UPDATED: April 12, 2011, 12:57 a.m.

At the turn of the 21st century, the Internet developed a culture of sharing information fast, easy and free. Napster started letting users upload their songs to the Internet, allowing other users to download that music for free. Of course, we all know what happened to Napster — but that’s not my point.

 

As Internet users, we expect high-quality content that is free and fast. And we are, for the most part, getting our way. Facebook is free, YouTube is free, Hulu is free, and even The New York Times was free. All this highly demanded content is easily attainable anytime, and we wouldn’t want it any other way.

 

Advertising dollars have been the main revenue source for practically all sites out there. Facebook and YouTube have become notorious for excessive advertising. Hulu runs commercials during the shows you watch. But a lot of these companies are starting to see the potential in taking the traffic to their websites and making money off of users by charging them directly.

 

Doing things for free is by no means cheap. Website administrators must account for servers, staffing costs and licensing agreements. These sites claim they need to put ‘paywalls’ in front of premium content and features so they can continue expanding and upgrading their systems.

 

The most recent paywall erected has been by The New York Times. As of last week, readers are allowed 20 free articles on its website per month. After that, users must sign up to continue reading all of its content. Current subscribers of the newspaper do not have to pay for online content.

 

The music industry does not want to embrace a free online service. Many streaming services like iTunes either use monthly subscriptions or a sale-by-sale basis to generate a profit. Record companies cite piracy as the reason behind needing subscriptions, but piracy hasn’t slowed, and it never will. A torrent website, The Pirate Bay, the 87th most visited website in the world, has 5 million registered members, according to the Billboard website. Meanwhile, less than 6 million people are subscribed to paid music content in America at the moment, according to the Business Insider website. Clearly, there are more users subscribed to free music websites than those requiring payment.

 

What the music industry has failed to do is grab consumers through extra incentives: The industry needs to offer an adequate selection of music, but also provide other features that will entice users to subscribe for a reasonable price. But there is hope, and that comes in the form of the music service Spotify.

 

Created in Europe, Spotify offers unlimited streaming of all music for free with advertisement support. In addition, its cellphone application, which you pay for, is void of ads. The application lets you take music on the go and access your music offline at any time.

 

Spotify hopes to bring its brand of music business to the United States sometime within the year, with the only delay stemming from attaining licensing agreements with record companies. At the moment, Spotify has contracts with EMI, Sony and Warner Music Group, with only Universal Music Group causing the postponement.

 

With a service like Spotify offering a legal way to listen to music for free, I can only see this as a positive for the record business. And since the premium content is attractive enough for most people, we may see a large fraction of free listeners signing up for subscriptions.

 

It is all about reeling the consumer in, and as consumers, the current music business models have not appealed to us. We want access to something free, immediate and as simple as possible.  And if we can’t have our way, you can count us out of any other systems. Remember that old adage — the customer is always right.

William Bamford is a freshman music industry major, and his column appears every other Monday. He can be reached at webamfor@syr.edu.

Published on April 10, 2011 at 12:00 pm