C/W

Web 2.0 is not a thing in and of itself, it is not a new thing, it is not a physical difference. No, it is a mindset, a development in the online community, the creation of a virtual world where the users can influence content, not simply read and download data, but write new information, upload it for others to see. In the beginning, the Web was simply the Web, from a small group of academics sharing information over a network, to allowing more users to create pages, to allowing for huge GUI applications creating entire websites by one person, and fleshed out by thousands of users. It was a new Paradigm, as it were, and people suddenly rushed to the new system, ideas and plans in combination with large website-creation tools enabling the masses to make their own information. Web 2.0 is no advance in technology or software, but is an advance of developers handing over power to the end users, allowing users to engage with the website, with each other and the entire world as a consequence, which can be seen in Blogger, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Wikis, where the entire service is based around user content. Napster was simple to begin with. In 1999, and 18 year old college dropout had an idea: to make a program that allowed users to share and swap files; more specifically, music. His response to the difficulty of finding music on the internet was the stay awake for 60 constant hours writing the source code for a program that combined music search and file-sharing protocols, as well as instant messaging, originally intended as a clandestine experiment among 30 or so of his friends, but word of mouth proved stronger than secrecy, and by the end of its first week Napster had been downloaded by as many as 15,000 users. This was what Napster was, and to put it simply, the music industry was pissed. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) filed suit against Napster, charging them with not actually violating copyright, but contributing and facilitating it. It was Napster’s centralised server which led to their downfall, and unlike the many subsequent programs which circumvented the need for a main server (such as Bittorrent or Limewire), Napster’s nature made it vulnerable to these legal attacks. It is noticeable that over 2.79 billion downloads were made in February 2001, Napster’s peak download time, and by this time the RIAA had built into a frenzy, issuing statements such as Ron Stone’s “The single most insidious website I’ve ever seen”. Their reasoning quickly diverged into pragmatic and moral arguments, the latter being that by P2P allowing downloads, they decrease CD sales and therefore profits, and the former being that file-sharing is stealing and therefore morally wrong. Even today, P2P services increase by a handful every day, their opposition being no less strong, and from the release of Napster, that critical program, US sales of music have dropped by 47% from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion (according to the RIAA student FAQ webpage).

There are quite a few pros and cons for the online distribution model of music. On one hand, the model is not necessarily a bad thing, as people have become accustomed to consuming musical products when and where they wish, not only this, but many older tracks which still have niche market value have yet to be re-released in a more accessible CD formats although they have been formatted into an MP3 or AAC digital files. Not only that, but many artists are restrained by geographical barriers, and cannot often sell outside of their country or continent without substantial monetary assistance, but the digital model of distribution allows the music to be sold all over the world, massively increasing potential profit. In other words, the digital distribution model has made a massive increase in profits for the music industry, despite their bluster about piracy saying that every download is equivalent to a lost sale. In addition to this, the internet provides a good starting point to new bands, from Machinae Supremacy and Radiohead to Hollywood Undead, they all started by selling their songs online or releasing them for free, became popular, and signed up to a contract for greater profit.

However, the downside to digital publishing is without a doubt, ease of reproduction for theft.
Although it is clearly illegal to do it, it has become such a common process in the lives of so many, that it has become almost acceptable, a fact that is frowned upon by the music industry itself, fining up to an incredible $250,000 per track. Of course, this is something that most people want to avoid (or at least not get caught at it).

http://www.satnac.org.za/proceedings/2006/papers/No%20218%20-%20Arnab.pdf

http://jennovotny.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/piracy-and-graffiti-benefits/

http://www.riaa.com/toolsforparents.php?content_selector=resources-for-students


Example of Artists that encourage P2P sharing:
Machinae Supremacy - http://machinaesupremacy.com/2011/10/14/live-at-assembly-2011/ - Important to note that they began by making music and releasing it for free, now encourage P2P sharing not DL/delete, but DL/Seed

Skrillex - http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1155412/skrillex-urges-fans-to-pirate-his-album-if-they-cant-afford

Pretty Lights - http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/pretty-lights-bittorrent-partner-to-release-free-media-bundle.html

Them Clones, Zero, Scribe, - http://www.mid-day.com/lifestyle/2009/may/130509-italk-freeloaders-music-artists-bands-pirated-cds-free-downloads-songs-internet-piracy.htm