Researchers at the Harvard Business School have analyzed the effects of file sharing on content creation and concluded that it's doubtful that piracy is stopping people from creating music. As Ars Technica reports, the researchers examined music sales, other revenue sources (such as concerts) that might offset declining music sales, and album releases. So while music sales are down, some of that money has been recouped by growing concert revenue, and creativity has been anything but stifled recently: the number of album releases doubled from 2002 to 2007. They also take note of a phenomenon that music fans have known very well for years, that downloading a file doesn't necessarily mean a sale was lost. It might be something that the consumer would never buy anyway, or the download could have been a test drive that led to a purchase.
At the heart of their argument is a consideration of the original intentions of copyright law, which was to foster creativity, not to ensure a reasonable profit. Recording companies have a very different view of copyright law, as Thursday's $2 million dollar verdict against a Minnesota woman demonstrates. This research won't change the minds of those convinced that copyright law gives them the right to squeeze as much money out of every song as is possible, but it does take away one of their arguments. [Ars Technica]
The survey is interesting, but completely intuitive. The majority of people don't make art with the explicit intent of making money from it. The idea of art for art's sake is romantic to the point of cliche, but it's also true. This proves it. Again.
The study is most useful to me as an illustration of how we (the media, the fans, everyone) have let record companies set the tone of the debate. "If you're not buying records, how will the artists create?!" They say and we go, "hey, yeah, what do you have to say to that, you evil pirates?!" We already know the answer, though. They'll do what they did 100 years ago, before the phograph. They'll play some effing shows.
And anyway: profit != creation. At best, it flows the other way, but even then, 99% of art made never sees a financial transaction.
Really, the average mediocre musician is in better shape than the average crappy painter or whatever. If no one buys their CD, they can maybe get someone to pay for their show or their t-shirt or they can land $300 every Tuesday playing the dinner rush at a vegan restaurant somewhere.
If a painter's paintings don't sell, they don't get to leave their desk job.