Revolution In Digital Music Distribution
Introduction
Thesis Statement:
Technological advancement has made the music industry got transformed overnight with the invention of the MP3 format compression technology and the introduction of the Internet file sharing services like Napster, Gnutella, and Scour thus seeing the major music labels taking almost anyone that is into digital music to court. The potential fear that led to the court actions center on how the music labels can possibly make any money if music becomes available in digital format for free. The question therefore is that if music is available free of cost, why would anyone pay for it? Could Napster conveniently say that it is indeed the first technology development to provide access to music content for free?
Purpose of Study:
This paper establishes the following: the industry conditions that led to the revolution in audio distribution while identifying which stakeholders are benefiting most or least; the reasons that made the music stores to attract many subscribers and what if any the record labels should have done differently; determine, if Apple allows its iPods to play non-iTunes songs, how long the success of iPods and iTunes endures; why musicians should sign away their copyright privileges to their songs through creative commons; and how podcasting would likely impact the appropriability of recorded music, radio broadcasting or other types of audio transmission.

Overview of the Paper
In 1991, Fraunhofer IIS of Germany invented the MP3 format. The MP3 format as stated by Shilling (2010) is an innovative algorithm, “that would set in motion a revolution in how music was distributed”, and that compressed digital songs to about 1/10th the of the original size in a file format with minimal compromise in audio quality of the song and could be shared over the internet amongst users (p.183). After getting the partially open licensing agreement with its attendant partnering with Franuhofer, Thomson Multimedia as the exclusive licensee representative of MP3 patents in 1995, then negotiated agreements with Apple, Adobe, Creative Labs and Microsoft and others for distribution arrangement. This arrangement gave consumers easy access to the MP3 technology. In 1999, Shawn Fanning released the Napster, which according to Schilling (2010), is “a software program that allowed users with Internet access to easily share MP3 files” (p.184). The outcome of the palpable fear of loss of market by the RIAA was the institution of a court action that culminated in its getting a favorable ruling in 2001 against the Napster software, and Napster was thus taken offline. Apple opened its iTunes Music Store, which is a one-stop-shop for music files from the five major record labels and to ensure restricted access and prevent illegal sharing, Apple adopted a digital rights management model. This restriction did not go down well with some economies as Shilling (2010) did intone that in 2006, France insisted that Apple loosens its restrictions on iTunes music and iPods to allow songs to be downloaded from the French iTunes Music Store to be played on non-iPod MP3 players and that iPods should play competing file formats as well (p.185). The Creative Commons however evolved to engage in license agreements that make files public, legal, and free, and “Podcasting” also came on board whereby whole “shows” could be downloaded. Carter (2006) explains “podcasting is a technique that allows anyone interested in broadcasting to create anything without acquiring any license” (p.190).
Discussion
1. What industry conditions led to the revolution in audio distribution? Which stakeholders stand to benefit the most (or least) from this revolution?
The industry conditions that led to the revolution in audio distribution was the transformation of music either as in single songs and in albums to be available in a new digital recorded format popularly called the mp3. The MP3 is an innovation product that permits the downloading of songs otherwise referred to as encoding, and played digitally on personal computers, a process called decoding using software programs that permitted the conversion of music tracks in CDs and plates to the MP 3. The other industry condition was the invention and debut of media sharing applications, with the most popular being Napster. According to Noyes, Allen, and Parise, (2012), “The media sharing applications where the industrial conditions that allowed users in the distribution and sharing of music in a free manner is known as Napster, it enabled users to share same music files without any difficulties.” (p. 109 -115), This expressly allowed users to freely share and distribute songs that are formatted in the mp3 module within and amongst other users possessing the same file sharing application modules. The stakeholder that stood to benefit the most from this music distribution revolution is the music customer that has a personal computer to enable him/her takes advantage of the new digital module. Music could be shared in the Internet as well. Rhee (2001) strongly agrees to this fact that music could now be easily accessible and could as well be readily distributed across the Internet for uninhibited use. (p.5)
2. Why did the music stores created by the record labels fail to attract many subscribers? What, if anything, should the record labels have done differently?
The music stores created by the record labels failed to attract many subscribers due to the fact that they used proprietary file formats, had a strictly limited digital rights management systems, and neither proposed nor adopted the extent of selection offered by unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as Napster even when it was obvious that they were shut down ab-initio from an agreement with the RIAA, Kazaa or Gnutella. What the record labels should have done differently is to have at least used the widely adopted mp3 format for their songs at inception, which would have made them successful early adopters.
3. What will determine how long the success of the iPod and iTunes endures? Should Apple allow its iPods to play non-iTunes songs? Should Apple allow iTunes songs to play on non-iPod MP3 players?
The factors that will determine how successful iPods and iTunes would be are, many younger generations of consumers tremendously enjoy the Apple’s “cool” factor, as posited by Shilling (2010) that “The Company had a ‘cool’ image that was attractive to the recording industry and users alike” (p. 185). Other relevant factors are Apples ability to develop and implement cunning marketing strategies with music labels in a relationship that provided a win-win situation, strong licensing agreements with music labels which enabled an offering of one-stop digital music shopping for consumers, its use of widely adopted digital formats, and its price competitiveness for downloadable songs and albums. Yes, Apple should allow its iPod to play non-iPods as it is already doing. But when “burning” music to blank audio CDs, iTunes should not permit the burning to non-iTunes songs, so as to ensure better control of the distribution. In answering the question if Apple should allow iTunes songs to be played on non-iPod MP3 players, I would want to answer in the affirmative as preventing that would be restriction taken too far because it matters no more at this stage. According to www.wired.com, Apple’s iPod line already owns 73% of the MP3 player’s market share.
4. Why would musicians sign away their copyright privileges to their songs through Creative Commons?
The reason musicians would sign away their copyright privileges to their songs through Creative Commons is because there exists in creative commons an array of openness that enables consumers share their music within and amongst themselves. Porter (2010) concludes therefore “by adopting this strategy, musicians would be exposing their music to more people (p.45). Noyes et al, (2012) was of the opinion also that “Music labels have the likelihood of suffering from this concept where music bands can use the openness concept in sharing their music with the world. The distribution becomes easy without the use of traditional music label as required,” (p. 109 -115). In consequence, this creative common allows musicians to popularize their contents and make downloading easily available, but without prejudice to the risk of contempt or infringement lawsuits pronouncements.
5. How is podcasting likely to impact the appropriability of recorded music, radio broadcasting, or other types of audio transmissions?
Podcasts are likely to impact the appropriability of recorded music, broadcasting and other types of audio transmission because of the ease of creation of podcasts. This is simply due to the fact that Podcasts are not regulated, and therefore, anyone can record anything, and that content can be encoded openly over the internet and can be decoded in such an open type of format on MP3 players for the listening pleasure of various consumers of music. The music labels will definitely be impacted negatively due to this non-restriction, as music bands that want to share their music with the world would do so without having to use a traditional music label to have their music distributed. According to www.en.wikipedia.org, downloads were available in the MP3 format, and rather than paying the standard price for the album ($.99 for a song), the band posted comments that listeners would be able to pay whatever they wanted for the album, without using a music label to distribute their album.

Conclusion
Summary of Main Points
It is trite to surmise that the distribution of music in digital formats has gradually evolved over time. Insofar as it is pertinent to allow more music lovers have access to music without hindrances, there is a need for protection of the patents and rights of the relevant stakeholders to ensure that their efforts are not in vain. Technological advancement, such as the MP3 consumers are able to compress music files into more than half their original sizes without altering the quality and has also made downloading and music sharing a worthwhile experience for music lovers.
Lessons Learnt and Recommendations
The lesson learned is that there is a need to be passionate and consistent with innovative ideas if a firm must achieve success in its efforts as it would come in handy towards streamlining business activities in other similar companies for the benefit of mankind. I therefore recommend that governments should look into ways to ensure protection of patents and copyright. I suggest further that there should be synchronization in the music industry amongst all stakeholders.

References:

Carter, E. (2006). Podcasting and Copyright. Santa Clara computer & high technology law Journal. Vol. 22(2). Retrieved from www.Digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/...
Porter, A. (2010). Making a case for sharing: music copyright, new technologies and Creative commons. Retrieved from www.infojustice.org.
Rhee, S. (2001). The digital music trilogies. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/...
Noyes, E., Allen, I. E., & Parise, S. (2012). Innovation and entrepreneurial behavior in the Popular Music Industry. Creative Industries Journal, 5(1/2), 139-150.Doi.
Schilling M. (2010), Strategic Management of Technology Innovation, 3rd Ed., New York, McGraw- Hill/Irwin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/apple-liveblog-999.