OldSpeak
Why Is File Sharing So Popular?
By Neal Shaffer
October 07, 2003
In one of the first major, above the board clashes between technology and the old economy (at least as far as average consumers are concerned), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently filed 261 lawsuits against individual users of file-sharing sites such as Kazaa and Grokster. Record sales have been in decline for several years, and the RIAA has decided that downloading is largely to blame. Their response is a study in ignorance, and it reveals desperation in an industry that, if it can’t catch up, might never be the same again.
The Association (and, by extension, its members) is a lot like many large institutions in that technology has far outpaced their ability to assimilate and respond to it. The popularity of internet song-swapping caught them off guard, and they’ve spent the past few years playing catch-up. The first salvo in the war against file sharing was a successful attempt to shut down Napster, the first P-to-P (person-to-person) site to achieve wide recognition. But the demise of Napster only led to the creation of new and better services. The RIAA, not knowing exactly what to do, is now filing the lawsuits as a sort of desperate, “scared straight” tactic. It may work when it comes to the grandparents and preteens they’ve targeted, but it misses the point.
The question that the RIAA should be asking is not “What can we do to stop file sharing?” but, rather, “Why is file sharing so popular?” The fact that non-sanctioned downloads are free has a lot to do with it, but it’s too easy to say that downloading is popular simply because it’s cheap and easy. It’s popular because people don’t feel that they should have to pay what CDs cost. It’s not that people are opposed to the idea of buying their music (the startling success of Apple’s iTunes music store proves as much), it’s that they’re not willing to buy into the outmoded structure the major labels continue to push. People don’t want to buy a whole album for just one song (whatever happened to the single?), or pay $16.99 for an album we all know would still turn a profit at $9.99. There’s been a vacuum in this area for years, and sites like Kazaa are filling it.
The RIAA’s only real counterargument is that sharing copyrighted songs is illegal, plain and simple. There is some obvious truth to that, but it again misses the point. By suing individual users, they have managed to slow the downloading trend (a variety of reported studies suggest that the lawsuits have had at least some deterrent effect) while not only failing to address the problem, but potentially making it even worse. Subpoenaing user records from ISP’s and suing without first assessing each case for gravity smacks of heavy handedness, and it naturally creates resentment. Countersuits have already been filed by both Kazaa and Charter Communications, an ISP, to block the RIAA from obtaining user records, and a new generation of file sharing software promises to provide users with more anonymity and security.
One would think that the RIAA would look at this situation and follow it through to the logical conclusion: that in order to combat the file sharing trend, major labels need to reassess their business practices. They need to come up with their own sanctioned download sites (iTunes is a great start, but only that) that offer quality and value, and they need to make buying CD’s worthwhile for people who still want to do it. To be fair, certain labels have started offering their discs at lower prices, with added content such as DVD material or enhanced CD-ROM features, or both. But on the whole CD prices remain high and, simply, not worth it.
The RIAA doesn’t seem to see any of this, and it’s strange. But it may just be the best thing that has happened to the music buying public in years. The more inhospitable the major market becomes, the more artists and buyers will carve out new places to do their business. It’s no accident that smaller and more independent labels (see Sub Pop, Dischord, Touch and Go, Vagrant, and a host of others) that have generally reasonable prices and artist-friendly business practices have not suffered as the majors have. But if the majors continue (through the RIAA) to push wrongheaded policies, will anybody shed a tear if they become irrelevant entirely? Doubtful. And if they do manage to see the light and enact more artist and buyer friendly polices, well, that’s OK too.
DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN OLDSPEAK ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE.
