There is a maelstrom of controversy around the use of bit-torrent and peer-to-peer file-sharing of music fulminating at the moment. There are (at least) two sides to the argument and perhaps the only thing that is clear is that the status quo will not stand.
On one hand the music industry is furious with the bit-torrent and peer-to-peer sites. They paint them as pirates stealing food from the mouths of starving artists. On the other hand the pirates say that internet distribution has changed things forever and that the old commercial models make no sense in the new world of interconnected information. The truth, or certainly a sane solution, lies somewhere in the middle.
It is somewhat disingenuous of the music industry spokesmen to claim to be speaking for starving artists. Although James Blunt often looks like he could do with a good feed I imagine he is well compensated for what he does. The real threat of the changes afoot are to the companies at the top of the music industry food chain. Bit-torrent in particular is a fantastically efficient method of distributing digital information. It cuts out the physical manufacture of CDs, requires no transportation and no retail outlet.
Following this argument through, peer network distribution cuts out a large part of the role that many music industry companies perform. So perhaps they are more worried about their own futures than where James Blunt's next hot dinner is coming from. It all sounds rosy at first. We can all strap on our tricorn hats and eye-patches and download anything we want, can't we?
Unfortunately not, or at least not yet with a clean conscience. While there may be some real marketing advantages to releasing music on peer network sites there is currently no direct way to extract any revenue and this once again swings the pendulum in favour of the waif-like Mr Blunt and his ilk. If you are already making money from your music and have access to the monetized distribution networks the peer network sites are a great meretricious marketing tool. Indeed the music industry is actively using them for research now as this article from Torrentfreak.com points out. But what of those fighting their way up the greasy pole how does this emerging model help them?
At the moment it doesn't directly though the potential is huge. The distribution of wealth through-the music industry is still based on the old models where much is done on guesswork. It has kept some cats fat, but it doesn't share the wealth. With the ability to track exactly what has been downloaded over the internet there is an opportunity to create a system where artists really are paid based on their popularity, where the medium of distribution is open to all and talent is rewarded rather than the size of your marketing budget. While James Blunt might be gaunt his marketing budget is not.
The infrastructure is emerging but it is not fully enabled or monetized yet. It could be on the basis of subscriptions or perhaps sponsorship. The solution is out there waiting to be discovered, and it will emerge. One day we will be able to download content for invisible (or even no) cost, all artists will prosper according to their popularity and the playing field will be level.
If this sounds like something you would like to happen then I would encourage you to actively engage with the process. Support sites like Amie Street that are proposing alternative distribution methods and don't accept the industry line that file-sharing is evil. Engage with the process and improve it.
P.S: It is unfair to single out James Blunt for ridicule. There are scores of corporate drones cranking out music by the yard for their paymasters. I just happened to see his tragic face on a billboard this morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment