THE BEGINNING
In 1999 Shawn Fanning and his then roommate Sean Parker, one of the founders of Facebook, released Napster as a way to find and share music with their peers. 11 years, the creation of Napster is still affecting the policies and ethics of file sharing. Napster brought about the legal issue of distributing someone else’s intellectual property, without being licensed of charged to do so, an issue now known by the term napsterization.
Napster’s coming-about created the ultimate music library for the music lover. Niche genres, discontinued album, unreleased songs, were now available via this internet based filing system which was controlled by two young men in their dorm room. The uproar by record labels and music industry advocates about the legality of Napster was more than understandable. Lividly motivated, record label’s joined forces and sued Napster for its infringement of copyright law. Although, Napster filed for bankruptcy and sold all assets in 2002, the company opened the doors to music downloading which is now a big business; a business that music industry leaders ignored.
DOWN LOW…TOO SLOW
English poet Ben Jason once said “Success produces confidence; confidence relaxes industry, and negligence ruins the reputation which accuracy had raised.” This is the ideal quote to describe the music industry’s action taken against music file sharing.
According to Rolling Stone Magazine, “The record label industry has been shrinking since the beginning of the decade. U.S albums sales have fallen 25% since 2000, the biggest year on record – and the year Napster went mainstream.” Record label artists and executives were so furious about the policy infringements; they didn’t take the time to analyze how successful programs like Napster could be beneficial to the music industry. Since Napster, record labels have not been able to recover nor have they found a solution to the decline in album sales. After battling the war of piracy, the music industry took for granted the enormity of the internet. “Researchers and industry consultants say online music sites are being used by a growing number of listeners as a substitute for purchasing music, rather than serving as a catalyst for more purchases.” (McMillan) The internet has made building one’s music library so simple and much more affordable at the disadvantage of huge music companies.
English poet Ben Jason once said “Success produces confidence; confidence relaxes industry, and negligence ruins the reputation which accuracy had raised.” This is the ideal quote to describe the music industry’s action taken against music file sharing.
So, what is to blame for the weakening music sales, the growth of the internet or the negligence of the music industry?
Record labels were too slow in their tactics to regain control of their industry. They did not plan accordingly and did not use digital technologies to their advantage. Now the industry is caught in place of finding a solution for the problem of digital download and continuing sales decline. In an interview on English television network BBC Hip-hop mogul and former music exec Shawn "Jay-Z” Carter shares with host Andrew Marr the mistakes of the music industry.
Things change and the world changes. I think it’s best to embrace change. If the record companies were to embrace change of the internet, we wouldn’t have a problem right now. If we would’ve embraced Naspter we’d be in a better place right now.
The napsterization of music is truly unfortunate to many record labels and artist because millions of songs were downloaded without them seeing a dime. However, it has been and still is, up to the music industry to take back what is rightfully theirs. It is hard to believe that the sale of music is now monopolized by iTunes and Rhapsody. Just as Jay-Z said, “Its best to embrace change.”
E-EVERYTHING
One industry that is opening up to embrace the internet is the publishing industry. One step beyond audio books, the creation on e-books has diversified the way that people read. The ability to purchase an e-book at your convenience, download it and carry it in your Nook, Kindle, iPhone or Laptop is a technology we only could have imagined. Even though the publishing industry is making a conscious effort to adapt to the internet and be as catering to the public as possible, the fear of napsterization still exists. “Mindful of what happened to the music industry at a similar transitional juncture; book publishers are about to discover whether their industry is different enough to be spared a similarly dismal fate.” (Stross) The concern of publishers and authors are valid, especially now when recording artists are relying on concerts and endorsements for the majority of their income. Keeping in mind their concerns, it is still critical for publishers and authors to embrace what I like to call “e-media.” Publishers have gotten a head start on making the transition from book pages to web pages; they now need to plan for their avoidance of napsterization.
TEL-E-VISION
The music and the publishing industries aren’t the only ones that have become slaves to the internet. The broadcast industry is also a victim to digital download and napsterization. Sites such as µTorrent.com use bittorrent as a way to download pieces of large files such as movies and television series. Although, napsterization of movies and TV shows do occur, the download of these entertainment are easily available and with permission to do so. Netflix has truly captured what it means to digitize. Netflix’s offers not only the rental of DVDs, but also a subscription to stream movies as well as network and cable shows. Netflix understands that even though the product has not changed, the distribution of it has.
Now, in a new era of networked consumers and digital everything, the economics of such distribution are changing radically as the internet absorbs each industry it touches, become store, theater and broadcaster at a fraction of the traditional cost. (Anderson 6)
"Now, in a new era of networked consumers and digital everything, the economics of such distribution are changing radically as the internet absorbs each industry it touches, become store, theater and broadcaster at a fraction of the traditional cost." - Chris Anderson
Even with Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, it still seems as though industries are not keeping their eye on the prize. Netflix is far from a broadcast company. It is a company that simply understood media delivery has changed and it capitalized on that.
Netflix is just another iTunes; a company that became successful by distributing another industry’s product. So what is the broadcast industry doing to get their industry back? What steps have they taken to prevent the loss of revenue to legal digital download and the loss of rights to piracy?
VERTICAL INTERGRATION
In September 2009 cable network provider Comcast attempted to buy NBC Universal, a division of General Electric. By doing so Comcast would have control over certain video streaming sites. This would allow Comcast to charge the public for the streaming of media which once could be accessed for free or at a minimal cost. This is great for Comcast; being able to control not just the transmission of media, but also the broadcast and distribution of it. Finally a company making an effort to impact its industry for the better. Vertical integration at its finest, right?
Monopolization is tolerable in industries such as home improvement or furniture manufacturing, but not in media. The media industry is responsible for providing information and news. The public has the right to receive news without filtration or bias which is why laws encourage network neutrality. Network neutrality is a movement to maintain an opened internet, free of content restrictions imposed by transmission providers such as Comcast. Law makers have done and continue to do all that they can to keep the roads of the internet free for all with no restrictions, no impositions and no media monopolies. As long as we have network neutrality we are able to browser the net and search freely, or so we hope.
The concept of network neutrality is one many people fight for. They believe that the internet should not be controlled by major media companies. But, does network neutrality truly provide a control free internet?
SEARCH HERE
Google accounts for 53.3% of the global share of search engines, more than all other search engines combined. Although under U.S. law a company must hold 75% market share to be considered a monopoly, many believe that Google is monopolizing the industry. In his article “Search, but You May Not Find,” Adam Raff, express his reasoning for “search neutrality: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based on solely on relevance.” Raff believes that Google gives preference to specific searches and the industry should be neutralized to remove those preferences. But is neutralizing a search engine, truly neutralizing or is it controlling the results of a software that is already impartial?
WHICH ONE TO CHOSE
It seems as if Google has been under heat lately for its many indiscretions including its criminal conviction of three of the company’s executives in Italy, complaints filed to the European Commission and by search company Foundem. The Big Brother reporting piece by NBC also exposed Google for what may be seen as unethical privacy practices.
Policy makers are racking their brains trying to implement laws to protect the privacy of individuals from companies like Google. They are also trying to protect the internet from companies like Comcast and protect companies like A&M Records from the internet. It’s fine line in protecting one without harming the other. For some it may be a question of which is more important to protect, corporate America, the internet or the public. But the more technology grows the harder it will become to implement policies that will equally protect all three. We can only hope, that individuals are always the number one choice.