Research: Conclusions
There will never be a shortage of musicians willing to create new music. The argument that file sharing will lead to less music being created is an unjustified claim. The physical product containing the music was the scarce good in the model, and that is what music customers were really paying for. But now, distribution is almost infinitely abundant due to the Internet and digital technologies like the mp3 and p2p file sharing. Without some scarce resource connected with the music it holds little to no value, and this is why CD sales will continue to drop. This also why copyright law is incompatible with the digital environment. Internet users are criminalized for sharing music, even though the Internet technology facilitates it. As explained by Stone (2009), “It might have made sense to regulate on a per copy basis when the only people who would build a record pressing plant were either legitimate or bootleggers” (p. 4). However, attempts to apply this old per copy model of restriction in the digital environment is futile. The nature of computers and the Internet are built upon copies, so as these become the primary means of distribution and consumption, restricting non-commercial copying and sharing is no longer logical.
An author should not have to choose between all (traditional copyright) or nothing (public domain), but should rather have a choice as to what rights they would like to have associated with their work. This is where new licensing structures like Creative Commons can benefit a digital culture and help users take advantage of computer and Internet technologies without concerns of infringing the law. If we cannot change copyright law, we can at least create alternatives that facilitate the ability to choose what rights artists want associated with their works. We need to educate the public about Creative Commons, making sure that people understand the limits of traditional copyright law and that they have new alternative options. By encouraging more works to be licensed with Creative Commons is to ensure that future generations have a rich pool of creative content to share, interact with, and build upon, without the restrictions that scarcity-based copyright laws have imposed upon our current generation.
The environment in the music industry is now the most inviting it has ever been for artists and musicians to gain audiences for their work. At the same time, music consumers are more empowered than ever as well. It has been said many times in the past decade that the music industry is dead. This is far from the case. The fact remains that it is not the music industry that is dead, but rather the CD industry and the major label model of selling overpriced physical products to consumers that is dead. Therefore, as more and more established artists and bands follow in the footsteps of Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and others embracing new distribution models, the future of music will see a lessened need for record labels. There are more opportunities and options available to musicians and consumers than ever before. Artists now have access to a world of Internet users, many of whom are consistently searching out new music and looking for real reasons to buy. At the same time, users have been empowered with the ability to decide what content we want, when we’re going to get it, and where we are going to get it from.
The Web, along with advanced digital technologies like p2p and mp3, has facilitated efficient music sharing across the globe. While this is no doubt in direct conflict with US copyright laws, statistics show that Internet users are continuing to share regardless of the criminalization of their actions. One in six American Internet users have used file sharing networks, and the numbers continue to rise. Thus, the criminalization of music sharing is the criminalization of a major portion of the population, namely the teenagers and young adults who represent the future of this country. Instead of simply attacking these users who represent the core market of the music industry, labels, digital start-ups, and most importantly artists need to embrace these fans and give them viable and fair alternatives to p2p networks. This includes fair pricing, no DRM, ease of use, findability, connecting with the fans and giving them real reasons to buy.
Kelly (2008) says, “A zero price does not help direct attention to a work, and in fact may sometimes hinder it. But no matter what its price, a work has no value unless it is seen; unfound masterpieces are worthless. When there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting our attention — and most of it free — being found is valuable”. Netlabels provide generative values to CC licensed music by helping the work be found more efficiently, and adding a trust factor to the files, especially when released on established netlabels that have a lot of releases. However, netlabels need better organization and access for music users on the Web. While sites like Phlow and Sonic Squirrel do their best to bring attention to netlabel music, a main hub with user-generated ranking systems is needed for netlabel culture to grow into a substantial alternative for music distribution and consumption.
Most music content is already available at little to no cost on the Web if the user knows where to look. Due to this, the netlabel model of distributing music for free could possibly become a more widely adopted practice for independent musicians and labels, and possibly even the major labels. Giving music to fans for free will become a way to maintain direct relationships with audiences, thus increasing financial opportunities in other places like touring and merchandising. Doctorow (2008) states that “every techno-literate participant in the information economy can choose to access any data…just by searching for the cracked copy on the public Internet. If there’s one thing we can be sure of, it’s that an information economy will increase the technological literacy of its participants” (p. 60). When all music is available on the Web for free, there must be some incentive for users to pay for music. This is where Kevin Kelly’s (2008) eight generative qualities can make sense of a world where creators are competing with free. These generatives include immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity, accessibility, embodiment, patronage, and findability. Combining these generative qualities with Masnik’s (2009) CwF + RtB model will equate to a viable business model for the future of music, where fans get what they want and artists get paid. However, traditional major record labels and restrictive licensing do not have a place in these future models.
There is a great possibility for film, games, and television to embrace net labels and CC music as a source for licensing creative works, lessening the need for expensive music licensing while also providing a source of income to netlabel artists. Also, stores and other public spaces that play music, and thus pay licensing fees to collecting societies, could instead play CC licensed works for a fraction of the cost. Jamendo is already trying to adapt to these possibilities, offering commercial licensing packages for businesses, and other new services are looking at these possibilities as well.
As this research has outlined, copyright law continues to increase owner’s rights while decreasing public rights. By embracing new alternatives like Creative Commons for licensing media on the Web, American music culture has the potential of shifting back to a fair trade-off between public rights and individual artist rights. Helyer (2008) states, “To be optimistic we might embrace the concept of a greater community of consumers, allowing ourselves to indulge in a simplistic embrace of the notion of a freedom of choice within the free-market economy of music” (p. 63). While I am not optimistic about US copyright reform, I am extremely optimistic about the possibilities of a free music culture that exists as an alternative to the restrictions culture of traditional music copyright. I hope more of the public will embrace these new alternatives in the future.
