Music should not be
free for the taking

I deviate this week from my usual music review to address a problem that is literally bleeding the recording industry dry: Internet music file sharing.

Now, anyone with a computer and Internet hookup can download (some say steal) all types of music at no charge. I’m sure most of you are aware of this phenomenon, which came to widespread public attention a couple of years ago when Napster, perhaps the most flagrant file sharing site, was sued and shut down by the recording industry. Napster is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are other free music sharing services on the web, and you can bet your home and hearth that the music business establishmentarians are shaking in their boots and working like mad to combat these pirates. I wish them well.

Who gets hurt by free music file sharing? Musicians: those who write, arrange and perform the music get screwed, their royalties literally stolen out of their pockets. Further, the recording industry suffers. Record companies, under the pressures of the new delivery music system, take fewer chances on new or non-mainstream artists and release fewer products. They play it safe, looking for artists who conform to proven styles and sounds, artists who will play the game to sell a product. And that results in boring, formulized music.

The real problem, however, is the growing public perception that music should be free. Tonight, I had a conversation with my teenage daughter, who likes Internet music file sharing and considers downloading free music an everyday occurrence. She gets just about any song she likes at no charge, and that’s fine by her, because she chooses not to spend money on compact discs. Unlike her dad, she places no priority whatsoever on spending money on music. She’d rather spend it on Japanese Anime comic books or wild clothes from Hot Topic. Music is something to get off the net. Gratis.

I don’t know about you, but I had to buy vinyl albums and 45s when I was a teenager. I also had to sneak them into the house to avoid my parents’ wrath. Then again, a 45-rpm single (remember them?) cost less than a buck, and albums were about $2.98. These days, the average price of a compact disc is $17.95. Most music file-sharing services blame the recording industry for charging inflated prices, and that is a valid point.

In a recent interview, Tom Petty claimed, “If CDs cost $9.99, nobody would steal music off their computers.”

The way I see it, the recording industry should drop the price of hot title CDs to, let’s say $12.95, budget and catalog titles to $6.95, and cutouts to $2.95. Retailers could move more CDs at suggested retail prices and make a larger profit. All music file-sharing sites should sell songs for a nominal amount of money, allowing subscribers to custom burn CDs of their favorite songs. www.AppleMusic.com sells songs for only ninety nine cents apiece, but they are among the few who charge.

If all file-sharing services charged, then musicians, record companies, publicists and music publishers would get paid, maintain their careers, and everybody would presumably be happy. Record company-run file sharing would transform the music industry and bring it into the 21st century. Rumors are flying that all file sharing services will soon come under the jurisdiction of the recording industry, which will use considerable financial muscle to force a showdown. But it hasn’t happened yet.

The next time you decide to download a tune off that free music service, or when you innocently make a cassette copy of your favorite compact disc for a friend, think before you act. You may be contributing to a problem so insidious that it threatens the very future of the recording industry as we know it.

Imagine a world without recorded music. Pretty scary, isn’t it?