The Internet And The Music Industry: Friends Or Foes?

When Radiohead decides to release their latest album online and let consumers decide how much they wanted to pay for it, some wondered if they were marketing geniuses, or about to lose a huge amount of money on a publicity stunt. After all, this kind of music distribution lies at the center of a major controversy: is free music available over the Internet a benefit to the music industry, or a major source of lost revenue? On the one hand, it can be argued that when consumers can get a free download of some songs, then those consumers are more likely to buy the entire album, or buy other songs from the artist, as well as potentially going to concerts and buying other merchandises. On the other hand, there are many within the music industry who feel that any time a person downloads a song for free, without the consent of the people or company who own the rights to that song, it is theft. Without a comprehensive solution to the problem, illegal file-sharing will continue, and record companies and artists will not earn all of the money they are entitled to from the works they create and promote.

Taking a look at Radiohead's approach, one might simply say that such choices can be left up to the artists, as well as to the consumers. Unfortunately, there are a huge number of problems with such an approach. First and foremost, the artists are not necessarily the owners of any given song; nor are they the only ones who have a financial stake in songs, albums, and downloads. As Paul McGuinness, manager of U2 explains, the people who stand to lose or make money on music that is produced anywhere other than a particular artist's or band's own home operation, extends from, "The artists to producers, managers, tour promoters, and people who work for performance venues", and also extends to store owners where music is sold, the owners of websites where music is sold, the vast number of people working for entertainment and recording companies, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), radio and television stations that use the music for their content to attract listeners or viewers and advertisers, and the list goes on and on. In addition, even if artists were willing to sell their music at a particular price, or give it away, the still do not have control over what will ultimately happen to it, since it is so easy for people with the right technology to convert files to a format that can be shared over the Internet. McGuiness also states that even though Radiohead offered its new album for free, people still downloaded it from sites where music is available in illegal copied formats.

But really, how big of an impact is the Internet and illegal downloading, having on the music industry? It is possible to compare the issue of illegally downloaded music files to the same kinds of issues that came about when cassette tapes were first being sold, and people could tape songs off the radio, or tape albums and share them with their friends. Similarly, anybody with a CD burner on his or her computer can copy any album over and over again, and give those copies away, or even sell them illegally. Still, because people can obtain copies over the Internet, rather than from their friends, it is possible for thousands upon thousands of illegal copies to be made from a few sources, rather than, for example, a few friends to copy each others' CDs.

Of course, Internet file sharing is not the only reason that record company sales have been declining. It is possible to consider a variety of reasons for the decrease, for example, Michael Geins explains that, "The pricing pressure has had a dramatic impact on the revenue generated from each CD sale", that is, stores like Wal-Mart keeping prices below a certain level, to competition between multiple forms of media, to fewer new releases being offered. So it may be, for instance, that consumers only have a certain amount of money to spend, and if they spend that money on a DVD or a video game, that is less money to spend on CDs. As Michael Geins explains, "The popularity of DVDs is surely related to the decline in CD sales and the shrinking shelf space allocated to CDs by music retailers". Still other questions to ask might be how the impact of legal Internet music sales services, like iTunes, impact the overall record industry sales. For instance, if consumers can buy one popular song for 99 cents, rather than buying an entire album for roughly fifteen dollars, or even a CD single for four or five dollars, then there would potentially be a loss of revenue from these legal ways of getting music.

The music industry has pursued many lawsuits and other legal attempts to try and stop illegal file sharing of copyrighted music. For instance, European court lawsuits have been aimed at, "Forcing ISPs to disclose Internet users who are using illegal file sharing programs". Even when such lawsuits are succesful, they have not had the impact of shutting down illegal file sharing of music. People are left to debate whether the music industry really is losing money in the way it says it is, and for the reason it says it is, or if it is just an attempt to control distribution, or earn more money off the same old material. The question is not an easy one to answer, but tend to side with those who stand to lose money from people using their work without having provided them with compensation.

The Changing Face of Media: Where Do We Get Our News?

How often do Americans read a newspaper? How often do they look at the website of a newspaper? What about news sites linked with television stations or news sites that are independent of other forms of media? The way people get their news has been changing ever since the growth of the Internet. In fact, an article from the Wall Street Journal indicates that, "Some papers have lost as many as 13% of their readership in one year", with most papers losing between one and three percent for the year. Those declines continue until today. Mainstream news sources have been losing ground against web sites that allow access, whenever the reader wants it, often without the reader needing to pay for a paper subscription. Furthermore, by accessing news online, the readers can go to the news they want, unlike with television news, and do not need to cast several unwanted pages, as they might with a print paper. Still, there are conflicting reports on whether newspapers, combined with their websites, are gaining or losing readers. The information on how many people are reading newspapers can be confusing. One has to consider the source in looking at any statistics, as well as the way that the statistics were gathered and implemented. After all, newspaper companies have an interest in making it seem that they still attract plenty of readers, in order for them to attract plenty of advertisers. The statistics on readership may very depending on where you are looking. A report from the PEW Research Center, for example, points out that since 2000, "The total number of readers of online sources tied to mainstream news sources has been on decline". The survey indicates that most people who use online mainstream sources use it in addition to their daily papers. For example, a person with a newspaper subscription may be interested in a particular story, and then go online looking for stories that are tied to it, or for additional information that the newspaper might offer. So online readership may or may not be increasing, or may simply be part of the same audience for the print form of the newspaper.

An article in USA Today, though, claims that, "The average number of monthly visitors to U.S newspaper websites rose by nearly a third in the first half of 2006". But that article was taken from a survey by the Newspaper Association of America, an organization that may have an interest in supporting the view that plenty of people are still consuming both print newspapers and online newspapers. The NAA wants to support its members by suggesting there is still a huge newspaper audience in print and online, to encourage more advertisers to spend more money with newspaper companies. Furthermore, some of the statistics are questionable. For instance, The Washington Post measures total readership using the "average weekly print audience and the net 30-day website audience". In other words, the readership for the print version is calculated based on estimates, and then the traffic to the website is measured by how many times people visit the site, not necessarily how many unique visitors use the site. At the same time, an article at Editor and Publisher claims that "If you count Web traffic, newspapers are actually more popular than ever". This is in article about the metrics used to determine readership of newspapers. That is, for years, newspapers have used a measurement of readership that suggests that for each newspaper purchased, several people will actually read it, as it is passed along. This metric, however, was never really backed up with clear, legitimate data. So newspapers companies are trying to devise new ways of figuring out how many people are reading newspapers, either the print version, or the online version. This can be tricky, as many of the people who use a particular news web site may be consumers of the print paper as well.

Beyond the advertising money, some suggest that there is much more at stake with the decline in readership of newspapers. For example, the Readership Institute indicates that in addition to the decline of readers of newspapers, there has been a decline in "social capital" or the involvement that people have in their local communities. For example, author Robert Putnam indicates that , "Membership in local PTAs and even in local bowling leagues has declined", consequently after the decline of readership. The connection between newspapers and these others elements of society, according to Putnam, is that they signal that people are more absorbed in their own concerns, and less involved in their communities in ways that would put them in frequent contact with their neighbors for common causes. Newspapers, because they were traditionally community-based, could have an impact on how involved people are with their communities in this view.
Whatever view one takes, the indication is that newspaper readership for print editions is declining. It takes some clever manipulation of statistics and surveys to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that readers have moved directly from print newspapers to the websites of those newspapers. People have so many ways to get news these days, whether it is in print, over the radio, television, or Internet, there is no clear way to measure exactly where news is being consumed and by who, and to what effect. Sorting this issue out will likely take many years, and see more people shifting their news selections about in every personal ways.