It’s been one of the biggest debates of the first decade of the 21st
century: Is it ok to download music for free when you can buy it in
other places? Does it harm the artist to not pay money for their music?
And does this make downloading free music immoral? The debate has been
had over and over again, pitting the angry Lars Ulrichs of the world
against the pauper-poor, millennial hipsters who have known nothing BUT
illegal downloading for most of their lives.
now, we can admit that most observers would be lying to themselves if
they thought that downloading music for free is ever going to go away.
This isn’t to say that the debate is over or that artists are
wrong to want money anytime someone gets their grubby little hands on
their music. It is just to say that the future of music—in fact, the
future of most everything in the cultural world—is going to be FREE. Yes, free.
Free? How is that possible?
all the worry, complaining, and lawsuits about copyright and
“intellectual property” infringement that comes along with pirating and
unsanctioned file sharing, there are increasing numbers of people who
suggest that the benefits of an open-source mindset outweigh the
negatives. Lawrence Lessig, copyright guru and Stanford law professor,
is one such voice. In his book, Free Culture, Lessig argues that digital technology enables a new sort of democratic creativity in which many
can “participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture
that reaches far beyond local boundaries.” Giving things away things
for free, letting the audience share and remix and consume things as it
sees fit, is a boon to the collective strength of the culture economy.
Another intellectual champion of “Free” these days is Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine. In his new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price,
Anderson describes the rise of “freeconomics” and argues that “free” is
not a thing to be feared for those who want to make money; rather, it’s
a thing to be embraced.
says Anderson, “is a word with an extraordinary ability to reset
consumer psychology, create new markets, break old ones, and make
almost any product more attractive.”
it doesn’t mean profitless. It just means that “the route from product
to revenue” is more indirect. It means that Wal-Mart might lure you
into its stores with a $12 below-cost DVD, with the completely
reasonable hope that you will spend $100 on other stuff while you’re
there. It’s called a loss-leader.
terms of music, it means that bands might give music away for free
(Radiohead!) in hopes of creating new fans and reaching more people who
will one day attend a concert or (gasp!) buy an album. It’s about
creating a relationship with the audience, tapping into the
collaborative spirit of the networked age and recognizing that music
(and other cultural work) was never intended to be a commodity that
lived primarily in the transactional, economic space between producer
and consumer. On the contrary, culture has always been firmly rooted in
community and a shared sense of understanding and making meaning together.
Webb, a musician who is familiar with this new cultural reality, began
NoiseTrade in 2007 to distribute music on a pay-as-you-go model. "A great record is its own best marketing tool,” says Webb. “All
the marketing dollars in the world can’t accomplish what one great
record can, especially if it’s set free to roam around and connect with the right people.”
Culture is a community activity
as it turns out, thinking about culture in this light—as a community
activity and not just a commodity exchange—is more than just a “for the
benefit of all” act of goodwill. It also translates to dollars and
cents. As MIT media theorist Henry Jenkins so keenly recognizes in his book Convergence Culture, media corporations are increasingly mindful of the “emotional capital” of their audience—the “importance
of audience investment and participation in media content.” Why?
Because when audiences are invested and participate, they also promote. The concern for those in the media “industry” these days should not be a fear of downloading, but rather a promotion of sideloading: the activity of forwarding, linking, viral buzz-building and passing along from one consumer to another at no cost.
does this mean? Basically, it means that the people in charge of record
companies shouldn’t worry about downloading. At least, not as much as
the should work on working on a community of people who love music—especially
people who will Twitter about it, make their Facebook statuses about a
band they’ve just found, blog about their favorite new music, email
links and so on. Record companies should realize that this
"sideloading" is so valuable—and is completely free promotion for them.
fight the tide of free is foolish in this day-and-age. Anyone under 30
simply will not pay for things that they know will be available online
somewhere for free. Why is craigslist killing off newspaper classifieds
sections? Because people can post listings for free on craiglist. It’s
simple economics. As Anderson writes in Free, “Sooner or later every company is going to have to figure our how to use Free or compete with Free, one way or another.”
giving things away for free as a marketing strategy only works when the
product you are giving away is good and stands out in the overcrowded
cultural market. The cumulative effect of being able to get more music for less money (or no money) is that each consumer listens to a ton
of music. And in this glut of consumption, only the very best will be
remembered, cherished, passed along and multiplied. Only the strongest
The new economy
In a 2008 Wired article,
Chris Anderson makes the point that money is not the only scarcity in
the world anymore. Time and respect are increasingly scarce and the
corresponding “attention economy” and “reputation economy” are
increasingly important factors in the economy at large.
is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the
world at any point in time,” writes Anderson. “These are the new
scarcities—and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these
valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified
later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be
quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.”
even though on paper it might look unwise for an artist to encourage
the distribution of their music for free, they should consider that in
the freeconomic scene, economics has as much to do with sheer number of
credit card swipes as it does with popularity, exposure and interaction
with audience (which eventually will translate to credit card swipes).
may be difficult, but this is the way forward. Debates can continue to
rage about the morality of amassing free music, but the reality of the
situation is that music is about the producer and consumer, and
“the music industry” will not survive without a mutual respect and
cooperative spirit between both parties. To let music suffer or die on
account of an inflexible refusal to recalibrate old models would be the
truly immoral thing. The future of music’s
economic viability will depend not on the ability to secure payment for
every download, but rather on each musician’s ability to get people
passionate about music again.
Brett McCracken is a Los Angeles-based writer and journalist. He is the author of Gray Matters: Navigating the Space Between Legalism and Liberty (Baker, 2013), Hipster Christianity (Baker, 2010) and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN.com, The Princeton Theological Review, Mediascape, Books & Culture, Christianity Today, RELEVANT magazine, IMAGE Journal, Q Ideas and Conversantlife.com. He speaks and lectures frequently at universities, churches & conferences, and is a regular blogger. You can also follow him on Twitter @BrettMcCracken.
It’s common sense: taking a thing that you used to pay for is not good for the people who created that thing. But when it comes to entertainment piracy, lots of folks—whether motivated by statistical curiosity, forward-thinking vision or a desire to rationalize their own law-breaking—have argued that things aren’t quite so simple. Now, with the release of a new analysis of 16,000 European music consumers, those on the side of piracy have evidence to back them up.
A few findings of the study — conducted by Luis Aguiar and Bertin Martins using Nielsen “clickstream” data, and released by the European Commission Joint Research Centre — confirmed assummptions: attitudes differed by country, and piracy definitely affects off-line music sales.
But one was startling: illegal music downloads, they discovered, had essentially no effect on the number of legal music downloads:
Perhaps surprisingly, our results present no evidence of digital music sales displacement. While we find important cross country differences in the effects of downloading on music purchases, our findings suggest a rather small complementarity between these two music consumption channels. It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them. The complementarity effect of online streaming is found to be somewhat larger, suggesting a stimulating effect of this activity on the sales of digital music.
Specifically, the study found that legal purchases would be about 2 percent lower without illegal downloading available—meaning, yes, illegal downloads boost legal downloads. Their conclusion: people who download pirated music mostly do so for tunes they wouldn’t have ever spent money on. The positive effect of streaming was even larger.
(MORE: Revenue Up, Piracy Down: Has the Music Industry Finally Turned a Corner?)
One interesting finding from the study is the observation that illegal downloaders were active in music consumption during more than twice as much of the year as legal-only consumers—including being more active on legal sites. In other words, people who like to listen to a lot of music are more likely to listen to music from multiple sources, while people who don’t really care for music are more likely to download only legally but not very much overall.
This complicates the evidence, because there’s no way to know whether those music lovers would consume the same amount total—or like music just as much—if illegal downloads weren’t an option (though the authors tried to track how many music-related sites the participants visited while not actually purchasing or listening to music).
Other findings include:
- Women and men stream music about equally but men download more.
- People with higher education levels stream more music, but income does not affect streaming levels.
- Spanish people click on illegal downloading sites 230% more than Germans, with Italians coming next at 134% more than their neighbors to the north. The study’s authors speculate that these differences could be due to cultural differences and/or economic situations in the countries involved.
(MORE: Why YouTube is Launching a Music Service)
Not everyone is ready to take these study results at face value. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry released a response on Mar. 20…and they are not happy:
IFPI believes the [Joint Research Centre] study is flaws and misleading. The findings seem disconnected from commercial reality, are based on a limited view of the market and are contradicted by a large volume of alternative third party research that confirms the negative impact of piracy on the legitimate music business.
The IFPI notes that clicking on a legal download website does not equal buying music, that past studies have found that the “some people buy and steal a lot of music because they love music” argument is counterbalanced by the many people who consume a huge amount of money purely illegally, and that the study ignores other music-consumption options like subscription services.
And of course, as the study’s authors do acknowledge, sales data are not the only reason music-industry professionals don’t like piracy. Even if the IFPI’s criticisms were unfounded, the copyright and ethical implications remain unchanged: if you went into a store to steal a candy bar and, in the process, found lots of other stuff you were willing to pay for, would that make it okay to steal the candy? And what does it mean if you don’t really care?