Journalism in 140 Characters

The world of journalism has made its transition from the printing press to the Internet, but how could that affect the integrity of the work? It has become common for journalists to utilize social media as a personal as well as professional outlet, making them more accessible to readers and their criticisms, and forcing readers to see them no longer as bylines but as living people. But when thoughts can be published at the click of a mouse and without going through an editor, do the media industry's preexisting standards to avoid libel and defamation suits go out the window?


“What people don’t realize is that everything you do and say online is always going to be there. Once you put something online, it’s almost impossible to ever delete it,” said Bradley Shear, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who specializes in social media law and also runs the blog shearsocialmedia.com.


Here’s an easy way to truly understand the gravity of a Twitter lawsuit: when asked why you can’t just delete a tweet if someone is threatening to sue, Shear said that it can be seen as “destruction of evidence.” While the number of Twitter libel suits haven't risen exponentially, there were a number of cases in 2011 which served to remind journalists and bloggers that their public stream of consciousness is still subject to legal standards.  


In the spring of 2011, a veteran NBA referee sued the Associated Press and one of its sports writers for $75,000 in damages and a court order to remove a tweet that suggested the referee intentionally made a bad call.

A few months later, a Portland blogger was sued by a medical spa doctor for defamation. The $1 million lawsuit, which was dismissed in October, was believed to be Oregon’s first Twitter libel suit and could have been the nation’s first to go to trial, according to The Oregonian.

Singer and actress Courtney Love suffered back-to-back defamation suits costing her $430,000. In 2009, Love tweeted a torrent of insults about a fashion designer who said that Love owed her money for some clothes. Her roughly 40,000 followers read how Dawn Simorangkir allegedly stole from the singer, lost custody of her child, had a criminal past and was a drug-pushing prostitute. Simorangkir sued Love for defamation and said the tweets damaged her reputation and destroyed her career. Love settled with the designer and paid her $430,000. Had it gone to trial as it was scheduled in 2011, it would have been the first to test if social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, can be held to the same libel standards as traditional news media.

In May 2011, Love was sued again for defamation when she tweeted that a San Diego attorney who represented her in a lawsuit involving the estate of her late husband, Kurt Cobain, was “bought off.” In September, California Superior Court Judge Ramona See limited the defamation suit against Love, but allowed the main claim— that attorney Rhonda Holmes may have been libeled and that a tweet can be a statement of fact, and not just an opinion — to move forward.

In general, the courts consider six different legal elements in libel cases: the defamatory nature of the communication, how it was published, the truth or falsity of the claims, whether it is “of and concerning an individual,” reputational harm caused and the degree of fault. But what’s interesting about Twitter is that while a newspaper might not be able to give exact numbers as to how many people read an alleged libelous statement, Twitter lists the number of followers on someone’s page — meaning at least that many people would receive the tweets in question, although it’s not possible to know how many actually read them. When assessing potential damages to someone’s reputation, lawyers can also look at the number of times a particular statement is “retweeted” — similar to forwarding an email. 

The Chicago Sun-Times encourages reporters to use Twitter. Jack Barry, the assistant managing editor for interactive media, says the newspaper realizes the potential dangers, but chose to encourage its use when they saw the reporters' enhanced ability to transmit news immediately and directly to thousands of readers. The newspaper started a social media training program and began rehashing its social media policy — not just for reporters, but for all newspaper employees including marketing and circulation.

“It’s just as easy to libel someone on Twitter as it would be on print,” Barry said. “Any of us in the media needs to be conscious of the fact that anything you do online — Twitter, Facebook, your personal blog — will reflect back on you, your personal brand and your news organization... You need to keep in mind the same sort of ethical and legal requirements that you would if you were going to write a story for the newspaper. This is a different medium. But it doesn’t mean you stop being a journalist because of it.”

Planking: Disorderly Conduct?

A 19-year-old Wisconson male has been convicted of disorderly conduct for 'planking' on areas including the top of an ATM, a Walmart merchandise display, a patrol car, and a police memorial monument. One officer compared the final location to 'planking' atop a gravestone in a cemetery.


Photos posted on Facebook as well as a video shared on YouTube of the young man in various locations were used as evidence against him in the Manitowoc municipal court case. Judge Steven Olson fined him $303 for his escapade, which was photographed by his brother, who also faced a disorderly conduct trial the following week.


(Were the extra $3 really necessary?...) 




Lesson to be learned: Planking was never that amusing.





via: The Smoking Gun

Goliath v. David: Rowling’s Attack on the Harry Potter Lexicon

[Report prepared for COMM 4454- Media Law, Fall 2011]

Source: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, 07 Civ. 9667. (2008)

            US District Court Southern District of New York

Overview

On September 8, 2008, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling won her copyright infringement lawsuit in a U.S. District Court (Southern District of NY) against Michigan publisher Steve Vander Ark. Vander Ark, who began collecting Potter facts to build a fan Web site for the series, included detailed descriptions of Rowling’s original characters, creatures, spells and potions in “The Harry Potter Lexicon,” a reference guide to the children’s fantasy franchise. U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson permanently barred publication of the work and awarded copyright owners Rowling and Warner Brothers $6,750 in statutory damages. Judge Robert P. Patterson found that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" contained excessive, verbatim copying of material in the novels and that although the creation of reference guides can at times fall under the copyright exception for fair use, the Lexicon appropriated too much of Rowling's work and thus was infringing. Attorneys for Vander Ark admitted that his book copied portions of the Harry Potter novels, but argued that it was not infringement because the book was not "substantially similar" to the originals.  Alternatively, they argued that the encyclopedia constituted a fair use of the copyrighted material.

In Vander Ark’s case, an avid fan has been ostracized from the community of his passion by other fans as well as its creator. Based on several factors, including the definitions of fair use, unfair competition, and misappropriation, he has a very real opportunity to appeal and continue his fight, making his story a compelling one for TV or film.

Facts/ Legal Issue

            Vander Ark explained that, in 1999, he decided “there was so much information [in each novel] that it was hard to keep track, so [he] came up with the idea of a site that would list everything from where and when each character appears to what each spell did.” The Harry Potter Lexicon website went live in 2000. Following the release of movies based on the series, the website grew to contain information pertaining to the films and actors. In 2004, Rowling herself gave The Lexicon a “fan site award.” She declared, “This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing).” In 2005, Warner Brothers flew Vander Ark out to the UK film premiere of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Producer David Heyman told him that The Lexicon was used on set as a fact checking reference on a daily basis. Vander Ark was also invited to visit the office of Electronic Arts, the company which produced the series video games. He claimed that the EA artists “had printouts of the Lexicon taped all over their walls."

            The Lexicon appeared to cause no trouble while the information remained only on the Internet. That changed in 2007 when Vander Ark declared his intent to publish the Lexicon in book form and signed a deal with RDR Books. Warner Brothers and Rowling immediately sought an injunction to prevent its publication. They claimed the Lexicon would infringe on Rowling’s copyright and ability to encyclopedize her own work. RDR argued that The Lexicon, along with a long history of secondary reference works, was acceptable under the definition of “fair use”.

Rules

According to Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991), “factual items organized or selected or coordinated in some novel or artful manner,” would be protected by copyright law. Vander Ark’s use of the same information for an online database organized topically seemed to cause no harm. A fundamental principle of the case to be considered then becomes whether there is a material difference between the information being published on the Internet versus in print. Dave Hammer, RDR's New York attorney, argued that the law didn’t distinguish between digital and printed copyright of the information. He claimed, "It would create a legal precedent were Rowling and Warner Bros to win. If Rowling was happy with the content of the website, she cannot object to the publication of the book." In response, Rowling's lawyers claimed the Lexicon had no creative value, it contributed nothing to the readers' understanding of the Harry Potter series, and that merely rearranging facts into an alphabetical order did not turn it into a secondary, scholarly reference work.

Fair Use

RDR Books argued that the function of the HP Lexicon as a research tool amounted to a “transformative use” of the purpose of the original work, which would qualify it for fair use protection from copyright. This claim was based on a test developed in 2001 by the California Supreme Court decision that if transformative elements are added to the work, the free expression takes precedence. Warner Brothers and Rowling argued instead that once the information was taken from the Internet to be sold in book form, the appropriation of Rowling’s work became used for commercial purposes and lost its fair use protection. In determining whether the use of a particular work is a fair use, Section 107 of the judicial doctrine of fair use in the revision of copyright law by the 1976 Congress stated that four factors would be considered:

1.    The purpose and character of the use

2.    The nature of the copyrighted work

3.    The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4.    The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Unfair Competition

Rowling’s final argument was the claim that Vander Ark’s Lexicon would interfere with sales of her own derivative works should she ever choose to annotate and encyclopedize the series herself. In Associated Press v. International News Service (1919), Justice Mahlon Pitney said there was a distinct difference between publishing the same information for use by readers and taking the information and transmitting it for commercial use in competition with the plaintiff. He said this action was unfair competition- interference with the opposing business precisely at the point where profit is to be reaped. This unfair competition doctrine, or law of misappropriation, is intended to stop a person trying to pass off the work of someone else as his or her own. “The critical legal issue in an unfair competition or misappropriation suit is whether there is a likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers will be misled, or simply confused, as to the source of goods in question” (Pember and Calvert).

Analysis

            In considering the ruling of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991), it is left to each individual’s personal opinions whether Vander Ark’s organizational strategies were enough to qualify as an “artful manner.” Rather than listing information entirely in alphabetical order such as in the case of a telephone book, Vander Ark carefully selected what facts to include and organized them topically into lists. The HP Lexicon contained excessive verbatim copying of material in the novels and didn’t provide much of Vander Ark’s own input or scholarly comment, but this in itself did not appear to be the problem. Rowling showed no sign of malice toward Vander Ark’s use of the same information when it was disseminated online. It was only when she learned that he would make some profit on its printed form that she chose to enforce her copyright on the material.

            Application of Fair Use Factors

According to the factors which are considered, the work may or may not be considered fair use. The “purpose and character of the use” was for it to be utilized as a teaching tool or for scholarly research by those already interested in the Harry Potter series. In this manner, The Lexicon would meet the standard to qualify as fair use.

When considering the “nature of the copyrighted work,” The Lexicon had less chance of qualifying as fair use. Rowling’s copyright protection took precedence based on the fact that the Potter books were still available, not “consumable”, and a published creative work.

The decision to enjoin Vander Ark’s Lexicon publication in book form was almost entirely based on the loss of it qualifying as fair use based on the “portion or percentage of the work used.”  Judge Patterson decided that although the creation of reference guides can at times fall under the copyright exception for fair use, the Lexicon appropriated too much of Rowling's work and thus was infringing. He claimed that “to serve the public interest, copyright law must prevent the misappropriation of the skills, creative energies, and resources which are invested in the protected work,” or risk depleting the incentive for original authors to create new works.

In Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor claimed that the last factor was undoubtedly the most important element of fair use. She wrote, “To negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become more widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” If this is truly the case, The Lexicon should have received fair use protection from copyright. It had no effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work as a supplement to Rowling’s books rather than a substitute; it is useless unless you've read her original works. It would also have had no effect on the sales of Rowling’s own annotated or encyclopedized derivative works if she ever released them since no reasonable fan would choose to purchase Vander Ark’s work over that of the author herself. 

Unfair Competition and Misappropriation

Vander Ark’s Lexicon could not qualify as unfair competition, as it does not “interfere with the opposing business precisely at the point where profit is to be reaped.” As previously discussed, the encyclopedia does not interfere with sales of Rowling’s work in question- the original Potter series novels. This is also not a case of misappropriation as Vander Ark never tried to pass off Rowling’s work as his own. He merely organized her creation for the reader’s benefit.

Conclusion

             Some of the biggest critics of Rowling’s actions claim that she is hypocritical and driven by greed. Author of the novel Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card argues that Rowling’s suit against the Lexicon publisher has no merit. He claims that she doesn’t admit to many similarities between her own work in the Harry Potter novels and works published before, including his own novel. Ryan Paul points out cases where Rowling has been accused of borrowing more blatantly from the works of contemporary authors and claims, “Inventive borrowing is the lifeblood of the fantasy genre and her attitude on the subject reflects some hypocrisy.”

            Vander Ark could easily choose to appeal the current ruling in this case based on his Lexicon fitting the description of fair use in its purpose and character as well as lack of competition it poses to Rowling’s work in any form. It offers no unfair competition and makes no attempt at misappropriation.

While it appears admirable that Rowling is so concerned with her ability to produce her own encyclopedia and donate profits to charity, the overkill with which she aggressively pursued this case displays what Crace calls the equivalency of “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”  A similar lexicon exists for most examples of a major series within the fantasy genre, from Lord of the Rings to Chronicles of Narnia. The purpose of each is not to provide commentary, but to organize and help clarify for readers the ideas which authors have made factual in the world of their creation. Rowling clearly saw the value in his work when the Lexicon was an online database which she, producers of her films, and creators of her video games all used on a regular basis. As such a prominent figure in the literary community, Rowling could have avoided the scorn and contempt of some fans and colleagues by finding a more lenient solution. One mutually beneficial compromise would have been for Rowling to buy the rights to Vander Ark’s Lexicon database and hire him to maintain it. While he wouldn’t suffer the authoritative vice grip of a figure which he admired, Rowling would have a significant head start on the Lexicon for her own series to be published in print form later rather than starting from scratch. 

Case brief: Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (1997)

[Prepared for COMM 4454- Media Law, Fall 2011]


Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, 128 F.3d 233 (4^th Cir. 1997)
            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FACTS: In 1993, James Perry brutally murdered Mildred Horn, her 8-year-old son Trevor, and Trevor’s in-home nurse Janice Saunders while acting as a professional hit man. He was hired by Mildred’s ex-husband Lawrence Horn to murder Horn's family so that Horn would receive the $2 million that his son had received in a court settlement for injuries by medical malpractice that had left him paralyzed for life.

It was found that Perry consulted the explicit advice found in two books published by Paladin Enterprises, Inc. to commit the murders: Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors ("Hit Man") and How to Make a Disposable Silencer, Vol. II ("Silencers"). Vivian Rice and the victims’ families filed wrongful death and survival actions against Paladin, arguing that the publishing company aided and abetted the triple murder by publishing the books which the murderer consulted. Paladin brought a motion for summary judgment (a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law) arguing that it could not be held liable for civil damages because it had a First Amendment right to publish the books. The case fell directly under federal jurisdiction because the parties were from different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000. The court granted Paladin’s motion for a summary judgment, and found that First Amendment protection was not eliminated for Hit Man because it did not incite imminent lawless action, only advocated it.

LEGAL QUESTION: Should First Amendment protection for “Hit Man” bar Paladin Enterprises, Inc. from the appellant’s claim that the publisher aided and abetted the murders?

DECISION: (3-0, written by Judge Luttig, joined by Wilkins and Williams) The order of the lower court that granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee publishing company was reversed and remanded.

COURT’S RATIONALE: In bringing the motion for a summary judgment, the publishing company conceded that they intended for the book to be purchased and used by criminals. To the circuit court judges, this was sufficient evidence to establish that they aided and abetted in the murders. They claimed that Paladin assisted Perry by providing him with detailed factual instructions on how to prepare for, commit,  and cover up his murders, “instructions which themselves embody not so much as a hint of the theoretical advocacy of principles divorced from action that is the hallmark of protected speech.” They found that Paladin's assistance assumed the form of speech with little or no purpose beyond the unlawful one of facilitating murder. In these circumstances, they said that the First Amendment did not “erect the absolute bar to the imposition of civil liability” for the publisher.

DISSENTING OPINION: None

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This landmark case was the first time a book publisher was held liable for an act of violence committed by one of its readers. Paladin attorney Stephen Zansberg said it was “clearly an effort to extend the net of responsibility beyond those who take actions and break the law.” The court left the right to protection based on the First Amendment open for new interpretation. Judge Lettig’s written opinion was arguably quite emotional, and other companies feared that literature and films that described what could be considered dangerous activities may no longer be guaranteed First Amendment protection should another judge disagree with its content.

Case Brief: Kincaid v. Gibson (2001)

[Prepared for COMM 4454- Media Law, Fall 2011]

KINCAID v. GIBSON, 236 F.3d 342 (2001)

            Decision by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FACTS: Plaintiffs Kincaid and Coffer were both students at Kentucky State University, and Betty Gibson was KSU's Vice President for Student Affairs. KSU funded production and distribution of “The Thorobred,” the student yearbook which was student-composed and produced. Coffer served as the editor of the yearbook during the 1993-94 academic year. A student-photographer and at least one other student assisted her at one point, but Coffer organized and put together the yearbook alone after her staff members lost interest in the project. Coffer stated that she wanted to “do something different” and “bring Kentucky State University into the nineties.” She gave it a purple cover and a “destination unknown” theme, inspired by student uncertainty wondering "where are we going in our lives," high unemployment rates, and a current controversy regarding whether KSU was going to become a community college. Coffer included pictures depicting events at KSU and in its surrounding community, and political and current events in the nation and world at large.

When the yearbook came back from the printer in November 1994, Gibson objected to several aspects of it, finding the publication to be of poor quality and "inappropriate." In particular, she objected to the purple cover (KSU's school colors are green and gold), its theme, the lack of captions under many of the photos, and the inclusion of current events unrelated to KSU. After consulting with KSU President Mary Smith and other university officials, Gibson and Smith decided to confiscate the yearbooks and to withhold them from the KSU community.

In November 1995, Kincaid and Coffer sued Gibson, Smith, and individual members of the KSU Board of Regents, alleging that the university's confiscation of and failure to distribute the 1992-94 KSU student yearbook violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both parties moved for summary judgment.  The district court applied a forum analysis to the students' First Amendment claim, and found that the KSU yearbook was a nonpublic forum. In deciding this, the court held that the university officials' refusal to distribute the yearbook "on the grounds that the yearbook was not of proper quality and did not represent the school as it should," was reasonable. The court granted the KSU officials' motion for summary judgment and denied the students' motion.

LEGAL QUESTION: Did the university officials violate the First Amendment rights of Kincaid and Coffer by confiscating and failing to distribute the KSU student yearbook?

DECISION: Yes. (10-3. Cole delivered the opinion of the court)

COURT’S RATIONALE: The court stated that cross motions for summary judgment authorize the court to assume that there is no evidence which needs to be considered other than that which has been filed by the parties. They claimed, “There is a substantial amount of testimony and documentary evidence in the record before us. Thus, we agree with the parties that the facts as developed in this case are sufficient to decide the case in accordance with clearly established First Amendment law, and we find no material facts in dispute that prevent the district court from granting summary judgment in favor of Kincaid and Coffer.”

They also said that because KSU is a state-funded, public university, the actions KSU officials take in their official capacities constitute state actions for purposes of First Amendment analysis, and the funds and materials that KSU allocated toward production of The Thorobred constituted state property. By confiscating the yearbooks, the KSU officials restricted access to state property used for expressive purposes. After examining KSU's policy and practice, the nature of The Thorobred and its compatibility with expressive activity, and the context in which the yearbook is found, the court believed this to be clear evidence of KSU's intent to make the yearbook a limited public forum.

They explained “Confiscation ranks with forced government speech as amongst the purest forms of content alteration. There is little if any difference between hiding from public view the words and pictures students use to portray their college experience, and forcing students to publish a state-sponsored script. In either case, the government alters student expression by obliterating it. We will not sanction a reading of the First Amendment that permits government officials to censor expression in a limited public forum in order to coerce speech that pleases the government. The KSU officials present no compelling reason to nullify Coffer's expression or to shield it from Kincaid's view and, accordingly, the officials' actions violate the Constitution.”

CONCURRING OPINIONS: (Judges Ryan and Boggs [in part]) Ryan was a member of the panel which previously decided in favor of the KSU officials. He claimed “I thought then, for the reasons expressed in Judge Norris's opinion for the panel, that the plaintiffs had suffered no deprivation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. I now think that in so concluding, I was in error.”

DISSENTING OPINIONS: (Judges Norris and Boggs [in part]) Boggs believed that there was substantial but not conclusive evidence on several matters, and that he would reverse for a trial of these genuine issues of material fact. “I therefore concur in the judgment of the court reversing the ruling of the district court, but dissent from our judgment ordering that judgment be entered for the student appellants.”

Norris “continued to believe that the record supports a conclusion that the university did not create a limited public forum for the reasons outlined in the prior panel's vacated opinion.” He claimed that The Thorobred represented a non-public forum, and "regulation of speech in a nonpublic forum need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation."

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case suggested that federal courts were reluctant to expand censorial powers of college administrators via Hazelwood. In reality, they merely distinguished between the (out of class) production of the yearbook from the classroom-generated newspaper.

Report: Social Media and the Music Industry

[Prepared for COMM 3350- Spring 2011]




With tools such as Last.Fm, Pandora, music/mp3 blogs, and even artist profiles on networking sites, social media and the music industry have formed a direct relationship. Social media have opened countless new and advantageous opportunities for artist promotion and exposure, as well as eliminating the necessity of “middle men” between fans and musicians or other like-minded fans. Unfortunately for the music industry, online activity becomes increasingly difficult to control with each new technology release, and piracy becomes significantly easier to conduct. Therefore, those in the music industry, like Warner Music, must find ways to adapt to this more digital age of music commerce and utilize each change profitably.

According to a panel of music industry representatives in a discussion with the Social Media Club Los Angeles, it is exceedingly clear that there are substantial advantages to artists who make use of social media, as there are to the music labels and fans. Of these, indie bands see the greatest reward. First, loading an mp3 file onto their social networking profile is significantly easier than the time, money and effort required organizing a gig. They also immediately have access to millions of potential fans worldwide, rather than those in small venues. It is no longer unheard of for a band to gain considerable popularity and recognition without ever signing a record deal or having a song on the radio. Artists are also exposed to big companies looking to target the niches which best represent their brand.

Through many forms of social media, bands can “join the conversation” with their fans. Fans experience constant and exclusive access to artists by following Tweets, reading blogs, friending them on MySpace, etc. This greater degree of interaction between the two helps to cement the connections between bands and their fans, bringing longevity to the relationship and influencing their sales.

Social media also seems to be bringing down barriers between the music industry and fans as artists have begun using it in many ways to bypass the traditional media. Following the controversy with Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards, Kanye West used Twitter to tell his side of the story, rather than letting fans hear the interpretations of the media. He claimed: "Man I love Twitter … I've always been at the mercy of the press but no more … The media tried to demonise me". Other artists, including Jermaine Dupri have begun to focus on ways they believe new media is the future of the music industry itself.

All new opportunities come with both advantages and disadvantages though, as no good thing comes without sacrifice. Social media is no exception to the music industry. While there are now mp3 blogs such as HypeMachine which allow free downloads and samples of music to fans, music industry executives find that these do more harm than good by devaluing the work behind the music. New available technologies such as CD-R, P2P (Peer to Peer) and torrent technologies make music piracy and theft increasingly easy and cheap. As Tracey Roper points out, the impact of these on music business revenues is incalculable. John Enser, partner and head of music at Olswang, says, "As illegal downloading hits an all time high and consumers' fear of prosecution falls, the music industry must look for more ways to encourage the public to download music legally. Variable pricing models and DRM free music, which would allow consumers legally to transfer music to other devices, were popular among respondents [of the Digital Music Survey] and represent new ways of enticing people away from breaking the law."


Ways in which music is purchased have also been significantly altered thanks to social media. No longer is it necessary to travel to a physical music store, as most new music is made available to consumers inside their own home.  The switch to single songs in mp3 format has made releasing CDs almost completely obsolete. Consumers can download only the specific songs they want, so losing the guarantee of the sale of the complete album has led to decreased revenues for both the record companies and artists. Therefore, greater emphasis is now placed on the release and marketing of "singles" in an attempt to boost profits.

In the past decade alone, social media has nearly revolutionized what is required of the music industry. According to the “Impact of Social Networks on Music Commerce” Olswang report based on the 2007 Digital Music Survey, 53% of people actively surf social network sites to discover new music and artists, and two-thirds of all users regularly or occasionally discover music that they love on their preferred social network site.  Later, it appears that music labels realized the profits being generated by sites such as MySpace thanks to their artists, and began looking for ways to redirect those profits back to the label. In December of 2008, Warner Music pulled all its content from YouTube after not managing to agree on a mutually-acceptable licensing deal with Google. They advise bands not to rely on social networking sites, as they gain and lose popularity, but to have their own URL to promote themselves. On these sites, Warner Music intends to use Eos social networking platform by Cisco (a set of social networking tools that can be integrated into various music sites to bring more social feeling to them and let fans interact with their favorite artists on the artist’s own website) to keep fans on their own sites instead of communicating elsewhere.

Clearly, social media has gained huge momentum in the past decade, and is a factor which cannot and should not be ignored by the music industry. It provides a great opportunity for all parties within the industry to employ new tactics of promoting and marketing themselves. Not only will success require talent, but also technological savvy. Artists, labels, and retail companies alike must adapt to the changes or find themselves as obsolete as eight tracks.