I remember the day I first discovered that music could be downloaded for free on the Internet.
I even remember the first song I ever downloaded: “Kryptonite” by 3 Doors Down. But what I remember most was, several weeks later, feeling guilty, as if I had stolen something.
Most of today’s college students have been in the midst of debates about piracy for nearly as long as they’ve been listening to music and their reactions have ranged from one extreme to the other.
Some have decided that downloading illegally isn’t worth the financial blows it causes the artists. Some are thrilled to have access to so much music they otherwise couldn’t afford. Others have found a happy medium.
But a recent article in the Journal of Political Economy may have something to offer these debates in the way of answers. The study, conducted by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, found that peer-to-peer (P2P) downloads have a negligible effect (in this case, less than 0.7%) on music sales.
The position held by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), of course, would have consumers think otherwise, claiming that piracy costs the industry $4.2 billion each year.
There could be several reasons for this discrepancy in numbers. It could be that the RIAA is simply misplacing blame for plummeting CD sales. It could be that a yet-unknown element in the relationship between sales and piracy is responsible.
But the most obvious culprit is the RIAA’s method of tracking CD sales. What the recording industry considers “sales” is not actually monitored by how many CDs a record company actually sells, but rather how many CDs the record company ships. Which means that, though less CDs are shipped to distributors throughout the country, nearly the same amount of them are actually purchased.
Services like iTunes Music Store would be an obvious reason for this, as many albums that sell through iTunes are not “shipped,” per se. Another reason would be that music retailers have become less optimistic and don’t want a lot of extra stock sitting around in the backs of their stores.
The real question, however, is this: Does this new study mean that those of us who download music illegally are off the hook? Can we put aside any residual guilt once and for all?
In a way, yes. We have rather dependable evidence that P2P users have “an effect … that is statistically indistinguishable from zero” on music sales.
But it also gives us more responsibility as consumers. The fact that pirating has so little effect on the music industry is precisely because the people downloading music keep up their old buying habits. The average music enthusiast is still buying CDs and downloading albums from iTunes. As long as we keep up this trend, the effect of music piracy on sales will remain the same.
We must also keep in mind that downloading works differently for the sales of indie bands, who often release their own material or sell their album through low-profile record companies. Piracy hurts them more than major label bands, as losing an album sale means one less album in 1,000 rather than in 1 million. Also, recent do-it-yourself success stories like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah have encouraged many bands to work free of the RIAA, so we cannot say with certainty what effect illegal downloading has on their sales.
The important thing to remember, as has always been the case, is to be a responsible consumer and to support the artists that you feel are worthy of your support. No matter what new statistic the Journal of Political Economy or the RIAA may dig up, a bi-monthly trip to Amoeba Music will remain a part of my routine.
If you can’t remember whether bi-monthly means twice a month or every two months, e-mail Duhamel at dduhamel@media.ucla.edu.