Sharing music on the internet

I� am confused by all this talk of "Free music on the Internet." Can you explain it < xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

A.� The Internet has caused revolutions in many areas of daily life and culture, and music has been no exception. The biggest revolution of all has been the concept of people 'sharing' music with each other via the Internet.

�

Q.� How does that work

A.� Simply, the idea was that someone who had a piece of music on file, on their computer hard-drive, could give anyone else free access to download that file onto the visitor's hard-drive, thus sharing the file, and spreading music around the world.

�

Q.� That sounds like it would be a popular idea.

A.� There's an understatement�- the concept became a file-sharing system called Napster, and it took off like a proverbial rocket. At its peak, in February of this year, Napster was logging 2.79 billion downloads, that's an average of 100 million downloads a day. The reason for the peak in traffic was the impending potential cessation of Napster's operation,�the result of a long-standing legal battle with the music industry in general, and several major record labels in particular.

�

Q.� So record labels are not in favour of the idea

A.� Not at all. Depending on your viewpoint, major record labels are either industry fat cats who operate a monopoly selling over-priced CD's, or supporters of new music and musicians, providing the financial backing required to record, market and distribute music on a global scale. Napster appears to have taken the former viewpoint, and adopted a stance of a latter-day Robin Hood, passing on music free of charge, and bypassing the business end of the music industry completely.

�

Q.� Doesn't that sound reasonable

A.� It has an appeal to it�- based on the fact that human nature tends to embrace anything that gives away something for free that would otherwise have to be paid for. The downside is the fact that musicians are having their work passed around without the opportunity of agreement, or of obtaining any financial reward for it.

�

Q.� So how has the music industry reacted

A.� Predictably, the major record labels have argued that artists are being cheated of reward for their efforts, and that the scale of file-sharing represents a serious threat�to the companies that nurture and support new talent, and without that support, new music will simply fail to reach a wide audience.

�

Q.� That sounds reasonable as well!

A.� It does, there are valid reasons for and against both sides of the situation. Not surprisingly, having created a global industry worth millions of pounds, the major labels were less than keen to have their output taken from them. They reacted with instant punitive�legal action, the results of which are finally having an effect�- hence the download peak in February, as users anticipated the total shutdown of the Napster system.

�

Q.� Did it shut down

A.� No, but the operation has been severely curtailed, with the legal requirement for Napster to obtain royalty payments for artists by operating a subscription system. Special filtering technology has been employed, which gives record companies a degree of control over the material, which Napster users can access, and download.

�

Q.� What doe bands and musicians think about all of this

A.� Again, it's far from being a simple issue. Bands like Radiohead are in favour of sharing their work on the Net�- their Kid A album was available for free down-loading in advance of its official release. On the other side, hugely successful metal band Metallica are vociferous opponents of the concept of file-sharing, and have placed a considerable amount of their multi-million dollar earnings behind legal action to prevent their work being exploited.

�

Q.� But surely bands like Metallica are rich enough not to need the money they may loose through Napster subscribers sharing their material

A.� Undoubtedly, but Metallica object to the fact that their choice to distribute their work has been taken from them, and that for them is the issue, not the financial implications involved. It comes down to that unhappy mix of art and money, not for nothing is it called the music business.

�

Q.� So what now

A.� The future is assuredly some kind of licensed and regulated file-sharing system.�There are already a number of companies who are offering a subscription-based service, and it is likely that the major labels will embrace this as a workable solution, having conceded that the concept of file-sharing is never going to go away, they only have a choice about having some say in its operation, and some share of the financial results.

�

Q.� Is the whole idea good for the future of music

A.� That remains to be seen. Certainly a new generation of music fans have grown accustomed to being able to cherry-pick the music they want, which means the kiss of death for the old 'one hit and some dodgy filler' albums of years ago. As with every revolution, once the initial fuss dies down, everyone will quietly find a compromise that suits all sides, and music culture will move on, having met somewhere in the middle of the argument, and found a solution that suits most, if not all, the individuals involved.

�

�

If you have a musical question, click here.

�

�

���������������������������������������������������������������������� By:� Andy Hughes