Negative Effects Of Music Downloading

When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.

I believed the basic aim of these websites were to digitally respond reasonable to the technological changes of how music was conveyed to drive sales In a positive manner but musician ended up getting a small fraction of the income receive from streaming videos and audio songs as royalties. I can personally testify to this with my personal attitude towards many popular songs I downloaded for free online that I heard for the first time on radio. In his article published in the New York Times on January 2013, Ben Sisario commented on how online streaming has hurt the industry and partially reduced sales. According to him, Many consumers has greatly welcomed this system citing them as a smart way to save money since streaming saves them more money than buying the physical album. This will virtually hurt the artist survival unless they are engaged in an important side business for survival. ( Hartwig Masuch, chief executive officer of BMG rights

With technology growing more and more each day, it is no surprise that the music industry is transitioning to rely more and more on online sales. However, problems can arise from this when artists are taken advantage of by people who illegally download their music off of the internet for free. When one college radio host publically stated that she illegally downloaded her music, a professor by the name of David Lowery saw a problem with this and decided to speak up about it. He wrote a letter addressed to the college radio host, Emily, called “Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered”. With this, he also addresses the general public and calls them to make a change in their music buying, or lack thereof, habits. He explains that illegally downloading music is not a harmless task and we must understand the effects that it has on the artists as well as the music industry as a whole. While Lowery has strong uses of ethos, logos, and pathos, his conversational and

Digital piracy on music has been a majorly disputed affair for the last eighteen years, about whether or not it favors the musical artists or affects them in a negative fashion. One of the many sides of the Digital piracy controversy expounds that it benefits the artist(s) by giving them a great deal of exposure that they may not have received had they not downloaded it for free, which in turn makes for a very significant acquisition in terms of sales on their part.

3-4). While these statistics provide a look into the numerical growth of the streaming industry, it is also important to discuss the power that these streaming services have generated—over both the music industry and over established/aspiring artists. Subscriptions are on the rise, having increased significantly over the past ten years, but as is the amount of users streaming music on a free-trial or ad-supported basis—ultimately undercutting the music industry and artists alike. Blewett and Gollogly (2017) elaborate on this point, stating that, by the end of 2016, paid music streaming subscriptions drove a revenue growth of 60.4%—this growth more than offsetting a “20.5% decline in downloads” and a “7.6% decline in physical revenue” (Blewett & Gollogly, 2017, para. 4). Moreover, Borja and Dieringer (2016) explore the concept of streaming even further in their academic article, positing that the decline in paid digital downloads may be a direct result of streaming—as, music streaming can be perceived as a “complement” for music piracy, in which listeners can freely sample music to pirate later on (Borja & Dieringer, 2016, p. 1). The authors also suggest that streaming can provide a “venue for discovering and listening to new releases”; and after completing their 1052 surveys, conclude that streaming increased the likelihood of piracy by

Many artists themselves are pro-Napster in many aspects of what they think it brings society. Napster allows for individuals to hear and experience different forms of music; therefore purchasing and promoting artists work. Some artists argue that it allows the public to be attentive to music that artists are putting out on the market. Fred Durst from Limp Bizkit said, "We believe that the Internet and Napster should not be ignored by the music industry as tools to promote awareness for bands and market music" (Napster 1). Fred Durst was describing how the music industry needs to recognize Napster as a type of advertisement of their product. Madonna was also quoted saying; "Napster could be a great way for people to hear your music who wouldn't have the chance to hear it on the radio" (Napster 1). This quote from Madonna helps to describe how people are enabled to hear music from different artists through Napster allowing artists to be heard and be recognized by the public. Chuck D also supported Napster's use replying, "We should think of (Napster) as a new kind of radio—a promotional tool that can help

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

The internet is the one media that brings up the most controversy in bands spreading their music. Whether they promote it or not their music is downloaded for free on the internet. Most bands do not like that their music is downloaded for free, but they can’t do much to stop it. In a way downloading music for free could bring the musicians even more money. If a person likes one of the songs they downloaded off of the internet they may be inclined to buy the entire album or at least the single. After the person buys the latest album they may even buy earlier albums from the same artist if they like the music enough. The internet has

Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.

Producers of musical content cannot undo the adverse effects that piracy has had on the industry. Because of the internet and the way individuals have manipulated it to obtain music, many people are unwilling to change their habits. Here lies the issue between the producer and the consumer. Acts like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) work against the incentive of many consumers by telling them that they cannot do what maximizes their utility. Producers are thus working against the likings of the consumer. This is wrong.

In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.

The evolution of the music industry follows the familiar pattern of digitization. Innovation began with the introduction of the vinyl record, transitioned from the cassette tape to the compact disc and landed us in an era of digital downloads. The emergence of music streaming services like Spotify has progressed the industry even further, giving consumers the ability to access music on demand using download-free online platforms. Spotify faces criticism from artists as a result of the overlap of creativity and commerce. They argue that business activities corrupt creativity, transforming it into a tool for profitability rather than an outlet for expression. Artists insist that Spotify deters album sales, favors established artists and fails to support them financially. However, Spotify was created for consumers. It delivers an accessible alternative to purchasing and downloading music. The interplay between creativity and commerce is changing the nature of the music industry. Spotify has adapted to this change, providing a platform that supports both artists and consumers. Through analysis of the market, artist’s revenue, record labels and consumers, I will argue that artists should accept the evolution of the industry and support Spotify.

Ever since 18-year-old Shawn Fanning created Napster in his Northeastern University dorm room in 1999, downloading and sharing music online has become one of the most popular things to do on the Internet today. But why wouldn't it? Getting all your favorite songs from all your favorite artists for free, who wouldn't want to start sharing music? The answer to that question are the people who feel that stealing from the music industry is not morally right, because that is exactly what every person who shares music is doing. People who download music think it's something they can get away with but now it might be payback time to a lot of those people.

Ever since the start of illegal music downloading there has been an ongoing debate. As with any controversy, there are those whose positions stand at one end of the spectrum or the other and also those who are moderate or nonchalant. Many believe that downloading a song without paying for it is not only illegal, but also immoral. None-the less, people continue to download songs, rationalizing that the record companies are getting what they deserve after years of overpriced CD's or that the artists won't really miss the money. Some people are not sure what to make of the situation, sympathizing in some respects with either side. There are several proposed solutions to this problem, but it has become obvious that there is not easy or clear