- Downloading of music from Peer to Peer networks is akin to stealing. Producers and artists should be compensated for their work. The general public, downloading music and other content from free sources is doing so on unethical and immoral grounds.
- The current digital music distribution framework has been essential in providing a global voice to artists that would have been otherwise unknown. The large artists seem to be quite financially successful already. The producing companies need to re-invent their business models in order to adapt to the changing needs and usage patterns of the consumer.
Personally, I am in favor of the 2nd point of view. I believe that the producing companies need to adapt their ways of doing business and need to stop throwing their toys from their cots and crying foul. In my view success in business is intrinsically tied to one's ability to adapt to change (& lead the change process). In our time of existence, the rules of the game, whatever game, are constantly changing and they are changing at a faster rate than ever before.
The tactic of using corporate muscle to crush the free exchange of digital music is a knee-jerk reaction that has lasted a decade. I know it is quite cliche for me to post an online blog on the power and necessity for the free transfer of information. But one of my pet-peeves is watching bureaucracy and change-fobia stifle the road of the change agent.
Anyway, if you are still reading, my ramblings must have been somewhat interesting (even if they may be infuriating for some of you).
So till the next time something inspires me or grinds my gears - Caio.
Interesting discussion. Is this related to a Enrique Dans' course?
ReplyDeleteYeah - Enrique Dans is awesome........and he's a celebrity !!!!
ReplyDeleteCount me in camp #1: ptp downloads of e-books, movies, music, software; they're all theft. Doesn't mean I've never done it, or won't do it again, but if the artists and authors wanted there stuff out there for free, they'd put it out there for free (like Radiohead and some others do/did).
ReplyDeleteThat said, there is some validity to camp #2 insofar as it recognizes that simply crying "foul" on copyright infringement is not the way to deal with this problem (particularly when the copyright system is broken due to having been gradually captured by industry in decades past, but that's another discussion on legal rights and the philosophical debate regarding the proper extent of the public domain). For years, they controlled the channels of distribution in such a way that they could overcharge, and did. I hardly have sympathy for them now that the pendulum has swung and consumers can bypass them directly. While the cat is pretty much out of the bag, they should shift their focus from extracting quasi-monopoly profits to actually delivering their product to the consumer at a fair and reasonable price point (as well as generating revenues via other sources).
My bottom line, I suppose: both sides rationalize and justify their largely faulty positions, when a solution (and fairness) lie somewhere in the middle.
I hear your side of the story but have a few issues with what you've written. I am not sure that I think the whole record label stifling change is still relevant. If anything, from my point of view, they've already hit rock bottom and are making their way back up. Obviously, they need to reinvent their business model and it seems to me that is exactly what they are trying to do. Also, I think that when people say downloading is illegal, they are not referring to compensating producers. Finally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a solution...you've posed your preference and you've argued that large artists "seem" to be doing well but I guess I just don't feel your argument has convinced yet...
ReplyDelete