Pirates of the Music Industry
By Keith Boykin, in music
Wednesday, July 23 2003, 10:36AM
After installing a new computer recently, I began transferring my old music files onto my new system. But with the superfast processing speed of my new CPU, I came up with what I thought was a bright idea. Why not put all my favorite music on my computer? So I did.
I started by copying my favorite songs from the hundreds of CDs I own. Halfway through the process, a computer-savvy friend warned me that my computer's Windows Media player had copied the files in Windows' own WMA format instead of the widely used MP3 format.
My friend advised me to change the settings of the media player to copy all my music in MP3 format. I quickly switched gears, but not before I had already copied hundreds of CDs into the WMA format. When I finished, I had more than 2 gigabytes of music on my computer's hard drive. That was more than 60 hours of my favorite songs in the world.
I could have stopped there, but I tend to get obsessed with new projects. I made a list of all my favorite songs that I didn't have on my computer and tried to find them on the Internet to download. That's where I ran into my first problem.
After hearing lots of hype about this great new place to buy 99 cent CDs, I went to Apple's online music store only to discover it doesn't work for PCs. But PCs are 90 percent of the computer market. Where else could I go to download music legally?
I googled "download music" and came up with a site called MP3.com. Great news, I figured. I thought I would be able to download music for my PC from a legal site, but after Xing out a series of annoying pop up ads, I still couldn't find my first song, "Fire and Desire" by Rick James and Teena Marie. MP3.com found the title but the link connected me to the website for Rolling Stone magazine, where I could not buy or download the song.
Frustrated by the process, I tried to find another favorite song on MP3.com. I searched for "At Last," the classic love song by Etta James. The search turned up several results but none by Etta James. The only Etta James song I found was "Summer Heat," a James Brown-sounding tune that was far from what I wanted.
Before I gave up, I decided to try one last song. I typed in "You're Gonna Miss My Lovin," hoping to come up with my favorite Lou Rawls song but instead came up with a listing from Meredith Brooks for the same title. I don't know if Brooks's tune is the same song because there was no way to preview it.
When I typed in "Lou Rawls," the MP3.com website did find 37 of his albums (who knew Lou Rawls was so prolific?) but none - not one - was available to download. Instead, the site connects you to Amazon.com, which sells the hard copy of the album. That's fine if I want to buy albums, but what's the point of having a website called MP3.com if you can't find any MP3s you want to buy?
With my options diminishing, I went to Kazaa.com, a site that the recording industry is trying to shut down by prosecuting music listeners who download music using its software. But Kazaa seems unfazed and proudly advertises on its home page: "The world's most downloaded software application! Over 3.1 million downloaded last week." The message seems to be "there's safety in numbers."
Kazaa requires users to download its software to access its peer-to-peer (P2P) database of music. I downloaded the software but couldn't find it on my computer at first. After searching on the hard drive, I located the software, installed it, and set the preferences not to allow other users to browse my files.
Once I installed the software, I searched for the same three songs I couldn't find on MP3.com. Voila! "Fire and Desire" came up repeatedly. Etta James's "At Last" turned up immediately. Lou Rawls's "You're Gonna Miss My Lovin" didn't show up though. Well, two out of three ain't bad. At least I know why everyone is using Kazaa.
I never downloaded anything from Kazaa, and I can't say that I support the practice of downloading music without the artist's permission. I may not be typical. I've never even bought a bootleg CD on the street. As a writer, I understand the plight of the recording artist. I don't even lend books to friends because I think they should buy them instead of borrowing them.
But since it's so hard to find good legal music on the Internet, why doesn't the record industry move more quickly to create its own downloading websites instead of trying to lock up small time consumers who simply want to hear a good song? The answer is simple. The music industry is losing money and it blames the availability of downloadable music on the Internet for declining record sales.
The record industry essentially put Napster out of business, and now it wants to put other websites out of work too. But the music execs know that there's always another ram in the bush waiting to replace whatever Internet site goes down. They have tried prosecuting individual users under existing copyright law, but what jury in the country would convict a teenager or a grandmother for simply downloading a few favorite tunes?
That's why the recording industry is supporting legislation that would make illegal downloading of copyrighted materials a felony offense. Just last week, members of Congress introduced the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security bill to do just that.
Why is the record industry so bent out of shape? They claim they're concerned about the artists losing money, but they're really concerned about losing money themselves. The record companies have been ripping off artists since the beginning of time, so this new found concern for artists seems disingenuous at best.
In fact, even Michael Jackson came out this week against prosecuting individual music downloaders. In response to the legislation, Jackson said "I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans -- mostly teenagers -- in jail for downloading music."
"It is wrong to illegally download," Jackson said, "but the answer cannot be jail. Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws, and we should look to new technologies ... for solutions."
But in an effort to protect the industry's profits, the media continue to portray Jackson as a rebel without a cause. The article about his position on music downloading made a point of mentioning his Neverland ranch and referred to him unflatteringly as the "Gloved One."
The music industry has billions of dollars to fight its cause, but Jackson is right that the industry is going about it the wrong way. After all, they can't lock up everybody. Nor should they try.
Here's a better solution. Let's use that industry money to do four things. First, educate consumers about the importance of protecting copyrights. Second, compensate artists more fairly for their work. Third, reduce the cost of CDs so people will actually buy more of them. Fourth, create alternative, high-quality industry websites where people can download music legally and inexpensively.
The industry has launched a campaign of vilification against music pirates recently, but the computer consumers are not the only pirates. I looked up the word "pirate" in the dictionary and it said, "one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation."
That's exactly the problem. The definition implies that it's okay to rob and plunder if you have the official approval of a sovereign nation. And that's what the record companies have been doing for years. They don't call it piracy when they rob and plunder from the artists they exploit. They know they have the legal right to do so. And after all, they make the definitions.
Comments conceal
mr
July 23 2003, 12:41PM
Nice article. I think that most people would be happy to buy a song that they were interested in for a reasonable price instead of trying to search on kazaa and other similar applications. If the average consumer pays about of 1 penny per blank CD, the music industry must get an even better deal as a bulk buyer of blank media. It is relatively cheap to create a CD so where does the $19.99 you pay for a music CD go? The artist normally makes about 1 penny per sale. Of course their is the rest of manufacturing such as label and inserts, and advertising in magazines and such. At most I can't see it costing the record company more than $4.00 to produce each CD they sell. I do like the commercial with the music artist coming out against downloading music. Most of these people have claimed that they have shot or killed somebody not to mention how they sold drugs and hustled because they had to, and are proud of it. God forbid you do something really evil like downloading their tune though.
As for the Lou Rawls tune, try Kazaa again later. What you find depends on how many people you have on line at the time. Also sometimes people have the wrong titles on the songs. Personally, I tend to buy albums from certain artist. If I like enough that I think someone else should have I will buy a second copy for the person. I do use Kazaa for stuff I can not find out there. I am not in it everyday searching for stuff, just occasionally for a track that may be out of print. If I had a place to buy it online without the hassle of incomplete downloads, bad encoding, wrong information, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Imparadised
July 23 2003, 2:13PM
With the outrageous prices of albums and singles in the last 5 years, it's no wonder people are turning to the internet for music at record numbers. There was a study on the recording industry a few years ago on MTV and the price that record companies and distributors charge for their products are extremely high. Albums are sold at a minimum of $16.99 and up, but they only cost less than a dollar to make. Most of the money goes to middlemen, not the artists. Albums should be lowered to less than $10. To tell you the truth, ever since I was introduced to "online piracy" back in the spring of 2000 there has been no turning back. I've literally downloaded thousands of songs and I even have an iPod. I love downloading music because it gives me a chance to sample before I buy and make sure I'm making a good purchase. I still buy albums, but only from artists I love or work I know is good. I don't buy records blind anymore, thanks to the internet. A lot of times these albums aren't worth the plastic they're printed on, so music downloading alleviates the stress of making a bad consumer decision. If the industry wants money, they need to cut their consumers slack and realize that we aren't made of gold. Most teens get the money to buy their albums from their parents and if you buy 10 CDs thats well over $100. I was shocked to pay $40 (plus tax) for 2 CDs. The industry needs to lower its prices or kids will continue to download. You can't stop the piracy no matter what you do because if Kaaza's over, other search engines will take its place. Currently, I use LimeWire since I'm on a Mac, but if that folds there will be another server. Can't stop it.
Imparadised
July 23 2003, 2:14PM
With the outrageous prices of albums and singles in the last 5 years, it's no wonder people are turning to the internet for music at record numbers.
There was a study on the recording industry a few years ago on MTV and the price that record companies and distributors charge for their products are extremely high. Albums are sold at a minimum of $16.99 and up, but they only cost less than a dollar to make. Most of the money goes to middlemen, not the artists. Albums should be lowered to less than $10.
To tell you the truth, ever since I was introduced to "online piracy" back in the spring of 2000 there has been no turning back. I've literally downloaded thousands of songs and I even have an iPod. I love downloading music because it gives me a chance to sample before I buy and make sure I'm making a good purchase. I still buy albums, but only from artists I love or work I know is good. I don't buy records blind anymore, thanks to the internet. A lot of times these albums aren't worth the plastic they're printed on, so music downloading alleviates the stress of making a bad consumer decision.
If the industry wants money, they need to cut their consumers slack and realize that we aren't made of gold. Most teens get the money to buy their albums from their parents and if you buy 10 CDs thats well over $100. I was shocked to pay $40 (plus tax) for 2 CDs. The industry needs to lower its prices or kids will continue to download.
You can't stop the piracy no matter what you do because if Kaaza's over, other search engines will take its place. Currently, I use LimeWire since I'm on a Mac, but if that folds there will be another server. Can't stop it.
W. Pritchett
July 25 2003, 5:03AM
This is a very good article that I completely agree with.
For a while before the whole Napster issue blew up, I wanted to be an intellectual property lawyer, so I spent many an hour researching copyright laws. Sadly, copyright laws are vague at best. For example, the most common argument that proponents of P2P file sharing use is the argument of Fair Use, yet under 17 USC, Fair Use is very loosely defined and, in most cases, has to be determined by a court of law through a four point litmus test of sorts.
Additionally, copyright laws have constantly been strengthened to favor corporations over individuals. Yes, I believe that artists are definately entitled to credit and money for their work, but even artists are getting the wool pulled over their eyes with current copyright laws.
The cost of music is definately a key issue. CDs have come down in price over the years, but definately not as much as they should have. Ten years ago, $22.00 single CDs were typical but now the same CD can be purchased for 13.99 to 17.99. However, a less than ten dollar drop in prices over a ten year span when CD manufacturing has become virtually commonplace is ludicrious but, since there are people (usually teens spending their parents' money) who are willing to pay that kind of money on CDs, the price won't be dropping any time soon.
Organizations like the RIAA and MPAA would like us to believe they have no other recourse but to go after individual file swappers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they simply want to use the law that heavily favors them to attempt to throw fear into people. History shows that this type of tactic only makes people more resentful towards the organizations applying it. Hopefully the RIAA will understand this before they spend far too much money on what will be a neverending legal battle for them (which they will likely use as an excuse to keep CD prices up). I won't be holding my breath for a change of heart from them though.
andrew
August 31 2003, 9:23PM
i would like to know if there is any fine for downloading music and if i should stop or not? thank you
K
September 17 2003, 10:31PM
America really is a horrible place if the goverment allows familys to be ruined by 150,000 dollar lawsuits against a family because their 14 year old kid downloads a couple songs
jason
October 3 2003, 11:51PM
nice article i am useing winmx i was using kaaza, i heard that they are not prosecuting for downloading but only for sharing files is that ture? i havent downloaded anything new since they started all of this garbage i think it is idiotic this is america. why go out and buy a whole cd for just one or two songs its not worth it unless you like the artist and then you buy the cd. downloading music and burning them is just the same thing as bruning songs for someone who has the cds whats next go after those people as well. anyway if you have the answer to my question it would be greatly appreciated.
R G
December 13 2003, 12:18PM
I stumbled upon your site recently (and I'm glad I did). I like your writing style and agree with 3/4 of what you expouse!
I am writing in reference to the July 23, 2003 article "Pirates of the Music Industry". . .
The Kaaza.com site you downloaded into your Harddrive has spyware that they implant in order to track you on the internet. My purpose is Not to make you Paranoid but to be aware.
You can ask your computer-savvy friend about this.
Looking Out,
RG