It appears that the RIAA is getting serious and personal about stopping illegal file sharing, as decried by this article in The Register (UK). As a music lover and buyer, this issue is near and dear to my wallet.

I've certainly downloaded my share of music - some of it, I think, legal - mainly downloading songs that I had bought in the past, but lost track of the original CD or tape (not given it away or sold it) - but also plenty of illegal downloads, mostly radio hits from otherwise crappy CDs. I certainly don't feel guilty about downloading some radio hits - they are feely available to tape directly off the radio, after all, and the CDs are not worth $15 for one song.

[insert break to hold Baby Artemis and sing her every Steely Dan song on my iPod...about 2 hours worth]

Downloading music through file-sharing programs has one major feature: price. That is, it doesn't cost money. However, it is next to useless for discovering new music, and it is very inefficient for downloading entire CDs. As they say, "Why buy a CD for $15 when you could download it off the internet (in 7 hours)?

But let me get back to the unstated assumption of the article above: that consumers should be able to freely share music. My position on this is, there's "freely share" and then there is "freely share". People have been sharing music since at least the cassette tape - you make a copy, or a mix, and you give it to a friend. You are freely sharing. That is not the type of sharing the RIAA wants to stop. The other kind of "freely sharing" is making things you own available to everyone, people you've never met and will never communicate with in any way. I don't think it is unreasonable at all for the RIAA to want to prevent, or limit, that type of sharing, particularly for popular songs that it could otherwise sell.

The latest RIAA action seems to be aimed at super-sharers - people who make thousands of songs available on file sharing services. They will probably also take aim at super-soakers - people who download thousands of songs but don't really share much. That would be my category - I log on, download a couple tracks, log off, copy the files to iTunes and delete them from my "sharing" directory. It's still not strictly legal, but it is more in line with acceptable usage.

The main reason I've stopped using file sharing services is that I have a viable alternative - as a Mac user, I have access to the Apple Music Store, which makes the entire electronic music thing extremely easy. They offer suggestions (new releases, staff picks, etc.), searches are executed instantaneously, I can sample any track in the store, quality is guaranteed, the prices are reasonable, and songs download very quickly. Sure, it ain't free, but it is legal and way frickin' easy. I spend a lot more time listening to music now, rather than looking for it.

But only about 5% or so of American consumers currently have access to the Apple Music Store. When it, or a similar service, becomes available to virtually every computer user, I think the entire electronic music scene will shake out. File sharing networks will become popular only with those that are looking for not-for-sale tracks (collectors and such) and those who are willing to trade time and potential legal problems for free music, i.e. the same people who shoplift at the mall. Most users will purchase songs they like for a buck each, and be happy with it. Most artists will make their music available for purchase - those who don't will quickly find their music is the most popular on the file sharing networks, and a little quick math will teach Metallica, Green Day, et al that 30 cents for a few songs is better than 0 cents for all songs.

Or something like that.