Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Publishing fame has written a rather well thought out article on the benefits and myths of so-called piracy.
Anyone who used Napster before the RIAA cried foul and had it destroyed knows that it didn’t supplant their purchase of CDs. If anything, it enhanced it. MP3 sharing gave me the opportunity to get a risk-free taste of music I’d heard a lot about but hadn’t actually heard without having to commit to a $13 CD. If I liked the music, I went out and got the CD because a) I like pretty packaging, b) pressed CDs are far more durable than CD-Rs and typically have slightly better sound quality than MP3s and c) it was the right thing to do, which, as O’Reilly points out, is the attitude of many consumers.
Of course, because of the whole RIAA flap, I’m now probably more willing to download the MP3 and burn my own CD just out of spite. But that doesn’t keep me from going to concerts, buying additional merchandise related to the bands or giving my money to the music industry through any of the number of channels in which they have their hands. The fact that they still rely so heavily on CD sales in an age where a digital file of only about 4MB contains an almost equal quality simply boondoggles me. If someone were to offer to press a CD for $13 that consists only of those songs that I liked rather than the extra crap they usually put on there (i.e. the “hidden tracks” that are nothing more than studio outtakes that are, at best, only slightly more interesting than overheard conversations at the local McDonalds) I’d happily drop the cash.
We are so very very close to an “in-demand” model of consumerism. Those who have cable can already watch some movies in-demand, though they have to watch them a prescheduled time. Books could easily be printed in demand at your local Barnes and Noble but getting the rights to do that from the publishers have been a serious headache. The cost of the equipment to do this is a loss-leader. It’s just a matter of time and promotion before the system would begin turning a profit. CDs on demand are completely within our reach and a couple of companies have taken a stab at this, but, once again, archaic concepts of intellectual property and the standard fear of new technology, which I liken to a cave man’s initial fear of fire, keeps this from becoming a reality. Which is a shame because I genuinely believe the RIAA could stand to make quite a mint from such a system.
The most surprising part of O’Reilly’s essay to me is this admission:
“At O’Reilly, we publish many of our books in online form. There are people who take advantage of that fact to redistribute unpaid copies… While these pirated copies are annoying, they hardly destroy our business. We’ve found little or no abatement of sales of printed books that are also available for sale online.”
Several market studies have shown that, during the height of Napster’s popularity, CD sales had actually gone up. They have since begin to drop. Some in the music industry point to file sharing as the culprit. I don’t think I’ve heard a single person consider the fact that the poor economy may have consumers focusing their spending efforts on the necessities as opposed to luxury items, which music essentially is.
I’ll continue to download my MP3s off of the internet, whether it be through Kazaa or whatever pops up in its place if its opponents succeed in shutting it down. If I like the band, I’ll buy the CD, like I always have. If I don’t, I’ll commit the MP3 to my digital dustbin and move on. If the music industry loses money off of my decision, it’s only because technology has allowed me to become a better-informed consumer. The only way to fight a new technology is to find a way to work with it, and if the RIAA can’t figure out how then their days are thankfully numbered.
