Week 9 Writing Assignment

Dear Professor Brooks,

I download music. Lots of music. Before this whole high speed internet thing, I bought albums. I think at my peak (right before coming to college), I had nearly 1,000 actual compact discs (LPs, EPs, singles, etc). Then I got some speedy internet. Suddenly, downloading a single song took a couple seconds versus a half hour. Needless to say, I currently have about 100 GBs on the old external hard drive committed exclusively to music. Now, do I download music because CDs are too expensive? Obviously if I was able to amass a collection so large in my high school days, money is clearly not a huge issue (besides which, used CDs can be as cheap as three or four bucks, you just have to know where to go). No, the number one reason that I, and perhaps many others, download music is because doing so gets me the music months earlier than the official release date.

They call it a leak when an album is put on the internet before its actual release date. I would estimate that 90% of the music I've downloaded would fall under this category (with about 3% being something I could have purchased at a store, the other 7% being live bootlegs or unreleased/b-side material). So, am I really even stealing when the music I'm downloading isn't even available in any format to the public? Shoplifting a CD from a store, for example, would constitute stealing in my book. In the end, I would have stolen something tangible: compact disc, plastic casing, liner notes. Furthermore, I would have stolen something that the store owner has already purchased.

Downloading music however is completely different. You don't get a tangible thing; you simply get files that contain the music. Usually, these files will be of a quality that is far below a compact disc. For example, iTunes sells music files at 128 kbps for $0.99. While this might seems like a fair deal for the buyer, the quality of such a file is about 1/10 the quality of an actual CD. Let's say I buy a twelve song album from iTunes. The price would be around twelve dollars, which is a little bit cheaper than an actual CD (depending on where you go, it could be a little more expensive). However, all I've gotten for my twelve dollars are some horrible quality music files. Shouldn't the price directly reflect the product? If the CD is fifteen dollars, than the music files should be 1/10 that price ($1.50), minus the dollar it would have been to produce a compact disc and those other things that come with it. So really, the actual worth would be fifty cents, which I would gladly pay.

The big story in the music industry right now is the way in which Radiohead released their newest album, In Rainbows. After a four year hiatus of sorts (during which they toured new material, released various solo records, started a blog), the band announced on October 1st that it would be releasing its seventh record two ways. Option one: $80 for a deluxe version (titled Disc Box) that includes two versions of the album (CD and vinyl), a bonus CD, and original artwork, all of which would be shipped sometime in December. Option two: a downloadable version of the album made available a mere ten days after the announcement (Oct. 10) for a price to be determined by the consumer. Well, people went a little nuts about this, claiming that Radiohead were striking a final blow to the record industry. In reality, that was not the case. Currently, Radiohead do not have a record contract, and therefore they have very little means of distributing the album. The download was a way for them to get the music to the fans in a speedy fashion rather than have it sit while they negotiate a record deal. The $80 Disc Box is obviously not something every Radiohead fan will be able to afford, so WASTE, their merchandise company, will be able to handle the orders themselves. It has been estimated that by early 2008, In Rainbows will be available in stores, most likely brought to us by a major record label.

So how much did I spend on the download? Nothing. Aside from the quality not being so great (160 kbps, better than iTunes at least), I'll buy the CD when it is eventually released (CD quality is a must for Radiohead albums). In addition, I try to attend their concerts whenever possible. Last summer I saw them five times at $50 per ticket. It's fairly well known that bands reap their biggest earnings from their concerts, which is the main reason I condone downloading music, regardless of major or independent label. With television, networks play shows to lure in viewers, but the real money comes from the advertisements played during the commercial breaks. In theory, viewers are supposed to be loyal enough to sit through the ads. In the same way, putting music on the internet is a way to lure people to the concert. By getting the music for free, I'm being exposed to more music and I have more money, both of which add up to me attending more concerts. So in my mind, the cosmic and ethical balances even out in the end.

If a band can distribute its music for free, where does the record company stand? Well, not every band can afford to record their own album, right? Wrong. Stephen Malkmus and his cronies (collectively known as Pavement) had a four track, and they made Slanted & Enchanted, one of the most highly revered albums of the 90s. So I guess you don't need super expensive recording equipment to produce something amazing. In fact, I've heard fantastic albums made solely with Garageband and a thirty dollar computer mic.

I do think record companies have a place in the future of the music world, but by condemning file sharing, they're fighting against evolution. In the end, some will still pay for CDs in lieu of downloading music for free, merely to get the best quality available. People still buy and collect expensive vinyl records for this very reason. Maybe by getting a larger cut of the concert revenue, the loss of CD sales wouldn't be felt as much. I don't know, I'm not a record executive.

If you're actually still reading this, bravo. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this whole debate. In regards to the scenarios you suggested (as I did get slightly off topic), I'm only ethically opposed to one (shoplifting a CD, as I previously mentioned). I think all music should be made available on the internet for free, and I would gladly share my music library if I didn't have to worry about being sued.

Love,
James