Talking Heads #4 – Illegal downloads

Caz:
Illegal downloading, then. Never has a music-related topic split fans down the middle so much as this little issue, not even the great Blur/Oasis divide. The main bugbear for artists, record companies and the authorities is that the few rules that do exist are so blurred, and who really knows what they are anyway? I know I don’t. I know that downloading tunes from P2P is illegal, and that I should be buying them from an official store such as iTunes, but how much is too much? If I download a rare David Bowie b-side, is that just as bad as someone who sticks the entire Beatles back catalogue on Limewire?

Also, many artists have applauded the exposure that giving away their music can bring them. Case in fact, Arctic Monkeys, and we all know that story. MySpace might be overloaded with crappy bands these days, but five years ago when those Monkeys demos made the rounds via email and IM, it was something exciting. YouTube also gives free access to music via video – double the fun.

If I stumble across a new artist, I might want to check out a couple of their tracks before taking the plunge and shelling out for the album (especially in these days of crunching credit). I suppose this is the crucial moment – if I love the tunes, I might trot straight over to HMV and buy the record. If I’m feeling skint, I might just download the rest of the tracks to make up the full album, ‘cos the record companies sure as hell ain’t going to miss my ten quid, right?

Nat:
Is it really all that different to how it used to be, when you borrowed CDs off a mate? I guess the industry’s problem conceptually is that they can’t trace who you’ve borrowed it from. Is this really any different from buying an antique at a jumble sale? Or buying junk at an antique shop? 

Aside from the analogies, this 2.0 epoch has certainly opened up a massive arena for discovery, and that’s got to be a positive thing. But that’s just my perception y’know – the perceptions of someone thinking outside of the musical box, wanting to discover new bands (as opposed to downloading the new Akon album).

Sure, the artists have got to make a living, but these times can give them a push in the right direction – even if it comes via the loss of a tenner to the record company.

Caz:
If millions of people are seeing it as “oh well, it’s only a tenner”, then that adds up to tens of millions of quids, right? And when you factor in that the artist only receives a miniature portion of that (even less if there is more than one artist, or if the song was written by someone else). I think the industry knows that it can only survive by going with these trends and not trying to fight them. The advent of iTunes et al is obviously a concession to the new generation of listening.

Thinking back ten years ago, your average album was about £16. Nowadays, thanks to supermarkets and websites getting in on the act, you’re looking at single figures for many LPs. Surely that’s a turn up for the books?

Nat:
But is it a concession, an adjustment or a rethinking? That’s the point in hand. When an artist releases something new, it’s not even a question whether they should:

(a) Go with the whole illegal download thing and openly embrace it; or,

(b) Take a stand

There’s nothing (in certain terms) that can stop it happening, nor looking into the future, that can stop it happening again and again and again.

What came first, the commercial success/money combo or the free 2.0 Version word of mouth phenomenon?