CD replicators selling bootlegs on the street of NYC or Shanghai.
I agree 100% that people should pay for the music they consume. But we have to think "outside the box" to promote against theft. The hard line DOESN'T WORK. They've tried, and by their own admission, failed. This RIAA tactic just as worthless both as a deterrent and as away to recoup profits. So what's so wrong with looking at innovative ways to maintain a healthy music business?