The Challenge of Creating Music and the Future of Online Downloading

The simple question to the whole issue boils down to one basic issue, who owns the rights to artistically created material? I have spent many dollars acquiring and collecting music and movies throughout the years. I earned the money, paid taxes, and supported my favorite artists. I also had the idea that when I spent my money and paid the artist for their works, that I would own the right to listen and record it any way I chose, as long as I did not try to profit in its use. It seemed fair to me, I paid my money and felt happy with my purchases, but now we are being told by some of those very same artists, that we do not own anything, we only purchased the right to listen or use it, as they see fit, and that way is always changing as it best fits the artist only?

I want to be clear in one concept, stealing is stealing, no matter how it happens, but if I have a friend who borrows my CD and makes a personal copy, it is my right to share it because I paid for it, just like we are buying anything else. Then I read about the RIAA suing yet another person for doing the same thing I have done and the artists claiming it is their right to stop all sharing of their music or movies. I guess it has people who support both sides, and in a way has become political as well, but I remain convinced that the buyer has rights as well, and until they create one time use of movies and music, and let them prove that they have ownership forever of all intellectual property. Does this also count for everything we buy? Is the car in your garage really just on loan and an intellectual property of GM forever? Here is some of research I have looked into concerning this issue at hand.

In order to make music people want to buy, the musicians need to make products that consumers will buy and not make blatant and hostile political statements. Nothing turns off customers than hearing a complaint from millionaires crying about loss of money from sales. They need to make getting the product so easy, that a first time buyer will have no issues in getting the product. Simple instructions and clear step by step details, I know it seems stupid, but in truth some people are afraid to download anything without fear of a virus and computer crashing. A preview of the music would be helpful, and a return policy if the product is not acceptable. They should make single standard, either MP3, of WMV and make it the same for every type of music player.

The next option would a uniform pricing structure, regardless of label or artist or genre, it should be based on the age of the music release date. The pricing structure would start at a base of 25 cents per MP3, and go up in price based upon the latest release. For example the latest Brittany Spears music would command $1.00 per song, but a CD released 2 years ago would only get a price of 50 cents. It would then reflect the demand for the products and allow the artists to get the highest prices for the newest work. I do not believe it is fair to expect older music to command the same price structure as the latest music. The music would be free of DRM but would include a software code which would allow the music to be copied just once. It could be saved to disks, such as IPod or computer hard drive without restrictions. However when it was recorded to a CD, and then attempted to be reloaded or recopied it would be rendered useless. This would offer the RIAA and artists the ability to make music and allow people to share it, however any attempt to use it more than it’s once allowed copy would help to protect the ability to pirate its products, or slow it down.

The best way to improve the eventual transition to a successful peer-to-peer legality will take a concentrated effort for the artists to promote the idea that it is beneficial to support legal downloading and to stop the ridiculous lawsuits against people who are guilty of small amounts of downloading, and just like drug dealers, attack the large violators. An education program that would have to be promoted online in such areas as Facebook or MySpace.com would also be required. I believe that most people are honest and would prefer to not break any laws, but they do want it to be easy and most of all affordable. If the artists could also show how much the costs involved with the product it would help make people believe that there are real costs involved with making and creating digital online content, and that it does not all go into massive profits. This will help the distributors offer quality online services.

Some of the places that consumers can now go to and find some , but not all of these suggestions are 7Digital.com, Apple.com/iTunes, Play.com, Emusic.com, Tescodigital.com and of course Napster.com. The website that created all the buzz and interest in downloading music has transformed into a quality 100% legal download site. It has long been a hoped for that the upsurge in legal downloading would compensate the music industries losses from piracy. This causes many of the music industry people to continue fighting the users by trying legal complaints against the Internet providers when they identify illegal activity. It is my belief that many in the music and artist industry believe they will fight and win against the ISP’s quicker than fighting the sheer number of downloader’s. It seems to be founded in the perception that the technology that is most responsible for distributing their content, will end up becoming the de-facto police as well. This in turn will create additional costs that everyone will have to pay for their internet services. Thus the old adage is still true; we all pay for someone else’s stealing.

The long term solution has been discussed over and over, with many different “solutions” created. First it was DRM, which stands for Digital Rights Management, the first truly new technology to stop copies. But it came with a price; the loss of freedom to make copies was bad. It was limited use, and people wanted open music access. They have made legal cases against the software that allows P2P sharing claiming copyright infringements.

In the legal defense it was ruled as Intellectual Property. It was so broad that it encompassed all previous rulings and enabled large lawsuits, and though small numbers, highly public as well. The scare effect was considered enough. Still the favorite rock band Metallica fought and drew first blood. It stopped Napster cold turkey. Then later Win-MX was gone...Limelight and others still were there, but they were filled with viruses and Trojans of all names. It was war, and the internet won...But new industries rose in their wake. Norton, MacAfee were among the largest, all fighting the sudden rise bad codes. The Geek Patrol at Best Buy, all started just to fight computer problems, all somewhat directly traceable to downloaded content. The black hats won round one. Then the sheer numbers of good legal downloader’s started to rise, follow the laws, and stop or slow down on downloading without paying. It has created jobs in the USA, I believe because of two things coming together, music and computers. Now it is like speed limits on the US highways, laws are optional…sometimes strongly enforced but mostly not enforced, sometimes the laws and rulings appear suddenly to back one side or the other. No winners.

Now the new thinking is work with our artists, that is why we call them artists, so why not pay them for their services, but they do not own total rights to music submitted for enjoyment and sales, then claim ownership back again?? It is like pay me and pay me again…or at least try too.

I say follow the path of least resistance!! Pay, but use as much as you want, just do not profit on others work. Seems like an author would write a novel and then claim another fee if you read it again? Or gave it to a friend? Not going to work. Music and Movies are paid for once and then they are free(perception) ...To enjoy as much as we like. In return the artists build long term trust and co-existence with us, and we support them. I am totally hoping our creative people and customers will join together and serve each other. Service is what a creative person does, they provide us with music for the ages, and we give them our concert attendance, DVD purchases, buy their cool T-shirts, and jackets. I will be a good customer, but I expect to listen as many times as I wish to their previous music. The world is doing this, why are millions of people making money on pirated music? Millions of dollars lost in spiraling sales and lower attendance at live shows. We punish those who try and cheat us, but accept a certain amount of payment if we allow some use. It is a crazy portal of music and news the World Wide Web.

So as the latest solution to this dilemma is a cross between artist and consumer, a happy compromise of shared money for continuing to get the latest music as quickly and easily as possible. The agreement would be for a standardized download format in exchange for better enforcement of down loading sites, and a uniform legal strategy to prosecute only the true criminals. No penalties for the causal download, as long as it is used to enjoy and not profit. The consumer wins and will inevitably have a better and larger variety of choice and the artists will enjoy an ever growing revenue stream from people who really do want to do what is right. It will be enough to offset losses in CD sales. The end result, less court cases, a better relationship with both parties and hopefully the abolishment of the RIAA and BMI legal stigma that has created a huge underground movement of peer-to-peer sharing networks. It may not be a perfect solution and I am sure there will be cheating on both sides of this issue, but when faced with a superior enemy it would behoove the movie and music makers to find compromise and also utilize the opportunity to create new markets and marketing strategies that are in line with the 21st Century.

The world community would have to also join into this alliance, because the internet has shown us a world without borders, and instant connections with anyone anywhere in the world. Language is not even an issue as much anymore, because of daily technological breakthroughs. If business in general must adapt to changing markets, should not art as well? It is estimated that by 2010 an estimated 25% of sales will be made by recommendations alone. These are just part of the way that sales can be driven.

In conclusion with over 60 million users estimated in the USA alone the intellectual property issue has become a source of division and anger between artists who feel their hard work and efforts are being stolen, and common people who may not want to steal, but feel that previous ways of getting music was outdated and inconvenient and are no longer what they want. The IPod has created a convenient way for music to be played, but filling the IPod the ITunes way at 99 cents a song is not viable as well. Enter the choices the vastly outnumbered artists must face, and find common ground. In my heart I want to make sure these people are paid for their efforts, however excessive greed and complete control is not acceptable as well. In these articles I selected were options which I believe will work, and slowly transition us from a culture of give it to me for free, to one of payment at a reasonable price and keep me legal theme. I hope we all benefit from a mutual agreement, ban DRM whenever possible and encourage it when it is necessary. The piracy will always happen, but can be diminished with cooperation from most people who want to do the right thing, but who also have limited funds for entertainment spending.