Music Thief Confession

[BlueStrat]

Look at this way, you're close to 50 and you had your chance at "making it" without having to worry about downloads, leaked albums, 360 deals, competing with literally hundreds of other entertainment venues and options...I'm 23 and for the most part, as a performer, I've grown up in an atmosphere where all of that happens.

Point taken.

 

(and I wish I was close to 50....I'm getting farther away from it! )

 

 

Hey, I know it's the new reality. I just wish people would stop lying to themselves about why they do it and doing all these mental gymnastics and twisting of logic to arrive at their justifications. They do it because they can, pure and simple. Whether it's good or bad, I'll leave that to their conscience, and whether it has any long term affect remains to be seen.

 

I'm starting to develop a theory, which requires a lot more thought and is probably not original, but roughly it goes something like this: the utter devaluation of music is going to ultimately help, not hurt. Once all music has no value other than intrinsic value, then every form of music will have an equal shot at some kind of success. Since money won't be an initial indicator of that success, we'll have to look at other markers. I believe it is the drive for profit that innovates, in most cases, but in the arts, I think the drive for profit stagnates. It creates the constant attempt to recreate that which has been profitable, changing only enough to be identifiable as being "something new. " This is why we have the same basic band format that we've had for 50 years-guitar, bass. drums and keyboards. That format led to huge successes financially from the 50s on, and since then, everything that has been marketable has used the same basic format. Profit doesn't allow one to see how utterly stale and played out it has become. We're trying to build something new out of the same Playdough and pipe cleaners we were handed in the first grade, so to speak.

 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not against profit at all. I'm a diehard capitalist at heart. I just think that in order for music (or any art) to take the next quantum leap, profit has to be eliminated as a motive. When "is this going to sell?" stops becoming a consideration, real art can then emerge. Perhaps it will lead to another 50 years of prosperity and profit later.

[Jacob Mathews]

Seems like there's two main type of people in this debate: Those who think downloading music is a form of theft (legally yes, but will talk about that more later), and those who see no harm in downloading considering they probably wouldnt buy it anyway.

 

I tend to side on the latter for a few reasons. First, there is no way to stop media piracy because the technology has gotten too sophisticated to target individuals with options like torrents. Secondly, people aren't stupid, and they know that downloading rather than buying music hurts artists, labels, and ultimately the fan since without funds a band cannot record their next album. If someone genuinely appreciates an artist, they may download it illegally first, but subsequently will buy it on itunes or at the store if possible, or go on the artists website and buy a tshirt, or attend a concert. The debate over stopping digital music piracy should have ended ten years ago, but the music industry failed to realize it would be impossible. The paradigm of "try before buy" downloading has been here too long to effectively manage the so-called "damage" of checking an artist out before investing in them (hmm, like MTV didnt provide that service since the 80's, and the radio before that).

 

I'm pretty confused that the ability to hear music on your personal computer for free is seen as a crime (its cybercrime, and the least malicious type, mind you), while if you hear a street musician for free and don't give him a tip for his effort nobody minds, including the musician usually. The street musician understands he has an inefficient means of generating revenue and accepts the loss of continuing in that manner, just as record companies need to wake up and realize that sueing their prospective customers is just as unyielding. This has been written about in music magazines and blogs so much that it's pretty sickening to think that the RIAA still "doesn't like" people who download music. Oh, excuse their curiousity. They are only the people who love music so much they can't afford to buy it all. You'd think instead of wanting to sue these types, they would be your most crucial demographic to market to. If you want to know why labels lost all that money the past decade, look no further than that simple sentiment.

 

The early and most innovative made the most from this opportunity. Itunes is the big success story since they started in 2001, which was still pretty late in my opinion. We had the technology for paid downloads since the mid 1990's. Why couldn't the music industry have started back then when people actually had lots of money to spare? Greed, complacency, and paranoia, I assume. What do I suggest to the industry? Develop innovative ways to engage your customers again instead of shelling out the same old cheap disposable plastic products (literally and figuratively), and you will probably see more sales. Suing people is a sign of desperation, and an indicator that you are drowning with no hope of survival.

[Poker99]

Wow Blue saying something positive about the future of music... Mark your calendars!!!

 

:wave:

 

I think what you are saying is already happening. Since there is less money to make, people are looking at other factors to measure success. MySpace "plays" and friend count were big 3 years ago.

 

But seriously, if a band can have like 3000 people on their mailing list, or 5000 Facebook friends, or 20 000 views on youtube, that still tell something. Ok I know it won't make them rich, but it at least proves the band does something that people like, or does it?

[BlueStrat]

 

I'm pretty confused that the ability to hear music on your personal computer for free is seen as a crime (its cybercrime, and the least malicious type, mind you), while if you hear a street musician for free and don't give him a tip for his effort nobody minds, including the musician usually.

You mare not making any distinction between 'hearing' music on a computer and downloading it to own it. Neither are you distinguishing between people who freely offer their music to download, and those who don't. These distinctions are important ones, and make a huge difference in your justification.

 

Yes, you may listen to a street musician for free. That doesn't entitle you take him home with you and own him does it?

 

They are only the people who love music so much they can't afford to buy it all.

I really love motorcycles, but I can't afford to buy all the ones I really like. Should I go steal the ones I can't afford? I might like them enough to actually buy another one later when I get the dough.

 

Again, not to sound like a skipping CD, but your arguments are weak. Just admit that you take music because 1) you can and 2) you don't want to pay for it. The truth will set you free, and you'll feel better.

[Kramerguy]

 

If people could steal gum, or clothes, or BMWs without the possibility of getting caught, and if they did, incur no consequence, they'd be stealing them like there was no tomorrow.

 

 

And when a discussion comes up about it, they would argue that *even though* it's completely illegal, it has somehow become their right to steal it, for one of a hundred of self-justified reasons....

 

The self-justification arguments are still a pile of {censored}.

 

It's illegal for a reason. Can't help that it's not enforceable, but think about all the other non-enforceable illegal activities out there-

 

Illegal immigration (they certainly self-justify crossing the border...)

Corporations polluting rivers, environment (because it's not really hurting anyone specific...)

Illegal firearms (because without a concealed gun, someone might get hurt! :rolleyes )

 

I could go on all day... Illegal downloading is killing the biz, and those of you who do it have no right to bitch about the biz on any level.

[Kramerguy]

Why couldn't the music industry have started back then when people actually had lots of money to spare? Greed, complacency, and paranoia, I assume. What do I suggest to the industry? Develop innovative ways to engage your customers again instead of shelling out the same old cheap disposable plastic products (literally and figuratively), and you will probably see more sales. Suing people is a sign of desperation, and an indicator that you are drowning with no hope of survival.

 

Well, in their defense, they are spending money to create a product that you clearly want and rather than pay for it and obtain it legitimately, you choose to steal it, and then have the audacity to complain about the medium

 

Like me and BS have both stated, you do it because you can get away with it. You are lying to yourself if you think it's justified, but you ain't fooling anyone else.

[AluminumNeck]

Why is a song download on Itunes $1.29 ? Thats like $12 for a 8 song EP.

 

Ahh those are CD prices. With real production and distrobution costs invovled.

 

For the online music model to work download prices to Itunes need to be more like $0.25 per song.

 

If it was $0.25 per song or $4 per album alot of the theft would vanish overnight.

 

The fact is the media is way overpriced relative to its production costs. I think the BMG,WB etc should all look into subscription services with unlimted downloads. Kind like cable tv. Provide a good product with alot of variety and make money.

 

Most artist will continue to make money touring as they always have. The next thing that would help would be the destruction of companies like clearchannel.

 

But thats another rant.

[slight-return]

 

I'm starting to develop a theory, which requires a lot more thought and is probably not original, but roughly it goes something like this: the utter devaluation of music is going to ultimately help, not hurt. Once all music has no value other than intrinsic value...

 

 

It's actually very very old (ancient really) mechanism in some ways and it continues to this day outside of pop(ular) music styles.

 

I think it's easy for us to forget that music existed for a long long time before audio recording, broadcast, etc so "the old/traditional way" (in terms of vinyl records, radio play, etc) is really a fairly johnny-come-lately

[Jacob Mathews]

These are little details you are picking at, but the big picture here is that consumers were able to create a model more effective than the industry itself, because it works better for them. Until the industry is able to present a model with more value than file sharing, people will do what works best for them. It's human nature.

 

I'm not trying to justify illegal downloading. I support selling music, just want to deliver the hard truth. Trying to get me or anyone else to admit something or other will do nothing to stop the millions of people who download music illegally. By this point, the music industry needs to step up, embrace music fans, and stop with the sore feelings of arriving too late in the digital media game.

 

I'm also pretty confused that ISP's haven't set an agreement with the major labels to add a "piracy" fee to the bill, as a replacement for traditional royalties. Might account for the shortfall.

 

BTW, music distribution would not have accelerated so quickly the past decade without MP3's, many of which were downloaded ILLEGALLY *GASP*. MP3 is our modern radio, and a great advertisement. Music is more known and appreciated worldwide thanks to downloading. It's just a matter of figuring out how to make decent money at it. (hint: don't sue your fans. consumers are fickle enough as is.)

[sabriel9v]

I'm starting to develop a theory, which requires a lot more thought and is probably not original, but roughly it goes something like this: the utter devaluation of music is going to ultimately help, not hurt. Once all music has no value other than intrinsic value, then every form of music will have an equal shot at some kind of success. Since money won't be an initial indicator of that success, we'll have to look at other markers. I believe it is the drive for profit that innovates, in most cases, but in the arts, I think the drive for profit stagnates. It creates the constant attempt to recreate that which has been profitable, changing only enough to be identifiable as being "something new. " This is why we have the same basic band format that we've had for 50 years-guitar, bass. drums and keyboards. That format led to huge successes financially from the 50s on, and since then, everything that has been marketable has used the same basic format. Profit doesn't allow one to see how utterly stale and played out it has become. We're trying to build something new out of the same Playdough and pipe cleaners we were handed in the first grade, so to speak. Don't misunderstand, I'm not against profit at all. I'm a diehard capitalist at heart. I just think that in order for music (or any art) to take the next quantum leap, profit has to be eliminated as a motive. When "is this going to sell?" stops becoming a consideration, real art can then emerge. Perhaps it will lead to another 50 years of prosperity and profit later.

 

THIS needs to be a separate thread and we should all take snapshots of this statement

 

I personally don't feel that profit will ever be eliminated as a motive in the music industry, especially in America of all places. We live, breathe, and {censored} capitalism in this country. Hobbies can quickly fall by the wayside if there's no financial motive or gain...nonetheless I think we have to really analyze the sectors within the music industry that have taken the least amount of losses and understand how they've made it. Even after total armaggedon strikes, there will be species that survive, well how did they do it?

[slight-return]

 

THIS needs to be a separate thread

 

 

I think that's a good idea - it's a big topic

 

I personally don't feel that profit will ever be eliminated as a motive in the music industry, especially in America of all places.

 

I think, almost by definition of "industry" (at least in a capitalist system) we have that (profit motive)

 

Hobbies can quickly fall by the wayside if there's no financial motive or gain...

 

That I'm not too sure of. The views might have to do with where on a career arc and if one is TRULY treating it as a hobby...a recreation as opposed to an aspiration

[Kramerguy]

BTW, music distribution would not have accelerated so quickly the past decade without MP3's, many of which were downloaded ILLEGALLY *GASP*. MP3 is our modern radio, and a great advertisement. Music is more known and appreciated worldwide thanks to downloading. It's just a matter of figuring out how to make decent money at it. (hint: don't sue your fans. consumers are fickle enough as is.)

 

So in closing, you argue that everything is peaches and cream, thanks to illegal downloading. Do you really believe that {censored} you just typed? Really??

[Poker99]

 

Why is a song download on Itunes $1.29 ? Thats like $12 for a 8 song EP. Ahh those are CD prices. With real production and distrobution costs invovled. For the online music model to work download prices to Itunes need to be more like $0.25 per song. If it was $0.25 per song or $4 per album alot of the theft would vanish overnight.

 

 

I don't think so. If you won't pay a single at 99c, its not because you can't, its because you don't want to. Making it 25c won't change many people's mind, I fear. Free is cheaper than everything.

[sabriel9v]

You are once again pointing the spotlight in the wrong direction - Digital media isn't a game, it's a vehicle.. That vehicle delivers anything you tell it to. Using that vehicle to distribute free stolen goods (and get away with it), surely doesn't give you the right to accuse the manufacturers of not getting on board with using those vehicles to deliver free stolen goods !!?! That vehicle (digital format) wasn't designed with the sole purpose of crime any more than a hunting rifle was designed for murder. It's simply a format that is being used to commit crime.

 

What are you bitching about? You just admitted that digital files in the digital realm are just another format, another container of data and information. Music is the same way, its just numbers and code beneath the slick 320 kps and stereo sounds. No offense man, but you sound like a crazed prophet standing the middle of Times Square, shouting at the top of your lungs for the world to change. Meanwhile, everyone else is just listening to their ipods and digital music

[Kramerguy]

What are you bitching about? You just admitted that digital files in the digital realm are just another format, another container of data and information. Music is the same way, its just numbers and code beneath the slick 320 kps and stereo sounds. No offense man, but you sound like a crazed prophet standing the middle of Times Square, shouting at the top of your lungs for the world to change. Meanwhile, everyone else is just listening to their ipods and digital music

 

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the simple flaws in these retarded justifications for stealing.

 

Do you deny it's illegal?

 

I'm not asking the world to change, I'm simply telling you / the OP, that no matter how you justify breaking the law to make yourself feel better about it, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the law. Compare it to jay walking or tossing a cigarette butt out the window or whatever you want, it still doesn't make it right.

 

I'm not being vocal because I think you, or anyone else is going to change. Simple fact is, you guys are making all these wild excuses for stealing, and I'm simply pointing out how stupid you sound doing it.

[slight-return]

 

Making it 25c won't change many people's mind, I fear. Free is cheaper than everything.

 

 

The Book "How We Decide" - Lehrer (sp?) speaks of some behavioral experiments in that area -- how we deal with free differently

It's a "pop sci" book (I don't mean that pejorative, I mean it's a really accessible read)

[Jacob Mathews]

 

So in closing, you argue that everything is peaches and cream, thanks to illegal downloading. Do you really believe that {censored} you just typed? Really??

 

 

I'm saying that DISTRIBUTION of music has improved, not the revenue. This has created a much larger base of potential customers if bands and companies were willing to work hard enough and be innovative enough to earn them. Also, who do you think has better taste in music? The guy who only buys what he hears on the radio, or the guy who finds tons of cool bands online, perhaps through file sharing, god forbid?

 

Might wanna update your rhetoric. You sound like Lars Ulrich circa 1999. Who, by the way, is still a very rich man.

[slight-return]

 

and the government isn't willing to enforce their own laws

 

 

I think that's one thing people are misunderstanding - much of copyright law is civil law, not crimlaw.

Now when we do get to criminal thresholds, we still have the investigative issues (4th amendment stuff, etc not to mention just the practicals of dealing with packet-switched networks) to contend with.

Now it does happen - like you might remember, for instance, Operation Safehaven a couple of years back.

[sabriel9v]

 

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the simple flaws in these retarded justifications for stealing. Do you deny it's illegal? I'm not asking the world to change, I'm simply telling you / the OP, that no matter how you justify breaking the law to make yourself feel better about it, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the law. Compare it to jay walking or tossing a cigarette butt out the window or whatever you want, it still doesn't make it right. I'm not being vocal because I think you, or anyone else is going to change. Simple fact is, you guys are making all these wild excuses for stealing, and I'm simply pointing out how stupid you sound doing it.

 

 

Your point then? Yes, I do download and I used to download A LOT more (I think I've probably downloaded 4-5,000 files in my lifetime). Now I just stream stuff from youtube and last.fm and have heavily curbed my downloading habits. Streaming music is great and I can understand how people become infuriated over all the downloading that occurs. You can stream just about any album now and if you can't find that album, then just buy it.

[slight-return]

eh FWIW - in BMG v Gonzalez (9th cir)

 

Gonzales did attempt to push a "sample for possible purchase" affirmative defense.

So it's prob worth a read for those interested in that sort of thing

[Jacob Mathews]

I think that's one thing people are misunderstanding - much of copyright law is civil law, not crimlaw.

 

So then the government is basically telling the music industry that it needs to solve this problem on it's own. The music industry responds for a decade (or longer) by flinging poo at some of it's customers who are some of their biggest music enthusiasts. Meanwhile, the rest of us scratch our heads, keep buying the music we like, trying the music we're not sure about yet.

 

"Oh but its all those DOWNLOADERS fault!"

 

Great, glad you think that. No business owner in their right mind would think they can improve sales by yelling at and assaulting their customers. Companies are not innocent bystanders. They have enormous abilities, talent, and capital to invest. But without smart leadership or direction, it all falls apart. If the music industry cannot reinvent the wheel in this regard, maybe they have just become obsolete. This has happened an untold number of times in capitalism, way before the internet.

[AluminumNeck]

 

I don't think so. If you won't pay a single at 99c, its not because you can't, its because you don't want to. Making it 25c won't change many people's mind, I fear. Free is cheaper than everything.

 

 

 

I think the price is and continues to be the issue with online distrobution and in genral piracy. Usually when a product gets to exsensive people find a way to steal it. If its cheap enough "and $1.39 per song is {censored}ing outrageous" people won;t bother with the risk of stealing music. You know things like virus's etc.

 

Also I really think the Big record companies would do better to offer subscription services. Seriously. It would really open the markets and help create a new economy based around variety. I don;t think that musicins who are good performers and promoters would be bothered by getting a salary of like $100K per year plug outside sales. It would be cheaper for the record companies and would also reduce the promotional costs.

 

Think about this for a minute.

 

EMI we have the best selection and with prices starting at $5.99 per month we offer the best deal.

 

Most people would go fo that.

 

Now on top of that think of how many subscribers they would get ?

 

60-100 million 5-10$ per month per subscriber. Per companie. Distrobution costs are cheap and it would force the record companies to bring in more acts and pay them becuase it would drive demand back up.

 

 

They are stupid for contiuning down the road they are on.

 

that doesn;t even include merchandising and concert revenues.

 

The current piece meal system is fialing and Cable TV shows a method that would work.

[Jacob Mathews]

Is there honestly a musician on here who wants to be able to control who CAN and CANNOT listen to their music, even if its through illegal downloading?

 

Isn't having your music heard in any form or fashion beneficial in the long run?

 

Nobody will buy your album if they haven't heard you or heard of you before. The successful artist markets theirself universally and rolls with the punches. And yes, it can take years, decades even, to start making good money. By then, you could care less if a 16 year old with no money to buy a CD is downloading your record, cause maybe they will find a way to go to your show once they discover you.

 

Do you really hate those type of fans?

[slight-return]

So then the government is basically telling the music industry that it needs to solve this problem on it's own.

 

Not necessarily - I mean the law is constantly changing (and addresses various issues and we've seen various things come into place such as the Net act and, I believe since last year registration is no longer required for criminal action as it is for civil litigation on a work of US origin in US]

 

But the law provides legal recourse - that's how it supports these things In the case of these property wrongs...we have civil recourse, as we do with personal and real property.

 

[kind of funny note on that - in some countries where IP infringement is even more of a problem, there has been instituted criminal pentaly. China for instance has criminal patent law]

 

 

 

"Oh but its all those DOWNLOADERS fault!"

 

Great, glad you think that.

 

Do keep in mind that I'm approaching it jurisprudentially as opposed to politically

I was addressing the comment on the govt not enforcing it's own laws.

 

Is infringement the downloader's fault? well, a couple of things on that

first, "downloading" is just a distribution technology with significant legit use

so "downloaders" are not all guilty of infringment.

I believe it was in "Napster" that the 9th circuit affirmed that both uploading AND downloading are infringing use (one is infringement by distribution, the other by duplication)

 

so from that - it would fall, more specifically on unauthorized downloading AND uploading

 

 

 

No business owner in their right mind would think they can improve sales by yelling at and assaulting their customers. Companies are not innocent bystanders. They have enormous abilities, talent, and capital to invest. But without smart leadership or direction, it all falls apart. If the music industry cannot reinvent the wheel in this regard, maybe they have just become obsolete. This has happened an untold number of times in capitalism, way before the internet.

 

Now you are biz management and practices

 

A very important point here - copyright law isn't just "music industry" but protects creators. Now, while USA is heavily skewed toward the financial end of things (much more so than other countries, sometimes they make fun of us) , it's not even the sole purpose for copyright (worldwide Church of God v Philly church of God or Soderberhg v cleanflicks -- are examples of copyright cases that aren't fundamentally biz)

 

Now how the recording industry wishes to use and protect its IP rights [and weather we see them as wise or unwise] is a matter of freedom to operate.

[slight-return]

 

Is there honestly a musician on here who wants to be able to control who CAN and CANNOT listen to their music, even if its through illegal downloading? Isn't having your music heard in any form or fashion beneficial in the long run?

 

 

important point here - the copyright law we are talking about with unauthorized uploading and downloading is right of copy and distribution [i believe that' 17USC106??? grain of salt might be +/-1 or 2] which is different than listen, not listen

 

Are there times where an artist may not wish their music to be out there without structure?

 

Well, strict samay comes to mind

Neil Diamond was originally not going to allow the use of "girl you'll be a woman Soon" in Pulp fiction on grounds of taste (he was later convinced otherwise as the was lead to understand the context better)

 

as we move toward distribution/duplication (as with file sharing) we get more int "do you want it freely distributed" as opposed to just listened to

which could negative effect on a number of things (like the impact of a limited release, no control over the time of release, negotiation for exclusivity deals, etc)

 

interestingly - having IP rights can even help KEEP things open (as in the recursive nature of the GNU GPL or "share alike" under CC) - that's again a question of POLICY of the owner of the IP