Anderson, Nate. "Free Nine Inch Nails album tops 2008 Amazon MP3 Sales Charts." Ars Technica. 6 January 2009.

This article summarizes experiemental distribution of Nine Inch Nails's new album and the effects the new online distribution model had on sales. Nine Inch Nails released the album Ghosts I-IV under a Creative Commons license, which allows legal free sharing and remixing. Despite this, the album garnered huge profits; both via digital download on Amazon.com, and perhaps more significantly in limited edition "extras" sets. The Ars Techinca article goes on to pose two questions to Fred Beneson of Creative Commons: Why would fans buy the album when it could be had for free, and would Creative Commons Lisencing work for record labels? Bereson addresses these questions speculatively, with optimism as well as some analysis of the factors necessary for the success achieved by NIN.

This is a major success story for Creative Commons, and an example of a profit-making model that still offers free download and distribution of music. The profits of Ghosts I-IV speak to the appeal for a product that is not available for free download (extras, convenience, or the authenticity of supporting an artist directly). Understanding the presence of this demand is necessary for understanding the way people want to consume music in the digital age. Profits can be achieved via different music products and services.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). “IFPI Digital Music Report 2009.” January 2009. <http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf>

This report is a production of the IFPI, a worldwide group for the representation of the recording industry. It offers extremely recent data from 2008 which remarks on the success of different world-wide profit-garnering music revenue models; for example, it reports how much of the international market share iTunes currently holds. It also disucsses the way in which the music industry has already changed in its revenue and marketing structure, and gives statistical evidence regarding the results. The report, dated January 2009, details the way the record industry has seen itself change, and the ways it is looking to maintain its authority.

Clearly, this report is not from an unbiased source like the independently-researched “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales.” However, the data is still relevant, and more recent than academic publications. This industry-side discussion demonstrates a contrast to the anti-industry marketing and revenue models that are to be addressed elsewhere. Essentially, it gives an opposing perspective and interesting statistics regarding the effects of file-sharing on international music markests. Finally, it provides some key insights into the ways that the record industry is urgently seeking to maintain control, the ways that intellectual property is viewed by international corporations, and the ways in which they measure success.