The Internet Is Made For Sharing

Even so, when the artist put their time and hard work into making songs that will catch the subscribers attention just for it be free. For instance, Jacob Carter of “The Changing Landscape of the Music Business” quotes “In November of 2014, award-winning musician Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalog from Spotify, a popular streaming app, claiming that their business model suggests that music does not hold much worth.” This shows that Taylor Swift does not believe with the fact that her music is just out there for free and she not receiving money just for it be out there for the public. Thus, Darrius Johnson of “Selling Out Not Worth the Risk” quotes “In many situations, a record label owns the rights to an artist’s music, and if they license a song to a company or other party the artist has no control over how the song can be used.” To clarify, this information artists would not have their own opinion of doing any commercial because their music doesn’t belong to them but the record labels. This proves, that some artist has their opinion about their music they make and they just want to be free for the world to have because they took their time to create

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.

In 1999, Shawn Fanning and his little program called Napster created quite a stir in society. Napster's software allows music listeners to open pieces of their personal hard drives to everyone using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control what happens with

When I was in middle school, the biggest way to get music for free was a website named Limewire. Nothing was more exciting than to be able to hear a song on the radio then go home and download it to our desktops. Also cool, was the fact that if one of us didn’t have a song, our friend could simply “burn” it onto a c.d. for us. That was the only way we knew how to get music, aside from going out and buying the whole album. Apple’s iTunes was just starting out and iPods were just being created. Limewire was the way to go. Little did we know that Limewire was illegal and costing singers, songwriters, labels, and everyone associated with just one song, huge amounts of money.

The history of making and selling music as an industry is extremely short in comparison to the entire history of music itself. The availability of free music online may have made people take music for granted but has definitely not made it any less appreciated. Even if people aren’t paying for music, they are still taking time to find songs to listen

Starting in the year 1999, a company called Napster opened up a whole new world to the Internet where every song ever made was instantly available to you on your computer for free. It was created by an 18-year-old Northeastern University student named Shawn Fanning. Napster transformed personal computers into servers that shared mp3 files all across the Internet (Mayer, 2008). It became popular very quickly because exchanging mp3 files freely and having any music desired right at your fingertips had never been possible before. However, this program that provided the privilege of having free instant music to download did not last long, it was shut down after just two years by

Napster was a music sharing software that was shut down because of copying and distributing unauthorized MP3 files that violated the United States and foreign copyright laws. One of the major reasons why Napster was shutdown is

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 "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

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

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

When speaking economically, the digital music sector of the international music industry is undoubtably the most important sector in the industry. Within the last decade, music has seen cardinal changes in the way both major and independent labels distribute their products. An industry that once relied on Payola 's and mass distribution of physical records and CD 's now relies heavily on the power of the internet. The first instance of mass distribution of music through the internet was by the service Ritmoteca.com in 1998 [1]. Ritmoteca had a library of over 300,000 songs, offering individual songs for 99 cents each and albums for $9.99. After signing distribution deals with many major music labels such as Warner

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.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.