http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
Many people believe that file sharing has completely changed the face of the music industry, and much of the entertainment business for that matter. Many people are also correct. The apparent change is not arguable, but what the change has done for the music industry certainly is. Eric S. Boorstin, a student of Princeton University, shows both arguments in his essay Music Sales in the Age of File Sharing. Boorstin gives a brief introduction of the music industry and the technology involved. File sharing, now a common part of Internet society, is a fairly new program that allows users to swap program files; most often these files are shared without any fees. As early as 1999, Napster had created a program specifically designed to chare music. Within a year, the record companies began lawsuits of copyright infringement. Nowadays, most programs associated with file sharing either cost money or are illegal. But was it necessarily bad that the file sharing program came about legally, or did it only wreck the music industry? Statistics support both sides. Some believe that file sharing increases popularity and makes it easier to get music to the general public. It is also a way to cheaply distribute songs, instead of handing out cds. Since these programs became readily available, the "singles" market has ceased to exist. And not only has the "singles" market died, but "total album shipments and total sale of music products peaked in 1999 and declined through 2003." But Boorstin also argues that the entire economy has been down in recent years, especially since September 11th, 2001. He also contests that the real dollar amount spent on music merchandise had a greated decline from 1978 to 1982 than it has since 1999. There is also the issue of music genres and a gradual change in popularity. More than ever, adults over the age of 35 have reported that they are less interested in current music than ever before. Boorstin also states that as music has become more portable, cassettes and cds have continuelly declined in demand. Overall, Boorstin shows both side of the argument, stating mostly statistics and quotations from other people's opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
iTunes baby. $1 a song is not a bad deal, and im many cases you get songs cheaper than that if you buy large CDs.
Let me put it plan and simple. If you respect the artists, that make the music you should make a "donation" in the form of a purchase from them. This will encourge them to write more master pices.
On the other hand if you hate music, steal it by all means, the more you steal the less apt they are to write more of it.
Now artits DO have every write to publish there music as public proporty, there is nothing wrong with that. (this is america after all, you can give things away.) But every artist should not be held by that rule. they should not be FORCED to give up there music to pirates that dont care about there "favorie" bands well being.
That said, stealing music offline will probaly not put them out of buissness, what with concerts, and contracts, however it is merly matter of ethics. Would you steal a CD from target? Probaly not. Intellecutal Proporty CAN be owned, thats what patens are for. Can you image how our technology development would STOP if people could not make patents, on say, the COMPUTER, or HARDDRIVES?! I cant. The only reason our society can exist the way it dose is BECAUSE of owning intellectual proporty. so get over it.
(btw good topic Tyler. lol)
Post a Comment