Way back when travelling troubadours brought ballads from town to town, no one thought to ask who owned a song. It took technology – first printed sheet music, later gramophone records – to transform melodies into property, although the more recent story has been of technology undoing its own alchemy. Learning to live with mixtapes was one thing, but the instantaneous ability to pilfer every imaginable track over the web is quite another – and it threatens the music industry's lifeblood. The potential effect on artists is a real worry, although this cannot justify criminalising every hard-up fan who is reluctant to pay the extortionate cost of buying music online. After all, the fact that one extra person enjoys a download does not mean any other listener has to lose out. Spotify offers a promising way to align the interests of musicians and audiences. The software, which could not be easier to use, allows instant free access to literally millions of works – from William Lawes to Lily Allen. Put to one side the small handful of big bands who are refusing to get involved, and it is only wilful hunters after obscurity who are likely to leave disappointed. In time, Spotify hopes to lure some users to part with a subscription in return for nifty extras, such as the iPhone application which it has just submitted for Apple's approval. Most, however, will continue to listen – as now – for free, in return for enduring an advert every 20 minutes or so. The jingles may grate, but it has to be welcome that music can lawfully be enjoyed for a song.
Editorial: In praise of… Spotify
Editorial
Editorial: Instant free access to millions of works – from William Lawes to Lily Allen – is a promising way to align the interests of musicians and audiences
Editorial
The GuardianTramp