|
Pew File-Sharing Survey Gives a Voice to Artists
Pew File-Sharing Survey Gives a Voice to Artists
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: December 6, 2004
The battle over digital copyrights and illegal file sharing is often portrayed as a struggle between Internet scofflaws and greedy corporations. Online music junkies with no sense of the marketplace, the argument goes, want to download, copy and share copyrighted materials without restriction. The recording industry, on the other hand, wants to squeeze dollars - by lawsuit and legislation, if necessary - from its property.
The issue, of course, is far subtler than this, but one aspect of the caricature is dead on: the artists are nowhere to be found. A survey released yesterday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, an arm of the Pew Research Center in Washington, aims to change that. The report, "Artists, Musicians and the Internet," combines and compares the opinions of three groups: the general public, those who identify themselves as artists of various stripes (including filmmakers, writers and digital artists) and a somewhat more self-selecting category of musicians.
Most notably, it is the first large-scale snapshot of what the people who actually produce the goods that downloaders seek (and that the industry jealously guards) think about the Internet and file-sharing.
Among the findings: artists are divided but on the whole not deeply concerned about online file-sharing. Only about half thought that sharing unauthorized copies of music and movies online should be illegal, for instance. And makers of file-sharing software like Kazaa and Grokster may be unnerved to learn that nearly two-thirds said such services should be held responsible for illegal file-swapping; only 15 percent held individual users responsible.
The subset of 2,755 musicians, who were recruited for the survey through e-mail notices, announcements on Web sites and flyers distributed at musicians' conferences, had somewhat different views. Thirty-seven percent, for instance, said the file-sharing services and those who use them ought to share the blame for illegal trades. Only 17 percent singled out the online services themselves as the guilty parties.
"This should solve the problem once and for all about whether anyone can say they speak for all artists," said Jenny Toomey, the executive director of the Future of Music Campaign, a nonprofit organization seeking to bring together the various factions in the copyright wars.
Ms. Toomey, whose group helped draft part of the survey, believes that artists are usually underrepresented in the debates about the high-tech evolution of the industry.
"These decisions need to be made with artists at the table," she said, adding, "it's not enough for both sides to reach out and get an artist who supports their position."
Indeed, big-ticket acts like Metallica and Don Henley have famously denounced illegal file sharing. And the Recording Industry Association of America, which has filed thousands of lawsuits against individual file-sharers, often invokes musicians as prime movers in its crusade.
"Breaking into the music business is no picnic," its Web site reads. "Piracy makes it tougher to survive and even tougher to break through."
File-sharers, on the other hand, often point to high-profile performers like Moby and Chuck D who acknowledge that the online swap meet has provided them with valuable exposure.
"I know for a fact that a lot of people first heard my music by downloading it from Napster or Kazaa," Moby wrote in his online journal last year. "And for this reason I'll always be glad that Napster and Kazaa have existed."
Without questioning the convictions of artists who feel strongly one way or another, however, the Pew survey appears to show that the creative set is both mindful of the benefits the Internet promises and ambivalent about the abuses it facilitates.
"The overall picture," said Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Project, "is that the musician-artistic community has a much wider range of views and experiences than folks who watch the Washington debate about copyright might imagine."
Whether the survey will help speed a resolution to the copyright wars, however, remains an open question.
"The goal is to build a new structure that doesn't repeat the failures of the existing structure," Ms. Toomey said. "But," she added, "these things don't change overnight
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
awehr
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 2:42 AM
if only "building a new structure" were the goal.
from what i have seen the goal has actually been to prop up old structures and "freeze the marketplace" for hollywood interests by:
-Destruction of the first amendment online by passing laws(DMCA) which would allow destruction of a website/domain by accusation alone.
-to rob end users of the right to use a vcr(broadcast flag & plug&play for cable)
-to destroy the right of individuals to tinker with their devices to add capability(DMCA used to surpress modchips, independent repair services, and new software development)
-making it illegal to engineer interoperability/compatibility..thus dooming computer software makers (DMCA)
-regulating various services to allow micromanagement and hobbling of that which was open to infinite fair uses (Broadcast flag/Plug&play & DMCA in combo)
-regulating software in order to force closed source (obviously a strike at gnusoft projects)
-generally placing computer, hardware, software, and consumer electronic developers under direct regulatory control of their bitter enemies in hollywood.
-Making colleges feel compelled to censor and hobble their internet much like communist china (copyright in higher education campaigns)
-a legal structure which basically allows government agents to break in and steal your computer at the drop of a hat(asscroft's raids earlier this year which did NOT invovle arrests)
|
|
wet1
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 3:24 AM
I gotta sat I agree with awehr on this one. In all this wrangling over the internet, file sharing, the claim of representing the artist, lobbying legislature changes, and quoting this and that source, and only big ticket artists that have special interests in joining with the RIAA seem to have any access to lawmakes or to the media at large.
No where here is seen the average artist, certainly not the indie artists, nor is the public at large represented. These two important parts of the puzzle are left out in the cold. Neither can afford to buy the laws that will affect all nor can they seem to get a toe in the door to even find out what, where, or why such is being considered.
Law makers are not giving satisfactory answers to those that elected them and they are supposed to represent. In fact the door is closed in their faces and truely there is no representation at all for them.
What this is supposed to be about is representation for the public as the public pays the bills through taxation. Here we have an example of no representation but taxation. Any sort of movement in legislature will require at some point the involvement of taxes as a source of funding.
Let me reword that. The consideration alone of whether to involve this or that within a bill is indeed paid for by taxes. Our lawmakers don't work for free. They recieve a payment for their time in doing this. So where is the representation for those that pay these bills? So far it is not to be seen. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 7:27 AM
About damn time someone in big media gave a sh*t what the REAL musicians in the world think about these issues. awehr is %100 correct (as he often is) that the Corporate Music Industry acts as would a monopoly, hellbent on distruction of competition. Until the advent of the Internet and home cd burning and the wonderful improvement/price lowering of recording technology, the RIAA had it all sewn up. (This "war" has been going on a lot longer than since Napster folks!)
Thank God for the Internet and p2p and everything else that gives the independent artists a way to play ball too!
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music! |
|
independentm...
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 7:30 AM
hey leflaw, the boycott-riaa site is acting flakey again (posting here on the dmusic side) |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 10:01 AM
That's right Shmoo, the RIAA companies have been acting like a monopoly for years. If so, where is our Justice Department?? The law says that the companies don't have to BE a monopoly, only that they ACT like one. Why aren't these companies being broken up??
Instead, we've seen the 5 major companies reduced to 4. Is this good for competition?? WHERE IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT? Shouldn't they be spending their time proving what laws the RIAA record labels break every day, and breaking them up?? No, they are too busy busting Microsoft's chops and trying to prosecute file-sharers, instead of doing what they should be doing with regard the music industry. |
|
Dundee31416
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 12:03 PM
Good point INeedALover.
Justice Department have been on Microsoft's back for ages. Sometimes for stupid things like offering a free browser in windows(IE).
So, offering something free with their product is illegal...
Why? I can still chose to install a new browser if i dont like IE
But MS really did some horrible things too, like sueing Mike Rowe Soft...lol
But usually, they prefer to eat small business for breakfest. What music industry is probably doing too.
At least, MS arent suing tons of their customers...
Anyway...
Its obvious that music industry is using its big money to get the Justice Dept look elsewhere.
But to my knowledge, MS isnt a lil poor cie with 50-10 employees. They have big money too. Maybe they arent licking the right balls...
I read something a few months ago, saying how RIAA was not trying to fight too much with Apple, cause Apple have the biggest lawyers' team. That was the sunshine in my day :) |
|
DeadMan2003
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 1:18 PM
The problem here is that the artists are being fed false information by their respective labels.
More artists need to visit sites like this one. Then we'd probably see a stronger response from artists. Is there a page with a rundown of the Pew results so we can see exactly what the figures say? |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 2:11 PM
MUSICIANS AND THE NET
87% use it to advertise and post music online
83% offer free samples
77% have a website
69% sell songs online
Source: Pew Internet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4067031.stm |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 2:13 PM
Proving once again the 80/20 rules, which says 80% of the problems are caused by 20% (in this case even less) of those involved. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 6, 2004 @ 5:38 PM
This is all well and good but is meaningless unless the Supreme Court sees it. They are the ones who hold the fate of p2p in their hands. |
|
|