In my first part about filesharing, Legal Filesharing: I. The problem is money , I stated the problem.

Change in media distribution is required. Thankfully, there is a solution; unfortunately, it requires a change in the way media is distributed at present.  To search for a solution, the problem must be examined in the correct context.  In essence, the question is - Why do people fileshare?  The obvious answer is that it offers free content, but this is not the full answer; people still purchase the media they could download for free.  All the people that I know still go out and purchase compilation albums, singles and films despite using file sharing programs.  The full answer is that people use P2P programs because it enables the individual to obtain the content they want quickly, easily, and at a cost that offers value (at a glance, P2P seems like a free service, but take into account that the average home PC complete with software and cover as well as annual Internet subscription costs in the region of £1,300.  A 24 hour broadband connection could download 1.6 terabytes (1,600 gigabytes) of data in one year, equating to some 400,000 MP3s; less than a penny per track.  In reality, no-one actively uses P2P for these periods of time, but this figure demonstrates how the price of a 12 track £15 CD album looks like exceptionally low value).

Value for money. This is the crux of the problem; value for money.  The price of a CD has always been a matter for some complaint by consumer groups but the record labels have always managed to defeat all investigations.  There is no chance that record labels will lower the price of CD, VHS and DVD media in response to file sharing, mainly because companies must get every penny they can when pirating is allegedly taking money from their pockets.  In this case, adding value for money to future products is the key.  Some may argue that this is already in operation by adding deleted scenes, interviews, music videos and “The Making Of...” to current media releases.  Lets be honest; this kind of content you would have to give away as very few people would buy it, let alone actually view it when it comes free with a product.  Every DVD title that contains a 2nd disc “packed” full of extras actually contains one film disc and one coaster in my eyes. 

My idea is for all major media companies to develop their own P2P file sharing program.  Then, with every media release, give out a unique code that entitles the customer to 15Mb of download traffic using this file sharing program.  This would mean that the consumer buys a CD and receives 12 tracks as listed plus around 4 tracks of their choice online.  This idea would push the way media is purchased and acquired into a future already paved by current P2P programs with the added benefit of satisfying all parties; companies would be receiving royalties for all tracks downloaded (paid for in advance) and be able to control content, whilst the consumer is given freedom of choice, extra value for money, and the ease of use from a P2P program.  Therefore, the price of a media product doesn't change; hidden within the charge is the 15Mb bandwidth fee (which may be a bonus to companies; not everyone will use the scheme).

To be successful though, all major companies need to be in on the scheme.  File sharing is popular because of the variety of content that is available.  All companies that could potentially have content shared would need to contribute to the program as well as receive royalties for each product downloaded; else the program would fail because of its limited content.  The only way this could be feasible would be to have a primary central resource owned and managed by the collective companies, with a secondary source made up of the user base sharing their files.  A beneficial by-product of such a system would be that unwanted content such as viruses, cracks and pornography would be eliminated from the mainstream, a massive plus in many people’s eyes.

It could be argued that companies would lose out, as the same amount of money is being paid for a media product but more content is being released per pound/dollar.  True, but the price of media is the main reason why file sharing has become such a problem.  If you could obtain 70 quality music tracks on CD for £15/$12, would anyone bother file sharing?  For the same price as a current DVD/CD/VHS, companies are offering more content without incurring any additional manufacturing costs.  With an operational online file sharing infrastructure almost totally under the control of companies, the future of media distribution looks very bright indeed and fits nicely in with the proposed way media should be heading.   

This solution uses all the lessons learnt from the past and present.  Not one online subscription service has been hugely successful because it sells virtual products, yet people are using the Internet to purchase physical goods.  Therefore, turn the situation on its head; use physical products to sell an online media service.  People will still be assured by the physical ownership of a media product, but will have the opportunity to enter into another way of obtaining media without risking any further financial expenditure. 

The future. As it stands, the future will probably see the RIAA flailing its legal fists until the Internet yields and stops all P2P activity.  The troubling thing is that the Internet is a free area, controlled by no-one and enjoyed by all.  If corporate America succeeds in regulating a popular and useful technology simply because it may threaten their powerbase, then the Internet can no longer be free.  As I mentioned previously, I do not condone the breach of copyright.  I simply believe file sharing has accentuated flaws and problems in the way media is distributed and priced.  There is an opportunity to be exploited from P2P; we must wait for someone to grasp it.