Copyright Law and the Internet

The big buzz on the web yesterday (well, still "today" for me, as it's around 2am) was about the infamous BitTorrent site OiNK being shut down. The linked MTV article is dreadfully inaccurate in its description of the site (media sensationalism at its finest), but the premise is true: OiNK was a UK-based website that facilitated the "illegal" sharing of music. Sure, it's a bit of a blow to the file-sharing community, given OiNK's stature as the premier music sharing site, but let's be honest. It amounts to a drop of water in the lake that is file sharing. Remember Napster? The RIAA scored a hollow victory there, as dozens of Napster clones popped up virtually overnight. Inevitably, OiNK's absence will also be barely felt in a month, or even a week, from now.

So, once again, the sharing of music over the internet is the hot topic. And with interesting timing, too, what with Radiohead's pay-what-you-want internet distribution making waves earlier this month. Is file sharing bad for music? Good for music? Compelling arguments can be made for either side. The one point that I think we can all agree on is that the current protocol for dealing with the issue has failed miserably. Do I have any better ideas? I do, in fact: get over it.

I view music sharing sites like OiNK as glorified radio. Here's an enlightening article from the Radio and Internet Newsletter that explains the disconnect between copyright laws and internet radio. It's an interesting read, and partly illuminates my point. There was a time in the early part of the 1900s that artists and their record companies viewed radio the way we view file sharing today. Popular artists like Bing Crosby and Paul Whiteman actually tried to sue radio stations for playing their recorded music on the air (sound familiar?). Eventually, when radio was found to be an effective promotional tool, artists and record companies alike embraced the medium. The difference between radio and music sharing sites like OiNK is the level of control over content that music sharing allows its users. That control is what scares the RIAA, but they're missing the big picture.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I've never heard of "Band X," and a friend tells me that I should check them out. Radio stations aren't playing any music by Band X, so my options are: buy one of their albums, or download it for free from a music sharing site like OiNK. Like most people, I have very little money to burn, so buying an album from a band that I'm not sure I'll even like doesn't interest me. So, I download a Band X album from OiNK, and guess what? This band is incredible! Now that I'm interested, I'm much more likely to buy one of their albums in the future. Even if I continue to only download their albums and not purchase them, Band X has still come out a winner. Why? Because before I was exposed to their music, Band X had a 0% chance of getting a sale from me. I wasn't going to buy one of their albums, so, theoretically, they didn't lose a sale when I ended up downloading it for free. Now that I'm a fan, there exists a least a prospect that I will spend money on Band X in the future. There's a good chance that I might buy their new album, or merchandise, or see them in concert when they come to my town. In the end, it adds up to more exposure for Band X, which will ultimately lead to more money in their pockets. Glorified radio.

Internet music sharing is better than radio in a way, because it levels the playing field. The paradox of traditional radio is that it's supposedly "free" (payola, anyone?) publicity for recording artists, but, for the most part, the privilege is only available to that small percentage of artists that have the promotional backing to already be in the mainstream. Doesn't make sense, does it? For independent musicians such as myself, sites like OiNK are the blessing of exposure. If artists and labels alike were, in general, willing to embrace change rather than fight tooth-and-nail against it, we would have a much easier time dealing with the onslaught of new technology. As much as I dislike iTunes (that's a post for another day), it represents, as a whole, a positive step toward dealing with online music distribution, despite its imperfections. Naturally, even iTunes is seeing resistance from artists and record companies. These people are continuing to stand in the way of their own progress.

Heck, if OiNK didn't get shut down, I would have uploaded Paradigm's new album to the site myself.