I had an argument with a friend the other day about why I don't trade CDs. At first I thought I had a clear argument, and of course I tried to defend my position. I feel as though I failed, and thought I should consider the situation more thoroughly. The conclusion I came to is that I still won't trade my CD collection, but I feel that I at least partially endorse the trading of music. Here is my argument.
I considered the situation from several viewpoints. Firstly I consider what are the desires of the writers and producers of the music. Then I looked at the legal implications of copying music. And finally I thought I should explore the alternatives that are available, and the ability for those alternatives to be fulfilled.
What are the desires the writers and producers of the music? For many people music is a business: music is a product for sale and the goal is to make money. It is a livelihood to many individuals: this is their job. The sure joy of doing it is the reason why many people perform music. And for some some people it is just an undescrible passion. It would probably be safe to assume that most individuals, it is a combination of many of these elements.
Before continuing it is important to understand who are the producers of music. Most people would be quick to indicate it is those people who wrote the music, perhaps the people that perform it, and then the label that markets the music. It is very easy to forget about the sound engineers, producers, mixers, technicians, and all the other people that make the recording possible. In a live performance there are also the same assortment of people, but additionally you have road crews, promotions, organizers, and venue management. We should not also forgot about the equipment manufacturers; without equipment there would be no music to hear. If we stretch the definition just a bit, the radio stations and music stores are also responsible for the music that reaches you, their contribution cannot be ignored.
So if we look at the business of music, we have to consider all of these aspects. Taken from many viewpoints it can be seen that the music itself, while the driver to this industry, is not the direct source of revenue for a significant portion of the players. This is important to consider since we want to know what is the bottomline cost of a copied CD to the music industry. I won't make too many arguments in this area, but rather provide a few points to consider. There are only a limited number of stars and superstars, it is unreasonable to think that their purchase of instruments can be the basis for the manufacturing side of the industry. In any city there are numerous venues where live and original music is played every night by local bands, the connection between the superstars and these bands income does not seem clear. And of course, there is a thriving business to be made from the sale of paraphenalia, such as shirts, that cannot be seen to be impacted at all by the copying of CDs. The cost of piracy is often quoted as high as 10% of sales volume. It is very clear, this sales volume is the strict sales of the CDs, it does not include any other revenues obtained in the music industry. Comparing to the entire revenue that is generated in the music industry, it is difficult to see how the private copying of CDs is a strong threat to this business.
What about those people who are employed in this industry? For the reason that I don't see as though the industry is in any jeopardy, I can't reasonably consider that their jobs would be in danger. Some people will be more impacted by lost costs than others, but as with any career, no individual should consider their job immune from societal trends. Always keep in mind however that much of this industry has nothing to do with the superstars, or even touring bands. Many people produce music for commericals, movies, video games, or several other reasons.
The final group of people are those that simply derive joy from performing, writing, and producing. Nothing, except maybe the dominance of the business aspects, could be seen as a threat to their enjoyment. It is unlikely that these people have any concerns about the copying of CDs.
Now I can present the question of whether it is legal to copy CDs. To many the obvious answer is, "No, it is illegal to copy music." For many reasons this is not the situation. There are numerous scenarios, depending on local laws, that allow the copying of music for personal use. These extend to archival reasons, for use on portable players, and even to the purpose of making samples to be played for other individuals. Libraries, schools, and many other institutions get special exemption conditions. And of course vast numbers of promotional copies are distributed. While these may not be directly related to my argument, in a thorough investigation they would need to be covered.
We can first never forget that many productions of music are owned by independent bands. They have free reign to decide on the manner in which their music is distributed. I dislike the trends, put forth by the bigger labels, that stimmy these bands ability to trade their music. Today we have a very interesting scenario about the use of the internet. While I feel the labels have done a lot to disrupt the trade of music in this fashion, I don't feel that they've [yet] managed to destroy this venue for the independent band.
What does directly impact independent bands, and even an industry that has nothing to do with music, is the levy applied to blank media in many countries. Some countries, such as Canada, soon the USA, and likely others, have a government applied fee which is put on the sale of any blank CD. This fee (which can be as high as 30% of the purchase price) is collected and given to the label as compensation for the use of this media to copy their music. There is an obvious question here about whether the entire IT industry should be paying this levy for their legitimate uses of CDs, or whether independent bands should have to pay it, but this is not the argument I wish to consider.
This levy was put in place by lobbies from the music industry, therefore is an agreement from them about the application and purpose of the levy. The government has also provided the framework by which this levy can be applied and collected, so there must also be an agreement from them. This comes directly to this argument: if the music industry, and the government, have agreed to apply a cost to the purchase of CDs on the notion that you will be copying music, does this not provide some kind of implicit acceptance that you are free to copy music onto the CD you have just purchased? You have entered a transaction and provided additional compensation for the activity of copying music. If you did not exercise this right you may actually be threatening to disrupt the capitalist model that the music industry heavily relies upon.
Overall what I'm saying is that there is no clear answer to the question of whether it is legal to copy music. It is difficult to even say if it is even being forced (I once reported some individuals who were copying thousands of songs. Nothing came of these reports. Not even much of any response actually. To me this is a sign that there is no desire to enforce these laws. I would not be surprised to find out that the lobby for the CD levy had a higher projected return-on-investment than did the sponsoring of copyright police.) In order for an individual to have a well-informed decision about copying CDs from a legal perspective they would need to do some extensive research and be considerate of regional and national laws. This, unfortunately to the music industry, is beyond what an individual should be reasonably expected to do.
Many people always look at the state of popular music and decide to abandon it, purchasing only independents or bands from smaller labels. One truth to consider first is that the popular smaller labels, usually genre specific, such as Jazz or Metal, are usually owned and/or bound to the major labels. Small labels are created to better perform in a niche market. The labels which are not in such a position often derive a significant portion of their revenue from distributing music, rather than promotion of their own roster.
You can go to bars and listen to the live music there. In between sets however you will be listening to a DJ playing popular music. It should not be suprising to you to know that bars have to pay for the right to play music. Most of this money goes to major labels. In many countries, such as Canada and the USA, the manner of distribution of this money is such that inpendent bands will not get any money, even if their music is being played. This is not the case in all countries, some appear to have accurate reporting standards.
The primary alternative today is the internet. It provides a great means for the distribution of music. The major labels are playing a significant role here in trying to disrupt this exchange. Fortunately there is still plenty of room here for independents to make a name for themselves. Additionally, many online distributors have found that they can stock items that retails chains cannot. Perhaps I could try to persuade you to listen to non-major label bands, and support independents instead. But many people simply like listening to certain music because it is popular, and all of their friends listen to it, indeed the whole may world listen to it. Of course many people listen to it because they like it, and one day they will get to see them play live.
So why don't I trade CDs then? I'm not saying that I don't actually. If you were to come visit me, and borrow a few CDs for a couple of days, I really don't care if you make a copy of them. Do I want to get copied CDs from others? No, not really. I have every variety of music to listen to, and if I really like something I'll go buy the original, primarily because I like the packaging, and am a collector. If you ask me to copy a CD of mine for you, I probably won't do it. It does take time, as other than getting you your CD or MP3 I would not normally do have any digital copies around. And any time that I do get to burn CDs, I will be doing so for one of my own projects.
My Relevant Background: I produced the music magazine Tracks of Creation for four years. I own over 1000 CDs and too many T-Shirts. I have been a member of at least three different music projects, and produced 3 or 4 demo CDs (depending on what you are willing to count). I have equipment to perform life, and a small home studio. My favourite bands are on independent or niche labels.