An interesting discussion has taken place over at one of my favorite music blogs in the last week or so. Jeff at jefitoblog feared that the host took down his account last weekend due to extensive downloading of a few music files he put up there. It turns out that this may not have been the case, but it has nevertheless given spark to a fruitful debate concerning the state of the music business and the way they’re dealing with the digital music revolution.
The subject is very interesting and, being an avid music buyer sitting in another corner of the world, I feel that it has as much relevance for me as it does for music lovers in the U.S. The American entertainment industry is pretty much a world-wide enterprise, and it must surely be one of that country’s main export articles.
As a consequence, a very strong and persuasive U.S. lobby has been established, and they’re fighting hard to impose rigid American copyright laws upon the rest of the world. You can read more about that in this article on BBC.
I’ve attempted to address this subject a lot of times, but I have to admit that I often end up contradicting myself whenever I attempt to draw up arguments for and against DRM , licensing and pricing.
So instead, let’s try for a moment to forget who’s right and who’s wrong here, let’s ignore what’s possible and what’s not. Let’s pretend that the following rules were agreed upon by all parties as a sound and sensible policy for digital music files:
- Making available one or two music files is not and will never under any circumstance be considered as copyright infringement – a blogger making a track available for download to present a sample of the music he’s reviewing is an obvious case of fair use.
- An entire music album on the other hand, is copyright protected and sharing entire albums is strictly prohibited. The same goes for websites or aggregators linking to files on other websites, thus making available entire albums for download.
- Forget about DRM. All copy protection is removed from digital music files
- Free use of purchased music files. Manipulate, duplicate and store in any which way you may desire.
So, given these premises, will people still want to pay for their music?
Well, let’s start by taking a look at yours truly. One single digital music file – an mp3-file – has very little value to me these days, much like singles had very little value to me back in the 80’s – I always bought the full album.
And if I were to pay a visit to dogpile.com today and make an audio search for, say, R.E.M. AND Losing My Religion, and then actually download the file in 128 kbps mp3-format, that wouldn’t make me feel like a criminal – at all.
I do feel that it would be wrong to download an entire album from a site, though. I imagine that it would make me feel a little bit like a criminal. I would never download a rar- or zip-file containing the full ”Out of Time”-album, and I would certainly not share it with anyone else in a bittorrent environment.
I have to admit that I have done this in the past, but I stopped doing it because it simply didn’t feel like the right thing to do. I felt a bit shady.
I’ve downloaded a few single tracks at iTunes, but it actually makes me feel kinda silly to pay $0.99 for a single music file in 128 kbps quality. I’ve been wondering a bit as to why I feel that way. I never feel silly buying a chocolate bar at the exact same price, and then digesting it in 10 seconds.
I think it has something to do with this: I don’t consider one single music track to be a complete chocolate bar. It consider it more like one bite off that bar. Over at eMusic I get the full bar for $1.99 – that feels about right.
I realise that it is more time-consuming and requires a lot more thought and money to record and produce one song than it does to produce one bar of chocolate – of course I do. But I have a large record collection, and a single music file has very little value to me. It must be a pretty terrific song, and the rest of the album has to suck pretty bad for me to be willing to pay $0.99 for a song.
But here’s a twist: I’m more than willing to pay $9.99 for a 10-track album. Why is that, you ask? The answer is pretty simple.
When I’m buying an album I get a service in addition to the music itself: I get (in some cases) a complete product where someone (be it the artist or the label) has thought through a combination of songs that constitute a unity, and is something I may play up to several times a week without getting bored. I pay for the time and the thought it’s taken them, and I’m OK with that – it’s worth it.
If I download a lot of single files on the other hand, I have to make these playlists myself. Usually I don’t, I just play the music on random. I very rarely put together playlists with artistic wholeness or something like that in mind. And I sometimes miss that aspect.
If I really like an album I can listen to it constantly, for hours, days, weeks to end. I never play a single song on repeat for 40 minutes. And I never make a playlist of my last 10 single downloads and play it for hours to end.
Anyway, this is me: There’s an important distinction between single files and albums.
Now, let’s return to my earlier suggested premises – what would actually happen if they turned into reality?
Absolutely nothing, I’m afraid – it would be status quo.
It probably doesn’t matter what kind of admittances the music industry give, or what kind of restrictions they impose. It won’t change the fact that the customers’ inflated music collections have forever changed people’s view of how much music is worth.
For my part, I have a moral and economic standpoint that regards it reasonable to pay for what I consider to be a complete music product: the album. But I’m 35 years old, and I grew up with vinyl records and CDs.
The next generations probably don’t think like that at all. 19-year-olds today, with their 24/7 internet connection and torrent clients have music collections counting 10-20.000 songs, and they never even bought a CD. How do they value a single music file? Pretty much like air, I imagine.
What can persuade all these teenagers with virtual record stores on their computers to ever pay for music?
I believe that the music business need to consider some of the aspects that ultimately convince me to buy music: They need to offer them some kind of service in addition to music itself – for instance, take a look at jefitoblog – people are willing to cover Jeff’s expenses for him to be able to continue blogging about the music that they like. If the music business could ever establish that kind of trust with their customers, they may actually make some money off it – by giving good advice, maybe? People still pay for concerts, music magazines, they pay their fan club membership fee and donate to their struggling favorite indie-bands – but they’re simply not willing to pay for the music itself anymore…
Surely this sends out a message loud and clear to the music business: that maybe their strategy at this point is a little…misled?
I think it’s next to impossible to ever get the music industry to admit to something like that, though.
Consider music as information for a moment. We’re living in a time where information is considered to be one of our most important resources. Unfortunately, I believe that just as the church once tried to gain control of wisdom, just as politicians tried to gain control of knowledge – commercial industries today will continue to try and gain control of information. And that could turn out to be a very long battle.
“Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST.” Frank Zappa