“I’ve read two very interesting related articles this week,” writes Andrew Dubber in Music Think Tank.
The first,he says, “suggested that people who download music via peer-to-peer services spend more money on music than their non-filesharing peers” .
The second “insisted that the net drop in CD and download sales overall has increased concurrent with, and as a result of filesharing,” Andrew says, going on >>>
It’s difficult to argue with either, since they’re both backed by respectable-seeming research and surveys – and yet they can’t possibly both be true. Until you realise the fundamental logical flaws in both positions: the presupposition that unauthorised downloading of music has a causal effect – indeed, is the only causal factor – on the fortunes of the music business.
Clearly, as soon as you take a step back and think about it logically, so-called ‘piracy’ cannot possibly be anything more than one of a whole range of factors affecting the music industry as a whole, simply because the world is a complicated place and people are complex and interesting.
There are political, economic, social, cultural and technological factors all influencing the industry’s affairs — and it stands to reason that different influencing factors are pulling in all sorts of different directions.
To blame piracy for the decline of music revenues — or to single out pirates as the main source of income — overlooks that complexity, and merely provides a PR sideshow to the main story (that almost never gets covered in the mainstream press), which is that the entire ecosystem of music business is changing.
In the print age, sheet music was the main way in which we consumed music, and new technology threatened that orthodoxy. In the electric age, it was recorded music. We’re now in the digital age, and while recordings are still a significant driver of music business revenue, it is (as sheet music did before it) rapidly losing its hold as the main source of music business income.
But just as the music industry as a whole didn’t suffer (in fact, it boomed) when sheet music gave way to the recorded music business (though it’s worth reiterating that you can still buy sheet music, and some businesses do very well out of producing it), I suspect that the music business as a whole will figure out a way of surviving and thriving when it grasps the opportunities inherent in the new technological environment.
In fact, there’s evidence to suggest that’s already happening.
Chief Economist for the UK’s PRS For Music, Will Page has declared that overall revenue of the British music industry is up nearly 5%. Not the record industry, mind you – the music business. Those two things are not synonyms.
“And while it’s easy to find scapegoats and heroes in this story, that’s never going to be the full picture,” says Andrew on Music Think Tank, adding:
“Peer to Peer filesharing platforms may well have an important role to play in this narrative, but it’s a complex and interesting one — and not the simplistic black hat / white hat me.”
Not only but also, back in 2005, “New technologies always threaten the old, established ones whose owners do everything they can to maintain the status quo,” said I said, adding, “Eventually, though, they cave in, and go with the flow and peace reigns (until it happens all over again ; ) .”
Jon Newton
November 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I think that the timing can at least be partly explained due to the fact that while the internet allowed file sharing, it also provided information. People now know that the record companies are charging exorbitant fees, giving hardly anything to artists and generally screwing them over. Buying music directly from artists online or through appropriately priced download stores like amazon is the way forward. Record companies have to realise that the only reason they were so profitable before was because of their own deceit and greed, and now that avenue is gone for good.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
One possibility to me is that the people who fileshare music are among those more interested in music per se, and therefore more likely to be willing to spend money on CDs.
Of course there would have to be a limit– those really obsessed with music from other people could not spend more than a set amount, which is where the filesharing sometimes enters the picture.
Which came first for a music connoisseur? Filesharing or buying? Which is cause and which is effect? Or are they both independent of one another? These are the sort of questions I feel people should be asking.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
” Filesharing or buying? Which is cause and which is effect? Or are they both independent of one another? These are the sort of questions I feel people should be asking.”
They’re being mentioned.
They’re just being ignored.