It is a cliché to decry the inability of copyright to cope with the demands of a digital age. There are a range of criticisms that can be levelled at the regime which span the spectrum from erudite to sensationalist. Too often this criticism is lazy and self-serving, demonstrating a failure to understand the law and technology.
It is clear that we have entered a new age and that there have been fundamental shifts in the way content is created, distributed and consumed. This poses difficult questions for creators, distributors and, a point that can be overlooked, for consumers. This article will address a specific point relating to the pricing of music which has resulted from the distribution of content in the digital age. This is a point which is too often neglected in favour of broad-brush criticism of the copyright regime. It is, however, a point worth pursuing.
The model for the distribution and consumption of music is in a state of flux. This creates uncertainty and is ultimately detrimental to stakeholders in the music business. There is a proliferation of services offering music for free in a variety of formats alongside a number of services which charge an often significant price. The result of this is that there is no agreement on how much music should cost or on a consistent pricing model.
Music is freely, legally available on ad-supported services such as Spotify. Alternatively, almost any song in the world is available on Youtube, again often supported by adverts. Other websites offer a different approach to free music: MySpace, Purevolume, Soundcloud, Grooveshark, Last.fm to name but a few.
A different model emerges for those seeking to own rather than stream content. The prime example of this is the iTunes store where a single costs £0.99 to UK consumers. Alternatively, Spotify offers quasi-ownership of content in the form of unlimited, advert-free music which can be played offline for a subscription of £10/month.
The difficulty arises from the fact that what is being paid for is, effectively, the right to download music. With this comes the ability to listen to it offline and play it on a personal music device. The argument can be made that the interface and usability of a paid product such as iTunes is superior to free music platforms but, with improvements in online music players, this is a point of diminishing importance. The central question is therefore whether downloading rather than streaming justifies this price.
Until mainstream providers offer a pricing model better suited to the wants of consumers and adapted to address the competition, consumers will continue to baulk at paying such a premium for the convenience of having music downloaded onto a computer. The advent of cloud computing suggests that a subscription service is the way forward but that is a question for a different article. The crucial point is that consumers, unhappy with the price demanded, have a range of options. Some will unhappily pay the price that the iTunes store demands. Some will make use of an alternative service such as Spotify. However, a significant minority will download music illegally.
This article does not seek to defend those users which download music illegally, it simply aims to identify one contributing factor to the problem. The confused pricing structure and purchasing model offered by mainstream content providers is driving a certain number of people to illegal behaviour. This state of flux must be addressed.