The Ethics of Digital Technology

Throughout the years, but more so in recent years digital technology has revolutionised the way we produce, distribute and consume music. This has proven to have taken its toll on some of the biggest recording labels causing them to go bust, however with the introduction of new software and ways of distributing music worldwide for free via the internet, it has made the industry far more accessible for upcoming artist. This has had a massive impact on the relationships betweens, Producers, Distributors, Artists and Consumers. In larger record labels, it has caused more distance to grow between the company and the artist as things can now be done directly over the internet from across the world. However, for smaller labels, it allows them more flexibility that they want to share and use with the Artists they’ve signed.
As with most companies, their main objective is to make money. But it isn't always fairly divided up and a lot of the rights don't belong to who they should. Earlier this year, in September the EU council voted to extend the copyright on song records from 50 years to a long 70 years. Although there is a clause which allows for the artists to renegotiate their contracts with the record labels, but not for 50 years from release and the artist will only be able to regain the rights to their recordings if it is stored by the company and has not been made available to the public, leaving the producers to be very much in control. The artist that were for the move, were similar in popularity to Cliff Richard who want to continue to earn from their creations rather than seeing a sudden drop in earnings towards the end of their lifetime. The extension has been in debate for 5 years when it was first turned down by Government who backed Gowers Report who said, “it would negatively impact upon consumers and industry.” A lot of controversy arose from critics when the extension was approved, executive director, Jim Killock, stated “it puts money into the back pockets of big labels and is unlikely to benefit smaller artist”. This is proven by the average amount of royalties paid is very low, especially for smaller artist. However Geoff Taylor, head of the BPI added to this by saying, “it ensures that UK record label labels can continue to reinvest income from sales of early recordings in supporting new British talent.” With this new law in consideration, who is it really benefiting? Are the big labels claiming all the money possible, or are the artist getting the money they deserve?

This is the breakdown earnings for an averagely known artist:

An artist sells 1 million records at £15 each
Which equals, a lot of money.
However, it's far more complex.
Firstly there is an automatic 25% deduction for packaging.
Each album then makes £11.25
Then on the basis that the Artist is massively popular
They have a 10% royalty rate.
They still sell 1 million copies
which now makes just over £1 million.
However, 10% of these copies will have been freebies
So they're only selling 900,000 copies.
Let's throw in those recoupable costs.
Recording costs about £300,000 (100%)
Promotional costs about £200,000 (100%)
Tour costs also about £200,000 (50%)
Music Videos cost the most at £400,000 (50%)
Altogether, £800,000 off of the total leaves the artist
with roughly about £200,000.

Until all of the recoupable fees are paid off back to the record labels, the Artist will be earning nothing on royalties. Therefore the new copyright right isn't going to benefit smaller artist, by having even less of an opportunity to fully own their recordings.
 The introduction of new software and their integration with all major websites on the internet make the internet the easiest way to distribute and promote Artists and their music. However, it’s not always done legally; file sharing websites and it’s users are the main culprit of illegally downloading music. Bittorrenting was brought to the internet in 2006, since then it has gained millions of users all over the world ‘seeding and leeching’ their files between each other. Torrents are different from the usual communities of file sharing, like Kazaa. It differs because of it’s unique, peer to peer sharing format. When a file is being downloaded that person is ‘leeching’ then once they have something to share as well, this is known as ‘seeding’ which keeps the balance equal and no one person gains profit over somebody else. It has become incredibly popular because of it’s strict guidelines were there are no falsely named files containing adware or spy ware, which are closely monitored by the frequent users. The consumers are getting what they want and giving something back, which is completely legal as there are a lot of companies who use bit torrent to distribute large files to their users. The technology itself is legal, it’s what the users come to do with this kind of technology that is illegal. As soon as people start sharing music they do not own the rights to, it’s illegal and that is when the music companies and the artists begin to lose out. Is it really ethical for an Artist to work so hard and long on an album that millions of people then share between them for no cost at all? For this exact reason, in 2001, Napster was forced to shut down by the US federal judge until it could remove all the copyrighted music that was being streamed, downloaded and shared by millions of users for no cost and no restrictions. During the duration of it's shut down, companies had began to develop websites for artist were users can stream their music straight from the site, causing a huge drop in users when the Napster returned with heavy restrictions. In June 2002, Napster returned properly as a legitimate, royalty paying service, but the company still remained unimpressed at the efforts to have them shut down.

On the other hand, if we take a look at some major companies that are completely legal, there is a lot of good that comes from this technology. Firstly, there is Spotify which is a perfect service for the teenagers today who maybe find it hard to come by money for CDs and other kinds of medium. This service allows for it's users to stream, buy and store music on which is then available offline on mobiles and other laptops. There are three different types of Spotify, the free version is what most of Spotify's users have, this allows them to stream 10 hours of music per month, within wi-fi connection supported by visual or radio-styled adverts. The upgrade to the paid for version means unlimited usage, advert free and with higher birate streaming, which is a must for a lot of their users. However, because of the free streaming that is allowed to all users, albeit that some are limited, it does mean that there are a few legendary artist who refuse to have their music appear on Spotify, artist include Metallica, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Pink Floyd and The Beatles. Spotify are an incredibly profitable company, not just from subscriptions and advertising, but from music downloading. The pricing for songs on Spotify are somewhat unusual compared to download prices on places such as Apple and Amazon. A single download from Spotify will cost you £1.15. So how can Spotify possibly compete with other distributors? Unlike Apple, Spotify are all about the music and know that their listeners won't be buying just one song, therefore there is money to be saved when buying in bulk from Spotify. Buying 15 tracks in one go already makes them a saving when each track is just £6. When a bundle of 100 tracks are bought, they are just 50p each. iTunes are biggest distributor for digital music and all other types of digital media including TV shows, films, games and e-books. This convergence of all media is what makes iTunes the top store on the internet with its capabilities of being accessible from anywhere on your mobile phone. Unlike Spotify feature to stream music, iTunes allow for a 30 second preview and no more, with means artist like Metallica and Pink Floyd are more comfortable to make arrangement with iTunes to sell their recordings through iTunes at much more costly prices, a single track coming to 99p and an album at £7.99 each.


-Stuff about big labels and Sony and stuff-

-Stuff about case study stuff and Indie Charts-

-More stuff about stuff-


Teenagers nowadays have a very scope on how to use the internet, and how easy it is to get famous all over the world, in particular, Rebecca Flint. A schoolgirl aged just 14, from the Isle of Mann managed to get herself known all over Japan when she posted her dance to the song, "Danjo". She had been living and breathing anime, manga and the Japanese culture for 2 years before deciding to post several videos of herself dancing under the name Beckii Cruel, in total secret. It wasn't until 2010 when Japan picked up her 'Danjo dance' and broadcast the video over nation-wide site, Niko Niko Douga. When she was offered work in Japan that would change her life, she told her parents about the videos she had been posting. Now Rebecca Flint goes to Japan on average 8 times a year to perform, sing, dance and model. Youtube is the perfect site for upcoming artist to promote their work for free and get known world wide, just like Rebecca. Now that technology has been taken to a new level were we can access youtube on our mobile phones from almost anywhere and share everything we like with whoever we like, the internet is your oyster. Like Rebecca, world famous Justin Bieber started out in the exact same way, posting videos of what he does best, on Youtube for the world to see and one day get noticed. This has lead to him being another teen success story and an idol for all upcoming artist. He shows just how easy it is to get noticed, and in a technological world, were all the studio software you need is just a click away and in some cases free as well, money wise, the only way is up. However, out of all the artist that are posting on Youtube, the ones with the biggest fanbases are the unsigned, independent music makers which Youtube want to support further. They began by starting up a scheme entitled, Musicians wanted, where unsigned artist will sign up and those who are accepted will make profits from the advertising around their videos which will hopefully give these artist the edge to make their music go further once they are more finacially supported.



-Stuff about advantages and disadvantages-

Media Assignment

For a film to qualify as British there are certain criteria the film has to meet, under the British Film Act of 1985 limitations were set to categorise films.

• 92.5% of the film's running time must be created in the UK
• The remaining run time of the film must be made in a Commonwealth country or Ireland
• Most or all of the labour costs must go to UK citizens
• It must be made by the UK or elsewhere in Europe
  

As America dominate the film industry it had become increasingly difficult for the UK the make films in the British Film Industry alone. Even if a film is completely British made, without input from America for Distribution there is a large chance the film could flop and not be financially viable. For Britain, a film flop could cause huge problems financially. However for America, just one successful blockbuster film can cover for 9 film failures. Not only that but a lot of the profit made from a British film goes back to distributors and is not reinvested into the British Film Industry.
So, how has Britain managed to maintain such a strong and successful chain of films year after year when in competition with the American Film Industry?

At the end of the day, everything boils down to money in the film industry. Since 2000, the UK have been investing a lot of government money into educating young people about film studies and making the careers more accessible to them. Film makers hope that in the near future this will cause more investment into our film economy. 

In 2007 the Film Tax Relief was put into place. Since 2007 the costs for studios have shown to be 40% lower than the US and 7% lower than countries such as Czech Republic. By 2015 the Film Tax Relief hopes to encourage a 10-15% increase of global film production. As the money starts to come back into our economy government hope to distribute amongst Film Makers and offer training to those who are interested in the world of film.
Working Title Films work closely with film studios StudioCanal based in London, UK and also in Paris, France. Throughout the past ten years these companies have made classic films that have been huge hits all over the world. One of it's biggest hits in the past decade was Johnny English in 2003 followed up by the sequel released this year, Johnny English Reborn. Another reason hit from Working Title Films was Paul, also released in 2011.

Johnny English is undeniably British, the theme and the mis en scene throughout the film continue to display cultural content regarding this.

Johnny English as he is crowned King of England.

From the title of the film, as English is he second name, it's clear to say that England is where the film is based. In the opening scenes to the first film, the song A Man For All Seasons by English songwriter, Robbie Williams (Click for song) was used and written for the film itself. the lyrics in the film tie in with the plot line and include things that are only in Britain, 'House of Lords' 'Queen of Country' and also the title 'A Man For All Seasons' based on the West End performance.
Along with the establishing shots of London the audience in Britain will know where Johnny is and understand the lyrics more so than foreign viewers. However, as the Royal family as so admired all over the world, Johnny English is an instant winner when he keeps the 'Queen of Country safe and sound', like the song suggests from the start.
Johnny English himself is what makes both of the films so obviously British, and appeal to the audience in Britain. Rowan Atkinson is an incredibly well spoken man from the North of England and is an admired comedian of England for the past 30 years. His well spoken voice and charming present ooze everything that is stereotypical of a high class English man and appealing to audiences from all over.

His poise and well being show a class which is maintained throughout the film. In "The Toy Cupboard" scene, we can see how being a spy and a gentleman shows he has certain standards that he expects from others. When he meets a man after a time apart, Johnny says, "Please don't get up" because this is the kind of respect he would give as an English gentleman. Followed, of course, by a typical handshake. The gadgets are also very British, and we understand that Patch lost his legs to 'exploding brogues' which originated from Britain and are highly popular in Men's footwear.
In the scene the costume is also chosen very carefully and possibly only to be noticed by British audience. Johnny English is wearing a red tie whilst Simon is wearing Blue which suggested the political parties they follow. As they both work closely with the government in Britain it shows to the British audience that the two characters will have conflict at some point based on their views of England being different.


Paul however is a British film set in America, but like Johnny English still hold cultural content meant for the British audiences. Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost) maintain a tourist character throughout the film and appeal to the British audience by having little understanding of the American way of life but also using a lot of American stereotypes throughout the film. The mis en scene regarding their costumes shows a real 'fan boy' nature as they're both in T-shirts from different comics that they have an obvious liking for.

Clive and Graeme at Comic Con.

Although in the film, most of the films or comics mentioned and a lot of the images shown are from American companies, they are very popular in Britain too. Frost and Pegg decided to make this film because both of them are sci-fi fanatics, so in Paul they can live out the dream of a British sci-fi fanatic. In the film they used sounds from the ever popular, American made, Star Wars. Cantina composed by John Williams, (Click for music) was used in the bar just like it was in Star Wars. Even though Star Wars is an American Production, it is very popular in Britain and fan boys and girls of the British audience will have taken note of these details used in the film. Another sound effect that originated from America is used in the film, but also overly used in Star Wars is the Wilhelm Scream, something that has become an inside joke in the film industry and emphasises the 'nerdiness' in the film.

This clip from Paul is a perfect scene which really brings out the British in the main characters.
As Clive is complaining that their is an Alien making Bagels and Coffee in their kitchen, Graeme states the very stereotypical difference between the Americans and the British that is Tea-drinkers and Coffee-drinkers. Graeme points out that in America tea is very 'weird' in America. The British audience watching the film will have a far bigger connection with the characters than anyone else as we know or can at least imagine the difficulties they are facing, travelling to America.

Regardless of whether the British government have tried to help the Film Industry grow, it is not the only factor. New technology, especially in the last ten years have made it a lot easier and more affordable for small British filming companies to get themselves known. A perfect example of this is IndyWoodFilms. They have taken advantage of the what technology and social networking has to offer and shows the Britain and the world, "The web is what you make of it" (Google Chrome).
IndyWoodFilms are a fan-funded Film company and have been in operation since May 2009 relying on donations from the public to make their film, Invasion of the Not Quite Dead. The films mentioned above, although they are British made, the distribution of the films have all been funded by American companies and they take in most of the profit to their economy. This is where IndyWoodFilms differs, the use of social networking allows for free advertising on the most popular sites on the internet. Fans can keep up-to-date with the film's progress via mediums such as, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. They can all take part in fundraising online.

Their intuitive site makes it fast and easy for anybody to share the link and everything IndyWoodFilms do, on to the most popular Social Network sites, taking 'word of mouth' to a whole new level. The company is hugely passionate about what they do, along with their equally passionate fans. Once the film is complete, Britain hope that this ambitious and creative project will be an inspiration to all films makers in Britain.