Thursday 20 June 2013

Lawful or Unlawful?

            Piracy is the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and selling of something that has copyrights attached. This occurs increasingly more frequently with music, movies, and TV shows as technology makes these artist creations more general accessible. This also creates a problem for distributors; the middle man. The dramatic increase in direct downloads have in effect out the middle man and along with them their profits. With respect to piracy, it is the creator and/or distributor that are being victimized. In response they push for increased or new copyright protection. However, technology continues to evolve and along with it new means of circumventing copyright protections. It is becoming more difficult to strike an appropriate balance between the consumer and the distributor. Essentially the consumer is trying to minimize or even eliminate cost while the distributors are trying to maximize profit. Basically, distribution is “to supply revenues to administrative organizations and intermediaries with little or no creative function”.[1] This in itself is nothing new to free markets. However, with most commodities theft of the product is easier to define and just as easy to detect. How can an effective and fair balance be found or will one of the players have to compromise?

            The fact that consumers don’t pay for the music they download, doesn’t mean that they are trying to steal from the artist. It just means that they don’t feel the need to pay the distributor. There are times when the consumer will pay for a creation regardless of price, because they are supporting a friend or a local artist. However, most of the time consumers make every effort to avoid paying for a variety of reasons. These include; they’ve paid too much in the past, it is overpriced, the artist is rich, or they don’t know where their money is actually going. It is like a charity in that sense. Someone might not donate because they have heard the money doesn’t actually go towards the charity. Another argument is that free downloads are free promotion for that distributor. Who would want to turn down free promotion? Nowadays distribution is driven by “word-of-mouth discussions, friend-to-friend sharing, and convenience in accessing [the] music”.[2]

            If music is free, no one will pay for it. If no one pays, artists and producers will stop creating music,”[3] which will lead to many distributors going out of business. In my opinion, this is primary reason for copyrights laws. If there is no profit only the consumer wins. The distributor is out of business and the creator has no motivation beyond artistic expression. The world is driven by market demand, so why does it seem different in this case? Because it would be FREE! The demand is for free music, even though this might not directly benefit the artist involved. That being said, the artist that creates something that is truly in demand will have other very lucrative ways of generating income such as concerts, tours, meet and greets, autographs, commercials and endorsements. Really when it comes down to it “music lovers end up buying music”.[4]

            According to studies it would take “5,000 downloads to displace one sale”[5], which is using their most pessimistic view. So I don’t understand why there is such emphasis on getting people to pay $3+ for a song. Should we really be paying for each song? When we really want to support the artist we will. I don’t believe we should be forced into it; it should be voluntary. The impact on the artist can be mitigated and as for the distributor, perhaps they no longer have a meaningful role to play in the world of artist creations. In the end, maybe the solution is to cut out the middle man (the distributor) and have the artist post their songs and books. They can give them away or charge whatever they want. Ultimately, their resulting popularity will determine things like income and fame. “In situations where the connection between artists and fans is viewed as more direct, people will buy.”6 The rest still have the best medium ever created for artist expression on a global stage.

           

           







3 comments:

  1. Great post and great idea.Usually the middleman will do a lot of publicity to raise the value of works of the artists,then they could make more profit. I agree that if their are no distributors(the middle man),the consumers support the artists directly,the price of songs may be much more cheaper.But i don't think it works that the music is free and the artist will have other very lucrative ways of generating income. Lots of artists create works wish to make more profit. If they cannot make profit from their work,they may lose the motivation to create new works.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you have made an astute observation in your post " as for the distributor, perhaps they no longer have a meaningful role to play in the world of artist creations. In the end, maybe the solution is to cut out the middle man (the distributor) and have the artist post their songs and books" (Cole, 2013). Musicians now have an inexpensive vehicle to reach out to their audience directly, the Internet. Why should artists relinquish a large percentage of the revenues generated from their art for someone to do that for them? Organizers of music events have an inexpensive vehicle to reach out to any musicians they might want to perform in their event directly, the Internet. Why do they need anyone to make that connection for them? The communication barriers that once existed between these groups due to location, time, language etc. have been resolved by online technologies. I believe distributors have recognized their role as promotors and star makers is tenuous so they have reinvented themselves as the protectors of artists rights, wielding legal force that individual artists could not afford. Unfortunately for distributors, the numbers of consumer/producer/pirates is growing so rapidly that this role may become moot much sooner than they expect. Perhaps it is just a matter of time before the transformation from middle man distribution to direct distribution, or some compromise between these two extremes, prevails and the distributor strangle hold on copyright is surrendered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey,
    I really enjoyed your post and completely agree with your point of the creator being the true victim in the case of piracy. It it unfortunate that an individual will put such time and effort in creating music only for it to be enjoyed for free. As I stated in my post I have downloaded music without paying and I do feel it is for the reasons you stated, consumers do not feel they need to. I don't think there is an artist I care enough about to support and feel like I should pay (especially since now the majority of music I listen to comes from mixed cds).
    I also enjoyed that you mentioned individuals will pay for products (ie. music) in support of a friend. I to have done this even if I don't care for the product, I just want to help out. Maybe if artists could rebuild that consumer appreciation that there was in the past - we would be more likely to purchase.
    -PAIGE JOHNSON

    ReplyDelete