The lowdown on music downloads

By MARY DICKIE
Toronto Sun


Revolution is afoot in the music industry, as the battle over downloading rages.

In one corner are the major labels, seeking to protect their investment in their artists. In the other are file-sharers, flying the flag of free cultural exchange.

Rulings in Canada in recent weeks haven't made the issue any clearer. They've only ramped up the debate.

Caught in the middle are artists, songwriters, remixers and music fans, unsure where the line between financial control and creative freedom should be drawn.

Certainly, the record companies -- suffering from lower sales, accused of greed and short-sightedness, panicked by downloading, and outsmarted by 14-year-olds -- are feeling the heat. Their attempts to stop downloading include everything from feel-good 'music-is-worth-it' campaigns to lawsuits filed against children, all of which have only damaged their image.

The Internet nation -- built on free exchange and the rejection of corporate control -- is united against Big Music, and few people feel sympathetic about a little belt-tightening in an industry that's been flying high for decades.

But recent events have shaken the foundation of the argument that file-sharing is wrong and raised the question: Is downloading really theft?

There used to be a tacit understanding that online music trading was morally questionable, despite the surcharge Canadians pay on blank CDs, tapes and MP3 players to compensate artists.

'DEVASTATING'

But times change. In December, the Copyright Board of Canada ruled that in its eyes at least, downloading music for personal use is not illegal. Next, an American study found that music downloading has had a minimal impact on CD sales.

Then, just two weeks ago, a Federal Court judge ruled that Internet service providers cannot be forced to reveal their subscribers' identities, blocking an attempt by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) to sue music file-sharers. The judge also found insufficient evidence that file sharers are infringing Canadian copyright law.

On Juno Awards weekend, Heritage Minister Helene Scherrer calmed industry outrage by promising to change copyright laws, and CRIA reps vowed to appeal.

But the bottom line of all this remains: As of today, Canadian courts have not yet ruled on the legality of downloading.

"Music downloading is devastating our industry," CRIA lawyer Richard Pfohl says.

"It's the equivalent of looting. We've had sales drop by $425 million per year since 1999. We'll continue to fight to protect rights holders on the Internet."

But while CRIA says it is fighting on behalf of artists, some artists believe it's really protecting the record labels.

"I take offence when someone acting in my interest is suing my fans and calling them criminals," singer Danko Jones says.

"If someone downloads our songs, chances are they'll tell their friends about us. Plus they might come to our show, and we make more from that, anyway. For every record sold, the band only gets a buck or two, so what's the big deal?"

"The labels always made more money off the product," agrees electronic musician John B., who allows his work to be downloaded, as long as it's not for profit. "That's why they're upset about downloading. Artists have always had to tour and sell merchandise to make money."

Others see downloading as a way for people to hear new music at a time when radio no longer serves that purpose.

"The hardest thing for an independent artist is to get people to hear your music," singer/songwriter Jim Clements says. "When people can download my songs, I'm going to sell more records than I would if they weren't able to hear them at all.

"The labels don't understand what a great tool the Internet is. I've bought more albums since I've had Internet access than ever before. I'll read an article on a band, download a song and, if I like it, I'll buy with confidence."

Of course, some artists are against downloading -- most famously Metallica. But Jones calls them to task for that.

"I've got their demo," he says. "It was circulated to thousands of people, and that underground swelling got them their deal -- the free exchange of music.

"For them to go back on that is hypocritical, and they've lost fans over it."

While file-sharing technology zoomed along, the industry was slow in responding with pay-per-song sites. The success of iTunes and puretracks proves that people will pay for music online -- but iTunes is not available in Canada, and puretracks is for Windows only and has a limited selection.

"The music industry has been the absolute last entrant into the marketplace," Internet lawyer Zak Muscovitch says.

"They ignored all the signs that CDs are dying, and really unwillingly entered into this new technological environment. And they can only blame themselves. There was no alternative for such a long time in terms of a pay-per-use system.

"I think people will appreciate a pay-per-use model if it's cheap and has a wide enough selection. But the industry consistently refused to deal with Napster and KaZaa when they were trying to negotiate royalty payments."

"It takes longer to do things right," CRIA's Pfohl says in defence. "It's easier to loot a store than start up a store."

Neil Leyton, a musician who operates a small label, Fading Ways, agrees that the major labels are responsible for their woes. "They've built such high marketing costs to meet unrealistic sales projections," he says. "When they're not met, they need a scapegoat, and they're pointing at the consumer. It's pathological -- they're alienating their own customers."

Another problem is that, unlike the art world -- and despite years of hip-hop sampling -- the music industry has no idea how to deal with one artist using another's work to make something new. Recently, a (previously) little-known DJ named Danger Mouse combined rap star Jay-Z's a cappella version of his hit Black Album -- released for the use of remixers -- with chopped-up sounds from The Beatles' White Album to create a new work, The Grey Album.

But EMI, the Beatles' label, was not impressed and forced Danger Mouse to halt its sales.

A grassroots protest erupted, and on Feb. 24 -- Grey Tuesday -- hundreds of sites offered The Grey Album for download. If they had been sales, it would be a hit, and EMI could have profited from the Beatles' making inroads into the hip-hop nation. But they lost the opportunity.

"That was insane -- Danger Mouse did no harm," says John B. "He probably contributed to both original albums' sales.

"Mainstream music has lagged behind in understanding sampling and recontextualizing," he adds. "It's been done in experimental music, and it's what hip-hop was founded on. But when it reaches a larger audience, people start trying to control it. And they can't. There's so much opposition, and the people opposing them are so far ahead, technologically."

'BUILDS ON IT'

Indeed, with downloading so ingrained in the culture, the industry would be wise to get with the program. Leyton has enrolled his acts in a licensing scheme called Creative Commons, which allows free downloading of music as long as the downloader doesn't profit.

"It's a way for artists to share each other's work without breaking the law," he says. "It doesn't remove copyright; it builds on it."

Danko Jones says that labels have to make CDs more attractive. "A booklet, a DVD, a link to another site -- something exciting for the fan. Look at Einsturzende Neubauten -- go to neubaten.org and see the future of music right there. You pay to graduate from a fan to a supporter, and you have direct contact with the band while they're making the album."

Another option is to think of bands as performers who put out recorded music purely to support the main enterprise.

"Records are our passport to playing live," Jones says.

"Soon we'll just have good performers. It's a good way to weed out the bands created in the boardroom."

Muscovitch agrees. "The Grateful Dead are one of the biggest bands in history," he says.

"They allowed people to record their shows and freely distribute them, and made their money by touring. It may be that actually playing live is what will keep the music industry vibrant."

The industry is clearly in transition, but opportunities exist for those who see music as more than a piece of plastic.

"In the publishing industry, it's understood that every book is read by 2.4 people," Leyton says.

"The record industry's position that each CD can only be heard by one person is unrealistic. Music is part of our common cultural experience, it's in the air. The thinking needs to change."

The Revolution is a digital, global one, can't anyone read here?

Thanks for posting this...it brings up some good points.


The record companies also fail to mention that they make billions selling the same music again and again to the same people for decades.For example ,if you love Miles Davis and you
jammed to the "Kind Of Blue" Vinyl LP back in the day,chances are you picked it up on cassette when that format became the norm.Then CD.Then the remastered CD.Then if youre an audiophile,the SACD(SuperAudio) in multi channel sound.

Im not complaining because I love reissues,but Im finding it harder and harder to believe that their situation is as dire as they claim it is.

Bingo!

Hello!


Damn. While I'm into artists who write their own music, I can appreciate creativity like that. It's a shame that some record labels can't.


Damn, that's cool!


Music is in the air... I like that.

Thanks for posting this, Slave.

Let's just say I'm very happy to live in Canada. I've bought many many many more discs since I started downloading than prior.

Thank god people can read here!

I just thought this was a great article and right on.