Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 151–161 | Cite as

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: The Case of the Music Recording Industry

  • Peter J. Alexander


The music recording industry is a highly-concentratedfive firm oligopoly. Much of the dominance achievedby larger firms in the industry results from control over the distribution and promotion of theproducts of the industry. Alexander (1994b), predictedthat new compression routines would facilitate the efficient transfer of digital music across the internet.MP3 compression routines have made such transfersrelatively simple and efficient. While smaller new entrants have not yet been able to exploit this newtechnology in terms of market share, an element ofuncertainty exists regarding the sustainability of the prevailing structure, due to large scale non-sanctionedfile sharing. Despite the industry's legal efforts tosuppress non-sanctioned file distribution, peer-to-peer networks may render these efforts futile. However,peer-to-peer networks must overcome structural andinstitutional problems, in particular, free-riding.

Digital file sharing free riding MP3 music industry Napster SDMI 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, Peter J. (1994a) ‘Entry Barriers, Release Behavior, and Multiproduct Firms in the Music Recording Industry’, Review of Industrial Organization, 9, 85–98.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, Peter J. (1994b) ‘New Technology and Market Structure: Evidence from the Music Recording Industry’, Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, 113–123.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Gary (1976) ‘Altruism, Egoism, and Genetic Fitness: Economics and Sociobiology’, Journal of Economic Literature, 14, 817–826.Google Scholar
  4. Black, Michael, and Douglas Greer (1987) ‘Concentration and Non-Price Competition in the Music Recording Industry’, Review of Industrial Organization, 3, 13–37.Google Scholar
  5. Cunningham, Brendan M., Peter J. Alexander, and Nodir Adilov (2001) ‘The Napster Music Community’, Working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Gintis, Herbert (forthcoming) ‘strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality’, Journal of Theoretical Biology.Google Scholar
  7. Ledyard, John (1995) ‘Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research’, in Alvin Roth and John Kagel, eds., Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Olson, Mancur (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ostrom, Elinor (2000) ‘Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 137–158.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Alexander
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Communications CommissionWashington, D.C.U.S.A.

Personalised recommendations