Impact Of Music File Sharing On The Production Of New Music - Essay Example

Critically evaluate the impact of music file sharing on the production of new music Introduction: The modern trend of business provides a great deal of importance to capitalize over cultural aspects that are integrally associated with social upbringing of an individual. Music is one such medium that incorporates within its scope diverse aspects of the social existence and acceptance, popularity or support for an artist or for a particular form of music varies according to the extent of using cultural traits and their commercialization in the modern business scenario. Compared to the earlier time, though music and various forms of performing art remained as a source of income or doing business since time immemorial, it never took form of an organized business industry as that of the recent situation. The post Industrial Revolution era witnessed a general trend provided a spontaneous impetus to the humankind to find all possible means to accumulate financial capital and encourage capitalism. Such capitalist aggression also blocked the natural right of common people to enjoy and consume the products of their respective cultures and it also suggested that if such rights are to be obtained, an individual is required to pay certain amount of price. Interestingly, the process of such prohibition also received legal acknowledgment in terms of protecting rights of an artist and encouraging the production of cultural artifacts: “Cultural production, like other areas of production, underwent a transformation as the Industrial Revolution gathered steam. It became possible to mass-produce cultural artifacts” (Giese, 2004, p. 348). While the issue of copyright protection is actually aimed at protecting rights of artists and encourage them to produce genuine music by executing highest level of artistic creativity, the modern tend of sharing music files over Internet has been randomly criticized by music producing companies with the allegation that continuation of such process is actually restricting both the music company and the artist to receive actual monetary profit as most of the consumers are more focused on receiving free music rather than purchasing it. At the same time it has also been argued that if this process is not stopped immediately, lack of financial profit will cast considerable impact on music production because the producers would feel discouraged to invest due to the risk of not receiving the expected amount of profit. Thus, an overview of the entire situation encompasses manifold factors that need to be considered, namely, a) does sharing of music files really affecting the production sector in such a way that it would feel discouraged to promote any novel effort, b) should music file sharing be completely discouraged as it allegedly restricts an artist to enjoy the benefits of copyright protection, c) from an ethical perspective, can it be said that in name of protecting rights of an artist, the music productions companies are actually forcing the commoditization of culture and finally, d) to which extent the objective of encouraging an artist to exercise his artistry to the fullest extent, is satisfied. Thesis Statement: Despite the argument that the habit of sharing music files in the Internet by common people especially by the young generation, is creating negative impact on production of new music, an analytical observation of the situation would show that foundation of such an argument is not entirely strong and most of the music production companies, while speak of protecting artistic rights for enhancement of their business, in reality they deprive artists from their rightful claim. In addition to the situation, an individual’s basic right to enjoy the positives of his culture is also violated as for the sake of business enhancement the music companies force an individual to commoditization of culture. The Background: Music Production as an Industry, an Its Gradual Decline with Internet Revolution Music production as an industry and an organized source of business did not receive a concrete form until inception of the 20th century, especially aftermath the World War II era. The abundant violence during the Great War II and exposure of brutality of such a magnitude that the human civilization was unaware altered common people’s perception about life and existence. Reflection of such changed perception was reflected in different forms of art and expression of human beings towards each other in terms of behavioral aspects. Music was one of the most powerful mediums that encompassed within its vast scope the changing traits of entire human perception both from individualistic and communal perceptive. The elements of popular culture, receive an altogether new dimension with invention of different musical forms, namely, jazz, blues, country music, pop, rock and on a more contemporary note, through the hip hop music. Prior to the invention of Internet as an essential medium of global communication, the music industry flourished to its culmination in terms of money and fame, as the business masterminds observed immense scope of prosperity by capitalizing on cultural traits, using creative impetus of artists as cultural artifacts and by creating such a situation that common people will be compelled to purchase the commoditized traits of culture, represented by music. Revolution in the Internet technologies and invention of the Mp3 during inception of the 1990s drastically changed monopolistic stance of the music companies in distributing music: “Introduced in 1992, MP3, short for MPEG Layer III … is a means of encoding and decoding audio in digital format. It allows for extreme compression of audio files with little or no perceptible loss in audio quality. The development of MP3 meant that songs … could be compressed to data files of 4 megabytes or less and still retain the near CD-quality sound. Consequently, with increased bandwidth and transfer rates for Internet connections, the time required to download a song, or even an entire album, became reasonable for many Internet users” (Jones, S.; Cited in Shepherd, 2003, p. 248). Clearly, the entire situation emerged as a potential threat before the music production industry and under leadership of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) attempts to adopt right mechanism to put an end to the process of uploading and downloading copyrighted music for free from the Internet commenced. The situation became worse for music companies and encouraging for music lovers, especially for youths with introduction of portable MP3 players in 1998. As these devices, besides being user friendly, also has the facility to be connected with computer, way to store music files became easier and free music download facility providing sites were randomly evolving. Finally, the music companies did not find any other possible solution to combat the situation of crisis rather than embracing MP3 distribution through their official websites but those files are required to be collected at a certain price rate. Napster, one of the most popular networking sites that encouraged peer to peer file sharing process, was closed by court order but the process has not stopped entirely as the free peer to peer music sharing networks continued emerging, responding to the huge demand (Jones, S.; Cited in Shepherd, 2003, p. 248-49). Relevance in context of the Topic and Judging in accordance to the issues of importance: The reflection over changing stance of music companies in context of combating the process of free peer to peer file sharing becomes important during course of discussion of the topic as it shows the ultimate intention of the companies to maximize their profit margin. There is no denial of the fact that downloading music and digital distribution practices are seen are threat by most of the leading record organizations because their profit margin is mostly dependent on the number of records, purchased by music fans. No matter how much they try to show their benevolent intention to lower down rate of such “illegal” downloading and distribution, their concern is entirely related to financial benefit and definitely not protecting the rights of artists. If we judge from the perspective of people or employees associated with recording companies or giant music labels, gradual fall in the selling of records, compared to earlier times, is surely a matter of great concern for them. Despite the fact that most of the recording companies that have a strong history of staying in the music industry and making their brand value as well as earning huge amount of profit for a long time, a majority of such money has been consumed by owners of such business or leading figures of the company. Thus, more the practice of musical download and free distribution will be encouraged there is a risk that more the common employees will suffer. Judging the same situation from other perspective, it can be asserted that artists, who are main source of income for these recording companies, there are numerous such instances that they have been treated in an inequitable and discriminative manner by politics of the companies, leading to their deprivation from their rightful loyalty. Dave Marsh’s analysis of the politics of music industry shows that most of the major labels use “creative accounting to withhold royalties from an artist” (McLeod, 2005, p. 522). He goes on saying that “They (record companies) get you on breakage fees, they charge you extra money to make CDs even though CDs are cheaper to produce then cassettes …. I mean, they just got a million scams to take money away from the artist” (McLeod, 2005, p. 522-523). Judging from this perspective it can be said that music download and digital distribution practices act as a major challenge in the face of profit making habits of record companies. There are very few names, mostly giant musical figures or groups that keep on earning their royalties out of these music companies but when it comes to small groups or less familiar names, on several occasions, they make less money in a year compared to the amount they would have earned “working at a convenience store” (McLeod, 2005, p. 523-524). This observation clearly is an important argument in support of the observation that benevolent approach of the music production companies regarding financial protection of artists as well as their employees in entirely wrong. Extreme self-centric approach of the music companies also becomes more evident as some of the recent surveys have clearly proved that online peer to peer music file share does not actually reduce rate of CD purchasing among consumers. The analysis of IFPI in 2009, research of the British Music Rights’ in 2008 and survey of the NPD group in 2006 have shown that “… users continue to buy CD’s despite using music streaming services …. The 18-24 year olds are equally purchasing CD’s compared to the 40+ segment, which accounts for more than 50% of their overall spending” (Wiechmann, 2009, p. 24). Pondering over such research results, naturally a question haunts a sincere thinker that why then the music production companies are taking such a hostile stance against peer to peer file transfer process or invention of those programs that initiate the process. One explanation that has received great support by the music companies is that encouraging such practice might lead to a sharp decline in the rate of sales in near future (Wiechmann, 2009, p. 28). However, estimation of such risk is entirely grounded on hypothetical observation and after keeping a close watch over modern trend there is no such reason to assert a strong belief in this observation. Thus, the other explanation that finds most practical support is the insatiable lust of the music production companies to increase their profit margin. If people, who are relied over collection of music files through sharing process, can be stopped from obtaining music tracks in this manner, they will surely be compelled to purchase music according to the price limit as determined by the music companies, resulting in increase at profit margin for the companies. The intention of the music production organizations is to enhance monetary benefit solely and they do not have any respect for music or creative capability: this observation can be accepted undisputedly, because if they would have been respectful towards the creative impetus, keeping in mind long term benefit and developing fertile ground for artists, they would have surely supported peer to peer file sharing programs. According to observation of peer to peer file sharing program developers: “…P2P file-sharing programs may have a positive impact on music sales by some artists and may increase overall sales in the long run. The crux of their argument is that P2P file-sharing expand the music market to reach a greater number of potential listeners. Absent these programs … some listeners would not have known about some artists and therefore would not have purchased their copyrighted works anyway” (Federal Trade Commission, June 2005, p. 24). It seems all that is relevant for the music companies to consider is profit and such lust to enhance profit margin often transcends the limits of organizational goodwill or the profit margin that they can attain in the long run; instead, they wish to receive highest possible amount of profit at the very instant. When it comes to compelled commoditization of the cultural elements, both artists and consumers have become victim of the complex production chain, carefully crafted by media industrialists. Compared to the earlier scenario of entertainment, where an entertainer used to get directly paid by entertained, in the modern system, the media industrialists played the part of a mediator body and claimed a major portion from royalty of an artist as well the amount paid by the audience. Clearly, they deprive both audience and artists from their legitimate claims - an artist is restrained from receiving the right value for his creative ingenious and an audience is kept apart from his right to relish the creative manifestations of his culture: “Artists and performers became part of a complex manufacturing chain and were no longer paid directly for each performance or artifact. Control over cultural production in the Industrial Age passed from the actual producers and their traditional patrons to a newbreed of patron: media industrialists.... Cultural producers— the artists—succumbed to the economic blandishments of these industrialists precisely because the artists and performers did not have the capital to acquire the technology required for the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual and cultural work” (Giese, 2004, p. 348-49). Conclusion: Whether sharing of music files would affect production of new music or not: in course of finding answer to the question an impression is received that if production of new music is affected, it would occur due to extreme tendency of the organizations to receive monetary benefit but ignoring or disrespecting the creative capacity of an artist. The desperate tendency to maximize monetary benefit is not only leading music production organizations from losing cooperation from artists but also their actual nature is disclosed before the consumers. Irrespective of the fact that rate of peer to peer music file sharing has increased to a great extent since introduction of MP3 and Internet technologies, however, there has not been any sharp decline at the rate of purchasing CD’s by common people. Thus, while the music production companies are retaining their respective profit margin, they are, consequently, making all possible attempts to deprive artists from receiving their legitimate loyalty. Naturally, artists would feel discouraged to exercise their complete potential to produce music of best artistry and people’s appreciation for music of according standard would remain unfulfilled, subsequently leading to decline in purchase of original music. References Federal Trade Commission. June 2005. Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition Issues: A Federal Trade Commission Staff Workshop Report. Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing. Giese, M. 2004. “Community Property: Digital Music and the Economic Modalities of Transmission and Ritual Modes of Communication”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 28:4 (October 2004): 342-362. London: Sage Publications. Jones. S. 2003. “MP3”. Continuum encyclopedia of popular music of the world. 2. Performance and production. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. McLeod, K. 2005. “MP3s Are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and Its Challenge to the Major Label Music Monopoly”. Popular Music and Society. Vol. 28, No. 4. October 2005. 521–531. London: Routledge. Wiechmann, D. 2009. The Impact of Online Music Services on the Music Recording Industry: Opportunities and Challenges. Düsseldorf: GRIN Verlag. Read More