Regulation Of The Music Industry

The music industry is made of companies which produce and sell music. The music industry as we know it was solidified in the mid-twentieth century, where records succeeded sheet music as the primary product in the music business. Record companies were established, but did not last very long until the late 1980s when the “Big Six”, a group of multinational corporations consisting of Sony, MCA, WEA, Polygram, EMI, and BMG controlled most of the market. Initially there were five corporations (CBS and RCA (both now belonging to Sony), WEA, EMI, and Polygram) that had emerged in 1978 to own 60 per cent of the market. (Wallis and Malm, 1984, p. 81)

Censoring music will limit the creativity and viewpoint of other people; which is causing our freedom of speech becoming eradicated and adds on to the shortcoming of understanding other people’s perspectives. People have different stances on life, and want to canvass the things that they lived through. This is where foul language and censorship is most debated.

Throughout the years, music has evolved and transformed in many ways. However, there are restrictions in today’s music, otherwise known as, censorships. A crisis has emerged concerning the issue of censorship. This argument consists of two possible stances: one, supporting the continuation of censorship, and two, eliminating the status quo of censorships in the music industry. There have been countless debates and arguments regarding the issues of censorship ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Radio Act in 1927 (The History). The time has arrived for censorship to be brought to an end. The government should release their grip on the censorship of music for the following reasons: it obstructs the public’s freedom of choice, it

Music gives an intense type of expression that at its most essential level stimulates while containing the ability to bring about unrests - both social and political. Music's intrinsic force panics a few individuals who fear the effective potential to shape demeanors and convictions. The banning of music sets a perilous point of reference for the control of different types of expression - with unsafe results for a free society. Why is music censored? Variables might incorporate conflicting good values, racial inspirations, generational worth crevices, and trepidation.

The popular music industry in the late 1990s was dominated by a small number of integrated corporations with headquarters in Europe, the United States and Japan. This music market starts simply with an artist and moves along through many steps to the consumer. Everything has its start when a musician presents his music to a music manager, and if he/she finds the music promising, a contract is signed between the two, recordings are made and a marketing plan is drafted for the

In this article, Peterson and Berger show how the organization of the popular music industry affects the music that America hears.

The "business side of music is struggling to generate enough revenue because of the new technology" ("How the Internet Changed Music."). "Most of the people who are part of making a record are paid in royalties, and anytime music changes hands without money being involved, those royalties can’t be paid—which is why so much has been done in recent years to try and reduce music piracy"("How The Internet Changed Music."). iTunes and Amazon has helped by offering cheap downloads for single songs, which allows the customer to only purchase songs they like rather than the entire album ("How the Internet Changed Music."). Spotify and Pandora, who offer either ad-based or paid subscription streaming of their music libraries, are Internet radio stations which have also helped with the piracy problem ("How The Internet Changed

When people illegally download music they are robbing the artists of royalties. The fact that people are increasingly stealing music begs a further question of how slippery this slope is. Will the music industry stop making money altogether because people can just find a way to get their music illegally? While this is the far extreme it is important to note the far reaching implications of what this could mean for the industry. Striking losses of profits would cripple artists and everyone involved in producing or distributed the music. An example of how the music industry is losing profits on royalties is evident with the declining us of CDs. Today, the CD is becoming an outdated and inferior product that only true fans of an artist will seek out. Another example is when music is being purchased legally online. When consumers purchase online music it is almost always going to be a lower cost. As a consumer, you have the option to just buy the songs you like.

Since the iTunes music store was introduced on April 28, 2003, gross music sales have plummeted in the United States - from $11.8 billion in 2003 to $7.1 billion in 2012, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (Covert). Counterintuitively, during that time consumers were buying more music than ever. How is that possible? It 's because iTunes had made digital singles popular and was selling them cheap. This would change the music industry forever. In 2000, Americans bought 943 million CD albums (Covert), and digital sales didn’t even make a dent in comparison. But by 2007, those inexpensive singles overtook CDs by a wide margin, generating 819 million sales compared to just 500 million for the CD.

The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.

Nowadays, teenagers are living constantly surrounded by technology. Even if the younger generation may not see it, technology has had an impact on different factors. The widespread use of digital technology in the music industry has allowed consumers to reproduce digital versions of copyrighted songs inexpensively, with the help of many software and websites. There has been an increase in digital copying activities and those are most of the time claimed responsible for producers’ loss in revenues. While some people claim that the increase of digital technology has killed the music industry, in fact it has lead to innovation and new ways of consuming and sharing music, such as

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.

The music industry much like every other industry has found ways to connect their product to the people through technology. Now music is readily available to the public through many avenues ITunes, YouTube, and so much more. As music has become more available to the public the industry now faces the threat of illegal downloading and sharing of music files. Many people will purchase an album through a download site and then either post it for free download to others or distribute it to their friends; while those who do this don’t usually face consequence does that make it right?

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.