For Kids, Illegal Copying is the Norm

April 7th, 2008 | Published in Music

The Guardian, which always offers an interesting perspective on UK web trends, posted an article today that caught my eye: "Home copying - burnt into teenage psyche." According to a new study by the industry group British Music Rights, 95% of 18-24 year-olds have engaged in "home copying," which includes things like copying files from one hard drive to another, making copies of CDs, and even the old-fashioned kind of copying - taping songs off the radio.

Although the record industry has focused on combating file sharing, as it turns out, "offline copying" is actually more prevalent. In fact, the study showed that two-thirds of this young crowd copied 5 CDs a month for friends. That’s a lot of free music. When kids share their files in this "offline" way in addition to online via file sharing networks, the result is large collections of unpaid-for music. The findings state that half the music in an average MP3 collection haven’t been paid for.

But I wonder: do these large collections of shared music really represent lost revenue for the record labels? Sharing music has been easy to do, ever since the invention of double-decked boom boxes - insert blank tape, hit play, hit record. With CDs, it was rip and burn. And with MP3s, it’s copy-and-paste. I find it hard to believe that the "new" medium of these digital files has prompted any more "offline" file sharing than that which occurred in the days where I was dubbing the latest Madonna tape for my poorer friends.

Kids are always sharing music, especially teens. They’re at an age where they’re discovering who they are, figuring out their identities, trying different personas on for size…and something about music helps them through this process in ways in ways other things can’t. So kids sharing music with friends? Nothing new here.

Granted, online file sharing brings in another component - sharing music with their friends, and, oh say thousands of others, but even then, it’s not necessarily causing lost sales. The kids wouldn’t have had the cash for their entire music collections anyway, so stifling sharing wouldn’t mean more revenue for the labels, it would mean less exposure for new artists and smaller, less diverse collections for music buyers. Sharing music means we get to sample more and have our eyes opened to bands and singers we would have never taken notice of before. I’d argue that sharing music is GOOD for the industry.

What this industry needs to grasp, both overseas in the UK, here in the US, and worldwide, is that the game is changing. Forerunners like NIN’s Trent Reznor have the right idea, giving away some tracks for free to the casual users, but providing something of value to the core fans via "deluxe" packages. I mean, the dude made $1.6 million in 9 days, you know?

Oh, that’s right. He doesn’t have a label anymore. No wonder the industry is scared. Well, they had better find their value and find it fast, otherwise, they’re done for.