Aside from the proverbial legal use of “linux ISOs”, file sharing software is best known for the facilitation of digital piracy. I’m not gonna lie, as a third world person who grew up in the days of dial-up internet, before YouTube and legal music streaming were even concepts, my cultural horizons would have been much more narrow without P2P software growing up. Radio stations only played (and still play) whatever was popular at that moment, in that place; CDs were expensive, and stores didn’t allow you to preview music before purchase other than a few high-charting albums; my family was poor and we were unable to afford video games, and so on.

Piracy via P2P software allowed me to get my hands on a vast amount of music, games, software and movies that I wouldn’t have even known about without it. It shaped my life beyond belief, and that’s just my personal experience with it. Legal streaming services wouldn’t have appeared if the traditional business models of the entertainment industries hadn’t collapsed due to P2P piracy. My cultural enrichment experience was certainly not the only one in the world, and there are quite a few popular musicians out there who credit music piracy for introducing them to tons of music they wouldn’t have found otherwise.

That said, from a workers-centric Marxist perspective, the collapse of the music industry in particular only worsened material conditions for every musician and band that wasn’t a superstar already, as they were no longer able to make a living off selling albums, since sales plummeted directly as a result of P2P file sharing becoming so popular. While the immediate adaptation of the music industry in the early 2000s (iTunes) did try to get on with the times and offer the purchase of individual songs for 99 cents and albums for $9.99 from the comfort of your computer, it did not end piracy, and only the arrival of the streaming model managed to do that.

The streaming model, however, has devalued music more than ever before in history:

On the other hand, listeners love the fact that for only $10 a month they can instantly enjoy all the music they can listen to, legally. But aside from the streaming services themselves, only huge artists benefit from this deal. All in all, this represents an absolute worsening of material conditions for the vast majority of artists.

There’s this essay here that explains the reasons way better than I can (tl;dr it’s the capitalists’ fault, both the streaming services and big record labels): https://medium.com/@michaelcbrook/this-is-why-spotify-pays-so-little-how-to-fix-it-1e0c0e1ef860

Now, my questions are: did this devaluing of music really begin with P2P file sharing, and did it directly lead to today’s terrible conditions for artists, or is it only capitalism’s fault for “locking in” that devaluation by offering unlimited music to customers for the price of a single album a month with a model that benefits the biggest labels over the actual artists? (my personal opinion is that this could be overcome with a different royalty model, as the one proposed with services such as resonate.coop)

But most importantly:

  • Has the revolutionary potential for P2P file sharing been exhausted as of 2022?

  • Is piracy still revolutionary? Was it ever?

  • What is revolutionary software now?

I know I’m focusing on music in this post, since as a musician, that’s the field I have the most first-hand experience on, but I’d like to know if the P2P file sharing phenomenon had a similar effect on other industries. Let me know guys if you have any experience on that.

  • Joe BidetA
    link
    52 years ago

    In my humble opinion what changed since “the golden age” of p2p is mostly:

    • commercial services that captured the extra value of attention and its potential impact on commercializing music, depriving the musicians and their ecosystem of those revenues.
    • the successful propaganda of the obscurantists from the music industry, and the penetration in people’s minds of same crap that was heard before about the mechanical piano, the radio, the cassette tape, etc… all about to “kill musicians”.

    In practice the dozen scientific (peer-to-peer-reviewed ha ha?) studies led on the topic at that all lead to the same conclusions: people who shared the most were also the ones 1/ spending the most 2/ recommending the most and also that 3/ if the sales of biggest artists may be slightly hurt by p2p, the sales of all the others (including the small ones) would actually benefit from the extra exposure/knowledge/attention/etc. Some of these studies have been collected on this wiki: https://wiki.laquadrature.net/Studies_on_file_sharing

    We failed at imposing mutualized funding schemes for music (that pretty much exist for cinema in every country where a movie industry still exists), that would have enabled -based on voluntary collection of non-personal data- to fund the artists the most shared, and to fund the artists-to-go, and let companies profiteering on the back of the artists (spotify, google, etc.) capture the market.

    Such public policies and the rest are pretty well detailed in the (free/libre) book by late Philippe Aigrain, that didnt age a bit: https://archive.org/details/sharing_201408

    Sharing : culture and the economy in the Internet age by Aigrain, Philippe Publication date 2012 Usage Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0Creative Commons Licensebyncnd Topics Free Culture, Intellectual Property, Computer file sharing, Creation (Literary, artistic, etc.), Intellectual property, Information society Publisher Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press

    Nobody should blame themselves for the ill-fated alliance of the obscurantist music industry with the predatory internet industry that fed on their fears and conservatism and their common goal of exploiting the artists while instrumentalizing them as moralistic tokens.

    We should just be proud that “sharing is caring”, bittorrent like there is no tomorrow (ie. analyze the roots of the fear or guilt some feel for not doing it!), be grateful for the wide diversity of arts and culture that exists way beyond the captured, commercial mainstream, love the artists we love and never forget to pay for a concert ticket, a tshirt, a beautiful vinyl or any other stuff that is important emotionally for us when we have the means to do so… and not be guilty when we can’t, as culture is meant to be shared, and belongs to everyone! <3

  • @redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    Great post.

    (I’m going to assume that piracy had decreased but I’m unsure if it has.)

    I’m unsure if piracy is revolutionary.

    In a sense, piracy rejects the commodity form by negating the exchange value that pirate listeners, etc, would otherwise pay. This rejection does not undermine the commodity form, though.

    Those listeners become fans, talk about the music, etc, and create hype. In a twist of the commodity form, piracy may even increase the use value of e.g. the music because more listeners equals more popularity equals more demand. If the use value increases, so does the exchange value. (Is this right? I’m not trying to subvert use/exchange value to the ‘rules’ of supply and demand.)

    And capitalists can manipulate the market because they still control production and distribution of special editions, tickets for live shows, merchandise, IP (e.g. using a band in an advert, or movie) etc. In fact, an underground cult following can be used to create a secondary market for ‘extras’ that even pirate users may pay for.

    So piracy is generally insufficient to undermine the commodity form. My intuition tells me that piracy relies on and supports the commodity form, so is not revolutionary.

    This reminds me of Firefly. It’s a great sci-fi series. Very popular. With watching if you haven’t already. I heard that most of its many fans pirated the show. The producers had thought the show flopped because very few people watched it through official channels. They cancelled it and there was uproar. A film was made to wrap up the series. Fuck the studio, though. I’m glad they lost millions / billions in potentially revenue. If they weren’t charging people so much to view it on whatever platform it was released on, people might have paid.

    This example suggests that media based on the commodity form suffers from the contradictions of capitalism. Streaming was an attempt to resolve those contradictions, but they are coming back because streaming services have developed into monopolies. Now that the studios think they have broken the pirate model, they think they can get away with putting the prices up.

    Each studio puts it’s prices up a little bit every year. But at the same time, the services are splintered. So if you had Netflix and want to watch Disney shows, you need two subscriptions. Even if the price of each one looks ‘reasonable’ (I disagree), the cost for multiple services gets very expensive very quickly. And the same handful of capitalists own all these studios even if the face of each studio is different.

    This practice has arisen, again, because the studios complacently think they can control distribution. They cannot. They couldn’t permanently stop people copying tapes or CDs. They couldn’t permanently stop people copying MP3s or DVDs. And now with all the price increases, I think we’re going to see a return to mass piracy.

    As you pointed out, unless you like mainstream media, streaming your favourite statist artist does not necessarily reward that artist. People will realise this before long and piracy is likely to increase again.

    Even if this happens, with so much product placement, even pirating media adds something to the circulation of commodities.