Music Piracy vs Music Industry
Nov 5th, 2010 by Cathy Jo Nelson
Music Piracy spells the end of the traditional model for those in the music industry to make an honest living from their talents. At least it is according to my students.
Current Events Class Guest Speaker
Today I worked with our current events class to discuss the recent shutdown of Limewire as a way to bring up music piracy and teach ethical use and copyright (kind of getting it in the backdoor, so to speak.) Here is my slide deck from the class.
Was I really trying to make my students feel like criminals today? Many readily admitted to using the p2p sites to get free music. At the end I added two more survey questions (see slide deck’s last 2 slides) to see if our discussion had changed the way they felt about the legality of participating/sharing files not purchased and under copyright. The vast majority freely admitted they would continue despite the knowledge that it was illegal and after seeing the example of someone with a hefty fine in the current news.
This model no longer works
There was one consensus among the class of twenty-nine students. The general feeling was that the music industry is an antiquated model, and organizations like the RIAA are trying to preserve a model that has been over for many years. The kids in general believe that musicians make profits from concerts and the selling of regalia related to band names, etc. All agreed they themselves happily buy t-shirts and other material, and also enjoy attending live performances, no matter the cost. It was even suggested that the artists of today are happy their content is being shared free of charge, and that it is used as a tool to raise interest in going to the concerts.
My teaching responsibility-ethical use IS a standard after all
I’m not so sure still what I accomplished today. But I do know this. Today’s group was very indifferent about the topic. The prosecution of Jammie Thomas and its discussion revealed that most do not believe she will ever pay a dime of the fine and that ultimately laws will probably be changed or done away with because of the precedent this case is setting. These students equate the theft of music to driving a car 60 mph in a 55mph zone–essentially no big deal, and for the most part everyone ignores that a law is being broken, even the authorities. So how does that explain the case against Jammie Thomas? She is just one in a gazillion who do this to these kids. They have the sense that they will never be caught. I left them with the reminder that all I asked is that they make good choices, and that as an educator I felt obligated to make them informed cybercitizens. Hope I did that–despite the admission in our informal survey that they would continue to take music freely offered, copyrighted or not. Sigh.
Bonus
My current events teacher who invited me gushed over the great lesson and how much HE learned. Oh well. Sigh, again.
Great lesson, Cathy! How did student responses shape up before and after the slideshow?
During my last two years as a teacher/librarian, I taught a high school Current Events class (my choice). I found that the best lesson plans were put together the day before, or even the day of, scheduled classes. It’s the perfect subject for someone in our profession to teach – after all, locating and sharing information is a large part of what we do!
They were indifferent before, except to say how simple it is to get the music one likes today (and how diverse their tastes are, much wider than when I was young.) These kids talked about the Billboards and how music is ranked, reminding me that ranking was based on sales, then pointing out that Billboards are wrong on many levels since the youth of today DO NOT purchase music–they get it freely from sharing. I really had not considered that at all. So essentially music is taking the road of the long tail just as much as learning is. Now THAT was a surprising discovery with this class, and it is one that indicates I learned something today as well.
I’m sure your presentation was fantastic – the slidedeck supports that belief. The old “you can lead a horse to water” saying applies here. It is not your fault if the students continue to illegally download and/or share music. Now if/when they do so, they are willingly choosing to break the law.
I fear that many of today’s youth have witnessed too many “I have never had sex with that woman” type of adult examples to believe that wrongdoing = punishment.
Thank you so much for sharing your slideshow. It’s a special interest of mine because I was raised in a family that worked (note the past tense) in the music industry for a collective total of 70 years. I think about the topic alot and am always grateful when someone else does, too.
I’m not surprised by the reactions of your students–at least they didn’t get angry, which happened when we discussed this topic in a graduate level LIS class last year after some students suggested that illegal downloading was, well, illegal.
I look at the topic through the eyes of a copyright holder–the artist or composer. I also consider how broadband/internet and hardware costs have eaten up the dollars that traditionally went to copyright holders and record labels.
With regards to music piracy and from an ethical standpoint, I believe an artist has every right to be angry and seek legal action when their recordings are unwillingly sold for profit or bootlegged by a shady record label or download site. It’s the intellectual property of the artist, who typically writes and composes their own songs. Not to mention, the artist has developed their own way of performing a song, which is documented within the recording.
In 2011, a judge ruled in favor of singer Paul Collins, whose rock group The Beat lost substantial revenue from a series of unauthorized bootleg recordings released by an underground record label. The recordings were unknowingly engineered during The Beat’s tours with The Police, Eddie Money and The Cure. Although the label argued that the recordings were tracked and mixed by an independent investor during the 1970s and 1980s, Collins was unaware of these dealings and was awarded an unspecified amount of damages. Collins was granted permission to digitally re-master and officially release the live recordings. In response to backlash and negative publicity from fans accusing him of being greedy, Collins attempted to make a public statement about piracy. In 2012, Collins made the recordings available to everyone as free MP3 download tracks to fans worldwide.
Some fans might argue that Metallica was selfish to target Napster for illegally offering their music as MP3s. In all fairness, not everyone victimized by piracy are platinum-selling, wealthy artists in the caliber of Metallica. Paul Collins had just as much right to take legal action, but he turned the negative situation into a positive one by publicly releasing the pirated material as free downloads to his fans. Case in point, not all rock stars are selfish or “only in it for the money.” Musicians have a right to be paid for their intellectual property. People who support music piracy only think about themselves. If a musician isn’t being paid for their work, how are they supposed to continue recording, writing, performing and touring? Musicians aren’t slaves and if they aren’t making enough money to function, then they might choose a different career path that doesn’t involve making music.