P2P
Johnny Burgess
In its simplest form peer to peer networking includes anything from a telephone conversation to traveling folksingers of the past. Nowadays the term has become synonymous with file-sharing networks on the Internet. This definition of the term has been scaring music corporations since the inception of programs like Napster, which was quickly stifled and reinvented by these corporations. P2P communication poses a threat to the pocketbooks of music corporations with its underground distribution potentials. This paper looks at the impact of this technology on the market of music, and its capability to transform the experience of the music itself.
P2P networks allow for free and unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property such as music, software or information of any form. In the case of music, to obtain a song or album from another user in the network, all one must do is download it onto their own hard drive as a copy. This is the basis for Internet driven P2P networks. The difference between this and making a copy of ‘Lethal Weapon 1’ are nil, save the physical effort it takes to get the tape and some loss in quality in producing the hard copy.
P2P networks allow users to obtain music for free or at a marginal cost. This seems to put users in control of the copying and distribution of products without paying any fees typically. Adrienne Russel, in an article called ‘Networked Public Culture’ on the website netpublics.annenberg.edu, explains that this practice “produced massive anxiety within industries that rely on artificial scarcity to generate market predictability” (Russel), putting the user in control of the scarcity of the products, not the industries, while further, artists themselves are threatened by people ‘stealing’ quality copies of their music and not giving them money in the form of buying records. Maich states that, not to be left behind, “All major record labels struck deals with legitimate online retailers like iTunes” (Maich 46). These retailers sell songs for a buck and albums for around $10, but inevitably buying music is now based on the honor system.
However, the more P2P users push corporations, the harder they are going to push back on consumers and creators. We have seen this with numerous P2P networks being shut down or reconfigured, such as the commoditization of Napster and the current copyright suit filed by Universal on Myspace. Is this going to lead to the next manifestation of the Internet? In its original conception the Internet was created to “exploit two of the great underused resources of the digital age: surplus storage space and surplus processing power…”(Russel). This created an easy way for users to access indexed information on other people’s hard drives. This was considered Internet 1.0, where “all clients were servers and all servers were clients”(Russel). The current version, version 2.0, is much less communal, allowing users to obtain information without providing any themselves. Also there are remote servers through which all the information must pass through via an Internet provider. Although information is controlled by police watchdogs and through logged information on users activities, there is plenty of ‘Cyberspace’ left unwatched. The Internet is becoming the newest, biggest arena for crime in several areas, such as sexual predators perusing chat rooms, or scam artists preying on the corporations. In a Macleans article, called ‘The Internet Sucks’, Steve Maich gives an estimate that “US consumers had lost about US$8 Billion to various online schemes over two years”. Combined with a high computer illiteracy rate within users, could this be proof governments have a reason to remodel our current version of the Internet?
The problem of users abusing the power the Internet has enabled --whether copying music for distribution purposes or preying on children -- is only one side of the debate, though. There are plenty of people putting P2P networks into their intended utopia of information sharing. Never before has the D.I.Y. record label been so effective. In the past, for indie bands to hope for success, large amounts of money had to be spent on album pressing, marketing, distribution, and the cost of touring. Now with convenient P2P networks, labels can promote musicians by creating a free Myspace page, or other inexpensive forms of publicity that the Internet provides. Also, the dire need to produce a hard copy of an album or song is unnecessary (although for nostalgic purposes it may be). Indie labels can sell material through an Internet retailer and in a digital media. CD formats are already becoming extinct with MP3 players, like the iPod, so spending money and time on pressing is excessive. This allows for more money to go into places that benefit the actual music experience, like production and touring.
Garnet Clare, a rapper named Tall Man from BC’s lower mainland, has followed many artist’s choice to begin with D.I.Y. labels and self promotion through P2P networks. He started recording songs with friends just using a digital audio workstation on his computer and distributing his CD’s personally traveling around and dropping off promos at retailers for free. Clare then began using Myspace as a promotional tool. In a personal interview I did with him, he said this of P2P networks: ”[P2P networks] helps us get our music into the ears of people far beyond our current touring area, which helps us acquire a non-local fanbase, giving us more reason and opportunity to tour more places”(Clare). The model of D.I.Y. is nothing new. Tape trading and home production/distribution became big in the 70s. The only difference with the Internet is that it is quicker and easier than before, which is essentially the only thing that the Internet has done for us. Does this then limit the possibilities of P2P to benefit all the hierarchies of music?
In an interview in NME with the Raconteurs, when asked about Gnarls Barkley, Brendon Benson and Jack White from the band agree:
Brendon: It’s amazing that it’s the first Number One from download sales alone”
Jack: “It just shows you that if the songwriting is as good as ‘Crazy’ right across the board, then the downloading doesn’t hurt the music. If sales are declining it’s because the songs are no good, it has nothing to do with the Internet ruining anything. ‘Crazy’ is proof of that…. It’s good, so people bought it.” (Swank 24)
Jack White believes that if people are still satisfied with the music they will pay to have it (the honor system!). Are the majors ignoring illegal file-sharing networks and hoping the fans are honest people?
Major record companies are beginning to directly use P2P sites. Angwin, McBride, and Smith state that via the population of networks like ArtistDirect, they are flooding sites with fake files that include advertising from 3rd party companies “Hence the alliance between Jay-z and Coke. By inserting promotional material into the decoy files, and then planting those files prominently on file-sharing sites, record labels and other marketers turn what is now an anti-piracy tool, into an advertising medium” (Angwin, McBride, and Smith). Although flooding file sharing sites with fake files won’t be the sole reason major labels stay in charge of music, it is a way they have begun to fight back against P2P networks.
With a wider range of access to music globally, people are faced with the question, what is good? Just because we have so much accessible music doesn’t mean that it is all worth it. As I said before, all the Internet has provided is the ability to do things quicker, easier, and with some sense of anonymity. Take, for example, what the Internet has done for writing. Thousands of bloggers consider themselves ‘journalists’, many do about as much as read Yahoo! News headlines. Yet, some are credible, and do their research and so are worth checking out. The experience of music then has not changed; you just have to sift through more shit. P2P networks have changed how we get our music. They have given people the choice of buying a whole album or just the single. They entitle us with the ethical choice of paying for music or ‘stealing’ it. P2P networks have given the amateur musician a wider range of listeners and the facility to self-promote. While major record labels are losing the monopoly over our ears to the realm of amateur talent. Listeners are gaining a portion of control over the market of music. Is this then contributing to a better experience with music?
In its simplest form peer to peer networking includes anything from a telephone conversation to traveling folksingers of the past. Nowadays the term has become synonymous with file-sharing networks on the Internet. This definition of the term has been scaring music corporations since the inception of programs like Napster, which was quickly stifled and reinvented by these corporations. P2P communication poses a threat to the pocketbooks of music corporations with its underground distribution potentials. This paper looks at the impact of this technology on the market of music, and its capability to transform the experience of the music itself.
P2P networks allow for free and unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property such as music, software or information of any form. In the case of music, to obtain a song or album from another user in the network, all one must do is download it onto their own hard drive as a copy. This is the basis for Internet driven P2P networks. The difference between this and making a copy of ‘Lethal Weapon 1’ are nil, save the physical effort it takes to get the tape and some loss in quality in producing the hard copy.
P2P networks allow users to obtain music for free or at a marginal cost. This seems to put users in control of the copying and distribution of products without paying any fees typically. Adrienne Russel, in an article called ‘Networked Public Culture’ on the website netpublics.annenberg.edu, explains that this practice “produced massive anxiety within industries that rely on artificial scarcity to generate market predictability” (Russel), putting the user in control of the scarcity of the products, not the industries, while further, artists themselves are threatened by people ‘stealing’ quality copies of their music and not giving them money in the form of buying records. Maich states that, not to be left behind, “All major record labels struck deals with legitimate online retailers like iTunes” (Maich 46). These retailers sell songs for a buck and albums for around $10, but inevitably buying music is now based on the honor system.
However, the more P2P users push corporations, the harder they are going to push back on consumers and creators. We have seen this with numerous P2P networks being shut down or reconfigured, such as the commoditization of Napster and the current copyright suit filed by Universal on Myspace. Is this going to lead to the next manifestation of the Internet? In its original conception the Internet was created to “exploit two of the great underused resources of the digital age: surplus storage space and surplus processing power…”(Russel). This created an easy way for users to access indexed information on other people’s hard drives. This was considered Internet 1.0, where “all clients were servers and all servers were clients”(Russel). The current version, version 2.0, is much less communal, allowing users to obtain information without providing any themselves. Also there are remote servers through which all the information must pass through via an Internet provider. Although information is controlled by police watchdogs and through logged information on users activities, there is plenty of ‘Cyberspace’ left unwatched. The Internet is becoming the newest, biggest arena for crime in several areas, such as sexual predators perusing chat rooms, or scam artists preying on the corporations. In a Macleans article, called ‘The Internet Sucks’, Steve Maich gives an estimate that “US consumers had lost about US$8 Billion to various online schemes over two years”. Combined with a high computer illiteracy rate within users, could this be proof governments have a reason to remodel our current version of the Internet?
The problem of users abusing the power the Internet has enabled --whether copying music for distribution purposes or preying on children -- is only one side of the debate, though. There are plenty of people putting P2P networks into their intended utopia of information sharing. Never before has the D.I.Y. record label been so effective. In the past, for indie bands to hope for success, large amounts of money had to be spent on album pressing, marketing, distribution, and the cost of touring. Now with convenient P2P networks, labels can promote musicians by creating a free Myspace page, or other inexpensive forms of publicity that the Internet provides. Also, the dire need to produce a hard copy of an album or song is unnecessary (although for nostalgic purposes it may be). Indie labels can sell material through an Internet retailer and in a digital media. CD formats are already becoming extinct with MP3 players, like the iPod, so spending money and time on pressing is excessive. This allows for more money to go into places that benefit the actual music experience, like production and touring.
Garnet Clare, a rapper named Tall Man from BC’s lower mainland, has followed many artist’s choice to begin with D.I.Y. labels and self promotion through P2P networks. He started recording songs with friends just using a digital audio workstation on his computer and distributing his CD’s personally traveling around and dropping off promos at retailers for free. Clare then began using Myspace as a promotional tool. In a personal interview I did with him, he said this of P2P networks: ”[P2P networks] helps us get our music into the ears of people far beyond our current touring area, which helps us acquire a non-local fanbase, giving us more reason and opportunity to tour more places”(Clare). The model of D.I.Y. is nothing new. Tape trading and home production/distribution became big in the 70s. The only difference with the Internet is that it is quicker and easier than before, which is essentially the only thing that the Internet has done for us. Does this then limit the possibilities of P2P to benefit all the hierarchies of music?
In an interview in NME with the Raconteurs, when asked about Gnarls Barkley, Brendon Benson and Jack White from the band agree:
Brendon: It’s amazing that it’s the first Number One from download sales alone”
Jack: “It just shows you that if the songwriting is as good as ‘Crazy’ right across the board, then the downloading doesn’t hurt the music. If sales are declining it’s because the songs are no good, it has nothing to do with the Internet ruining anything. ‘Crazy’ is proof of that…. It’s good, so people bought it.” (Swank 24)
Jack White believes that if people are still satisfied with the music they will pay to have it (the honor system!). Are the majors ignoring illegal file-sharing networks and hoping the fans are honest people?
Major record companies are beginning to directly use P2P sites. Angwin, McBride, and Smith state that via the population of networks like ArtistDirect, they are flooding sites with fake files that include advertising from 3rd party companies “Hence the alliance between Jay-z and Coke. By inserting promotional material into the decoy files, and then planting those files prominently on file-sharing sites, record labels and other marketers turn what is now an anti-piracy tool, into an advertising medium” (Angwin, McBride, and Smith). Although flooding file sharing sites with fake files won’t be the sole reason major labels stay in charge of music, it is a way they have begun to fight back against P2P networks.
With a wider range of access to music globally, people are faced with the question, what is good? Just because we have so much accessible music doesn’t mean that it is all worth it. As I said before, all the Internet has provided is the ability to do things quicker, easier, and with some sense of anonymity. Take, for example, what the Internet has done for writing. Thousands of bloggers consider themselves ‘journalists’, many do about as much as read Yahoo! News headlines. Yet, some are credible, and do their research and so are worth checking out. The experience of music then has not changed; you just have to sift through more shit. P2P networks have changed how we get our music. They have given people the choice of buying a whole album or just the single. They entitle us with the ethical choice of paying for music or ‘stealing’ it. P2P networks have given the amateur musician a wider range of listeners and the facility to self-promote. While major record labels are losing the monopoly over our ears to the realm of amateur talent. Listeners are gaining a portion of control over the market of music. Is this then contributing to a better experience with music?
posted by Studies in Audio Culture at 10:52 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home