In comparison with the music radio it does not

To defend the law creation and Internet, our Minister of Culture Christine Albanel, has braided wreaths to the Internet news site, according it model legal alternative for punishing users of P2P sites free and illegal.

The value of a website depends on the quality of its offer, but its role in the ecosystem. In the case of music, Deezer does evil or good producers and creators Is the eulogy of our Minister justified

Deezer is a site to choose and listen to "stream" (free download), free of charge, any what piece of music among more than two million titles referenced. A good ergonomics, a good search engine is: the user may at any time, on a PC and soon on a laptop with mobile Internet, immediate, free and free access to the music of his choice.

The question posed by this type of site is simple: Why buy a CD, why pay a title on i-Tunes or Virgin Mega if you can listen at will on a giant and deported discotheque The model of "streaming" interactive free, if it develops, risk not only to accelerate the decline of physical CD, but especially to kill in the take-off of the paid download egg. Permanent and instant access to all the music makes the Act of buying unnecessary.

And for those who want to "own" a piece on a free "streaming" interactive site and use it on several terminals, it is easy to capture the turning in permanent acquisition.

The good souls as Christine Albanel, examined the anorectic music industry, will object that these sites of "streaming" free, in their magnanimity, pay a portion of their advertising revenue to the Sacem and the producers. At bottom, their free model more advertising looks like music radio as NRJ.

But these good souls forget to do a little simple calculation. A music producer receives 70 cents by purchased title on i-Tunes, about what he receives in net for a title on a CD. But a music producer whose title is listened 10 times on Deezer by a user will... receive about 0.0005 penny is ten thousand times less. Same thing for an author composer or the Sacem for the rights in the work. The free "streaming", if it cannibalizes sales physical or digital, replaces with nanorevenus.

In comparison with the music radio, it does not. NRJ, these are a few tens of titles scheduled several times a day: the listener chooses neither the title nor the time where he listening. A free "streaming" site, it is instead the possibility to listen to a specific piece at the time chosen. NRJ did not reduce sales of music, since the radio listening and listening to a title on an MP3 player are two radically different modes of consumption. Free access to a giant Digital Disco instead is a frontal attack against the purchase of physical or digital music.

It is understandable that Christine Albanel, who is not a music professional, be abused by the model of the free "streaming". But how the producers, artists, songwriters and the Sacem could have let them into their walls as Trojan horse "Streaming" sites may provide access to the music with the permission of the producers. Why those who defend tooth and nail the interruption of Internet users to sites of piracy they licensed their catalogue to sites that threaten their income

The model of "free interactive streaming" is even more harmful to the musical ecosystem as the illegal downloading. In this case, the music is free for the customer, but he commits an illegal act and now punishable by law. "Streaming" interactive free, instead, give good conscience to its users ("it's legal", "they pay something to artists") while it cannibalizes revenue of eligible. Free devalues the music, but legal free endorses this devaluation.

At the time where the industry of music and the Government are mobilizing to block piracy, a basic final client's knowledge, a little common sense and a calculator show that "streaming" interactive free like Deezer and Last FM sites are legal to a sick industry through beatings. But it is true that if euthanasia is prohibited by law, suicide is not.