In business you have to make unpopular decisions, that's a given, but nobody has actively courted negative press with the same kind of vigour that the record industry has displayed in hastily dragging its name through the mud.
In the US, the Recording Industry Association of America has made more enemies than it has records in the past 18 months and, worryingly, its UK equivalent, the British Phonographic Industry, seems to think that this is an approach it would be wise to follow.
Andrew Yeates, director general of the BPI, has warned that legal action may be the only option left for a beleaguered record industry.
But is this really worthwhile?
For starters, there is the age-old argument that the record industry is barking up the wrong tree.
Many believe file-sharing and music downloads have little to do with a dent in record sales that is more likely to be attributable to a drop in the standards of music being produced.
This is born out by the fact that independent labels, typically those producing more innovative sounds, have not seen any decline, while major labels, dependent upon tiresome cover versions, rehashed identikit pop acts and the nauseating Pop Idol format, have been found out and subsequently witnessed a drop in revenues.
The truth is that the record labels were too slow to embrace technology, leaving a chasm that was filled by the likes of Napster.
Originally the labels turned on Napster and Kazaa but successes, after the closure of Napster, were few and far between.
Now behind the times and in a strop, the labels are picking on 'the smallest bloke in the pub' by turning on individual consumers unlucky enough to be singled out from the millions using download services.
Such action will be costly, time consuming and will ultimately offer very little reward.
Some might call it spiteful; others might call it misguided.
Comments
There are 22 comments. Join the discussion
1. Sarah
To be honest, I don't see the problem with free downloads, most respectable bands these days have free downloads on their websites because they actually want to make music and want people to listen to it, and that's what they're in the music industry for. If anything, downloading music can encourage you to go out and buy other music by a particular band. It's only the Simon Cowell's of the world that are whinging about downloading because they know that their latest pop idol puppet is only going to be another one hit wonder anyway.
2. John Hauxwell
Its NOT alright to download music, same as its not right to copy CD's. We all do it, but no one expects to be prosecuted because the revenue lost to the record company is negligible and the costs incurred in prosecution insurmountable
However, if you copy 100,000 cds and give them to your friends then that represents considerable revenue loss. The scale of the Peer to peer phenomenon makes it impossible for the record companies to ignore. There are millions of tracks available for download using tools such as emule, kazza etc.
This is no longer a small loss of revenue for the music industry and should highlight a paradigm shift in the way that music should now be delivered.
The pricing models used by the music industry are still based around the retail distribution chain. This is outdated. Of course the industry makes a higher profit from a physical sale than a digital one.
Once the price becomes acceptable for Digital Distribution, and DRM becomes sustainable, consumers will continue to download for free and the record companies will continue to make bigger rods for their own backs.
3. anonymous
I wish that the record industry would get out of the mindset that P2P is the bad guy. P2P is one of the most powerful marketing media available to them. The independent labels appreciate this, hence the continued strength of single sales.
From a technical perspective it would be perfectly feasible to filter all copyrighted content on the P2P networks and charge for it. Sharman networks (who own Kazaa) have been suggesting this to the industry in the US for some time without success.
Music has always been available for free over the radio. This has been used very successfully to promote singles and new artists. The P2P networks could operate in a very similar way and also provide a low cost delivery mechanism for people who decided to purchase after sampling. The only problem with "try before you buy" is that the quality of content is key to making the sale.
4. Graham Hoyle
As a band member looking to make a dent in the wide world of music I am not in the slightest bit interested in lining the pockets of record executives who wouldn't know decent music if it skewered them through the ears. I would prefer (and do) to offer my music for free on the net and will provide it to people on CD at cost plus pennies. Most important is visibility - I want people to come to our shows, wear t-shirts and above all enjoy the music. That is the lifeblood of bands and the 0.5-1% reaped from CD sales through a distributor does nothing to earning a musician's keep. Let the lot of them drive themselves out of business with these ridiculous (and ultimately futile) tactics while the independent side of the industry, who actually care about the product and those who produce it, go from strength to strength.
5. anonymous
More to the point, Simon Cowell is probably concerned about how his pay packet is affected. If he actually put some talent in to the UK music industry, rather than these synthetic cover version "Pop Idols" (Westlife, take note!), people may actually go out and buy some of the music he produces and makes a large amount of money from.
6. Steve
Well i remember when copying music off the radio using a tape was considered to be 'killing' music (remember the skull and cross bones symbol?) - but the record companies survived.
File sharing enables people to access more of the music they like rather than that which the companies want us to buy. Personally I've been much more targetted in my CD purchases and i've still buy the same amount. You only need to listen to the radio for half an hour to understand why there are declining record sales. The preponderance of the insipid 'manufactured' bands has got to be it.
7. Joe W
"Music has always been available for free over the radio. This has been used very successfully to promote singles and new artists. The P2P networks could operate in a very similar way and also provide a low cost delivery mechanism for people who decided to purchase after sampling. The only problem with "try before you buy" is that the quality of content is key to making the sale."
3 Words: No more payola.
hehe
8. Michael
Talk about pop will eat itself. I feel so sorry for the faceless wonders who after enjoying the best part of 1/2 a century of control are suddenly aware that they are not. Nobody but nobidy has respect for an industry that has basically stiffed the public for years. My heart bleeds. And what is the real issue here ? Control of back - catalogues of Artistes they have stiffed in past and are close to being dead or who are already dead.
C'mon guy's, get with the program and invest in music for a change instead of worrying about your personal bank balance.
9. anonymous
I seem to recall that until the end of the 1960's early 70's, it was possible to buy a licence for home taping. It would seem that some form of licence might work here.
The main reason for the falling sales of the music industry is that most of their output is awfull.
They only have themselves to blame and I feel no sympathy.
10. anonymous
Personally, I don't see the problem with downloading music. It's the best way to get music that wouldn't be available to you otherwise (e.g. very old or hard-to-find stuff). Plus, if you only like one or two songs by a particular artist or band, it saves you shelling out for an album that you know you'll never listen to the whole way through.
While I'm on the subject of albums, their sales have actually gone up (despite single sales going down) since downloading started. That's because people have downloaded a few songs, liked what they heard and bought the album as a result. Some online CD stores have started offering downloads of whole albums to their customers which expire after a short time, with a discount being offered on a "hard copy" of the album. Maybe the music industry could look into this further, as well as reducing CD prices across the board and improving distribution, if they don't want people to download.
11. Paul Shrimpton
In response to message from John Hauxwell, actually it IS legal to copy CDs (as well as DVDs), but only if you own the original and are making a back-up for personal use only. What is not legal is offering someone else's copyrighted material to third parties (either on disc or via the net) with neither implicit acknowledgement of the copyright owner nor, where demanded, payment to the aforementioned owner of the copyright.
That having been said, the recording, movie, and retail industries must shoulder the main proportion of blame for the spread of 'illegal' file-sharing technologies, due to their draconian pricing structures and illogical targetting of their lifeblood - the viewing and listening public, whose only desire is to enjoy the work of the artists at a reasonable price. If they could buy a CD for £7 instead of £14, they'd probably do so.
12. Fred J. Mann
Amen Brother. This is the truth and the whole truth, say no more.
13. Anthony
File swappers don't trade in Westlife and Gareth Gates. They swap music. P2P sharing reflects what is popular. But if what is popular is not in the shops, nothing is bought. It’s not complicated is it?
I've stopped buying CD's since they introduced the copy-protection that prevents a CD being played in a PC. Dido’s “Life for Rent” was an album I planned to buy, until I read the warning of the copy-protection. Since I listen to music in my office PC as I work, the industry has just eliminated me as a customer.
The cost of CD's & tapes is well known, so why should I be expected to pay £16 for music on a 25p CD when I could buy it on a £2 tape for £8? What am I subsidising here? Oh yes, copy protection that stops me listening to the CD I bought….
Now the world has had a taste of free music downloading, the record industry must offer something better than a cheap CD. Some discernable value for money might be good. Threatening to sue your customers will hardly make you successful.
One final word of warning to this greedy & arrogant industry. Hacking into people’s PC’s over the internet might be okay in the USA, but in the UK it’s illegal, so you might find yourselves in the dock if you follow the RIAA’s lead.
14. ANDREW DYSON
BPI shoots itself in the foot...
As far as I'm concerned, the recent decision by the BPI to force companies like CD-WOW into sourcing their CD's for sale in the UK from within Europe will simply mean that many of us will buy less CD's!
If CD-WOW and Amazon are effectively forced (despite what the BPI say to the contrary) into paying more for their CD's through having to source them via inflated prices in Europe, they have little option but to load this onto their selling price.
This type of action by the BPI will ultimately result in lower CD sales in the UK - as many of us will decide instead to buy them all when we are abroad on holiday.
15. Olu Olufidipe
The recording companies have been reaping both the artists and comsumers off for years, yet no one complained. Now is their turn to see the other side of the coin.
I have no sympathy or support for them. Up P2P/File Sharing.
I bet most of the recording execs have used Kazaa or some sort of P2P site at some point in time. "Greedy Sharks"
16. John Beeston
The BPI would be far better employed in promoting those who are providing legal downloads ... is there anyone in the UK?
Why do we not have the equivalent of iTunes?
17. Anton
This could get worse.
Have you seen the state of America in this paticular area??
www.boycott-bpi.co.uk
18. anonymous
Major Mismatch between the record companies and their customers. We buy music, they sell product. We buy the sound, they are selling the means of distribution, CD, tape, etc. We buy music we believe that we have the right to play it anywhere we are. I have ripped my whole music collection onto MP3 so that I can have it where-ever I am. Any CD's that I buy in the future that I cannot play on my PC I will return to the record store as being unfit for purpose. And lets not get me started on the regionalisation of movies on DVD!
19. 7E debate/woodhaven
Downloading music should be (and is in cananda) legal. It's no different from putting a photocopier in a library. Plus, what if you only like a few songs, and you buy the cd to listen repeatdly to that one song until your sick of it and think it was a waste of your money and time. And also, why should we be slaving away with jobs that we hate to get money while artists just sit around and get drunk/high and then put on a concert and get paid. I mean whats the point?
20. john hauxwell
Paul
I am aware of that. I should have used the term duplication ie more than one copy
BR
John
21. Fras
Am I the ONLY one who uses p2p to find really old, obscure or downright daft stuff that I couldn't find in a million years commercially??
I do ocassionally get hold of the odd more recent track, but if I really like a track or a particular band, I'll buy a CD, because it sounds better played through a proper system!
The main point - I own legitimately purchased CDs that I wouldn't necessarily have bought as a DIRECT result of having downloaded something I like via p2p. Surely THIS is what the music industry should be promoting.
22. Olu Olufidipe
I would like to retract my former statements I no longer use Kazaa as downloading is wrong