"Piracy Isn't Killing" music - Radiohead guy...

[Poker99]

 

Then again maybe sales are down for other reasons. When you see statistics like Piracy only accounting for 6%-12% of the loss in sales, it makes you wonder.

 

 

Huhh?

 

I don'T know how they could get that number. All I know is EVERYONE around me is PIRATING music. EVERYONE! Lots of guys who were buying CDs 10 years ago are now downloading mp3s with Limewire.

[caeman]

Riddle me this, Batman.

 

If the person doesn't buy the CD, the label doesn't make money to give to Taylor Swift*. What guarantee is there that even though Bubba downloaded an MP3 of Swift's latest travesty called singing, would have actually bought the CD?

 

Is it really a lost sale if the downloader was never going to buy the album in the first place?

 

It is still wrong, yes. I am not condoning that behavior. But, I think too many people are falling for the claims made by the labels, as if the labels are somehow an innocent party that needs defending. They are a business, and they will say or do whatever is needed to make another $1 off a Little Richards song and give it Taylor Swift, including getting a tax put on blank CDs to supposedly assuage the cost of piracy. Guess what, I've never used a CD to bear any song that I did not legally own. Maybe I should be allowed a refund?

 

*feel free to insert the name of whatever current artist is popular.

[BlueStrat]

 

Riddle me this, Batman. If the person doesn't buy the CD, the label doesn't make money to give to Taylor Swift*. What guarantee is there that even though Bubba downloaded an MP3 of Swift's latest travesty called singing, would have actually bought the CD? Is it really a lost sale if the downloader was never going to buy the album in the first place? It is still wrong, yes. I am not condoning that behavior. But, I think too many people are falling for the claims made by the labels, as if the labels are somehow an innocent party that needs defending. They are a business, and they will say or do whatever is needed to make another $1 off a Little Richards song and give it Taylor Swift, including getting a tax put on blank CDs to supposedly assuage the cost of piracy. Guess what, I've never used a CD to bear any song that I did not legally own. Maybe I should be allowed a refund? *feel free to insert the name of whatever current artist is popular.

 

 

I think the issue is less about lost individual sales and more about a cultural paradigm shift that illegal downloading promotes and reinforces.

 

Let's for get about CDs for a moment and apply the same logic to live performance.

 

Let's say I crash a concert with a bunch of my friends. We all find a way to get in for free, and we justify it by saying well, the promoters are greedy and overpaid, and besides, we weren't going to buy tickets anyway, so how does anyone lose out by lost ticket sales we weren't going to buy in the first place?

 

By the reasoning you offered, some people ought to get in fee because those seats would have been empty anyway.

 

Do you not see how this reasoning the could be applied to any product or service on the market that remains unsold?

 

But more importantly, when the people at the concert find out a bunch of people got in who didn't pay, what do you think their reaction is going to be? "Well, hell, I'm a sucker for paying if these other guys got the same thing I did and didn't have to pay for it."

 

Do you not see how it creates and supports a "let someone else pay for it" mentality, which then leads to "music should be free"? Because that's exactly where we are now. We are already at a point where almost no new artist expects to even sell their recordings at all, let alone make any money from them. They have become little more than digital business cards.

 

We are almost at a tipping point. Right now, more people pay for it than don't, but it won't be long before it's upside down, and when that happens, well...welcome to crapville.

[paulz]

 

But more importantly, when the people at the concert find out a bunch of people got in who didn't pay, what do you think their reaction is going to be? "Well, hell, I'm a sucker for paying if these other guys got the same thing I did and didn't have to pay for it."

 

 

Jaron Lanier explores that issue a little bit in "You are Not a Gadget" - I didn't look at the footnotes (he does cite) but he does even talk abt experiments where even dogs and monkeys experience that effect.

[CountRobula]

Well, guys, does anyone here think that IF the {censored} finally hits the fan, maybe people will wake up and another cultural "paradigm shift" will take place to fix things? Or, if things aren't fixed, maybe something will happen that'll change things for the better?

[caeman]

 

The problem is that downloading has become so pervasive in our society that a disturbingly large number of people who would have purchased the album are downloading it illegally instead.

 

 

There is no way to prove this statement as a fact. None.

 

THIS is my point. First off, there is NO accurate study that one can point to that gives us a fact about the numbers of people that would have actually bought the CD/paid for the download.

 

And, yet, this is the basis for many a complaint, and the belief that piracy is destroying the music industry.

 

Again, I am not defending illegal downloaders. I am contesting Label claims of the effect of the piracy. Please understand this, it is key to understanding what I am trying to write.

[BlueStrat]

 

Nothing but my personal experience of having fans come up and tell me they love my CD ... then admit that they downloaded it, but they're "totally going to buy it." And I know damn well they never did. I have a friend who used to tour college campuses. Sold a lot of CD's. He doesn't anymore because CD sales disappeared. On investigation he found out the students had started pooling their money and buying one CD, then making copies for everybody. It is not possible to prove that someone "would have" done something. It's completely stupid to demand such proof. The simple fact is that folks who used to buy a lot of CD's are downloading them now, and musicians who used to sell enough to make a living have to get day jobs. I think that makes it pretty obvious that illegal downloading is hurting us.

 

 

Bono makes the point that in Europe, online content providers income went up mirroring exactly the decline of CD sales. I thought that was kind of interesting.

[BlueStrat]

 

There is no way to prove this statement as a fact. None. THIS is my point. First off, there is NO accurate study that one can point to that gives us a fact about the numbers of people that would have actually bought the CD/paid for the download. And, yet, this is the basis for many a complaint, and the belief that piracy is destroying the music industry. Again, I am not defending illegal downloaders. I am contesting Label claims of the effect of the piracy. Please understand this, it is key to understanding what I am trying to write.

 

 

 

You are right, of course, there is no way to prove it.

 

The point I was trying to make is that this is the rationale being used by illegal downloaders. Apply that same rationale to anything else and there'd be howling all over the place.

 

At a restaurant: "I don't want to pay for that prime rib; you always have leftovers and you would have just thrown it away anyway."

 

At a movie: "The seats weren't all sold, so I'm not taking anything away from anyone else by not paying"

 

Calling a plumber:

 

"Hey, you weren't doing anything anyway, and if I hadn't called you wouldn't have had a job. Here's 20 bucks".

[caeman]

 

You are right, of course, there is no way to prove it. The point I was trying to make is that this is the rationale being used by illegal downloaders. Apply that same rationale to anything else and there'd be howling all over the place. At a restaurant: "I don't want to pay for that prime rib; you always have leftovers and you would have just thrown it away anyway." At a movie: "The seats weren't all sold, so I'm not taking anything away from anyone else by not paying" Calling a plumber: "Hey, you weren't doing anything anyway, and if I hadn't called you wouldn't have had a job. Here's 20 bucks".

 

 

You still don't get it. My post, and my intent, is completely lost, it appears.

 

You seem to still think that I am supporting the illegal possession of goods. Your examples bear this out.

 

No wonder the industry is having so much success with bad policies. It has people like you to thank.

[paulz]

 

You seem to still think that I am supporting the illegal possession of goods. Your examples bear this out.

 

 

FWIW - I didn't get that out of Bluetrat's posts at all

 

Bluestrat didn't even attribute the rationale to caeman, he pinned it to "illegal downloaders" (his words) and caeman already said he wasn't part of that group

[BlueStrat]

 

You still don't get it. My post, and my intent, is completely lost, it appears. You seem to still think that I am supporting the illegal possession of goods. Your examples bear this out. No wonder the industry is having so much success with bad policies. It has people like you to thank.

 

 

I totally get what you're saying. I also said I agreed with you. I then indicated that I was making a different point than you were. Nowhere did I say that you were supporting illegal downloading nor trying to rationalize it.

 

Oh, and the 'people like you' comment makes you look petty and condescending, besides completely not getting what I was saying. Is English your second language?

[caeman]

My apologies for the condescending remark, it was unnecessary.

[BlueStrat]

My apologies for the condescending remark, it was unnecessary.

 

No problem. It's the interwebz, and intent in conversation often gets lost.

I really do see what you're saying, though. Really!

[paulz]

hats off to you both

I know I could be a better man when things get a little frictiony - is that a word? doubt I'm the only one in that boat

[nerol1st]

Is it really a lost sale if the downloader was never going to buy the album in the first place?

 

Yeah but that logic just doesn't work IMO. Replace the word album with Mercedes car and I'm making my point.

 

Does Mercedes lose a sale if someone decides to steal one, even though they never planned to buy it? Well yes of course they do.

 

I realise we are talking about something that doesn't seem to be anything (a download), but downloads, mp3, software etc... took time to create, and that's worth something (intellectual property) whether anyone agrees or not.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but when I can't afford something, I just don't buy it.

[nerol1st]

That wasn't any sort of attack on you. Obviously your not a clueless moron like the OP was.

 

"It's not stealing it's sampling!"

 

Seriously, that's the dumbest {censored}ing thing I have ever read.

[Longhair]

The reason for declining CD sales after Napster is a direct result of people being able to listen to the album before deciding if it is worth money to buy or not.

 

I lost count of the number of times I bought a CD based on hearing one or two songs only to find out that the rest of the CD was useless filler. Really sucked when I was a broke teenager wanting to buy 2 CDs and only having money for 1.

[caeman]

 

Yeah but that logic just doesn't work IMO. Replace the word album with Mercedes car and I'm making my point. Does Mercedes lose a sale if someone decides to steal one, even though they never planned to buy it? Well yes of course they do.

 

 

Eh...I don't see this as an apt comparison.

 

A CD is a physical thing. If I steal a CD, then the maker has directly lost money.

 

An MP3 is not physical has no inherent cost. It's cost of storage is near 0. The only substantial cost remaining is the digital conveyance, but even then, the cost of transmitting 1 bit of data is shared by so many, that this cost also is near 0. It can be replicated infinitely, which drives the cost down towards 0, or a very small number close to 0. And, by downloading the MP3, you have no destroyed the original MP3. It remains in place.

 

So, a more apt comparison would be that I make a detailed replica of the Mercedes, and then drive it around, without paying Mercedes for one of their cars. I had no intention of buying a Mercedes, so they didn't lose a sale to me in the first place. The absurdity of this example, of course, is the time resource investment required to build car. An MP3 has near-0 manual effort.

 

I will grant that by some people downloading the MP3, that will replace the intended purchase of the physical CD. But I refuse to accept the numbers quoted by the labels, as they are not based on a scientifically-sound study.

 

This might be driving the Original Topic off board even more, but...

 

If I were to learn, then record to CD every song on Darius Rutger's new album with close proximity, then give it to my mom, did I steal a CD sale from Rutger's label?

[soundwave106]

The ability to *only* buy singles hurts CD sales, too, yes.

 

Newspapers don't have a "piracy problem", yet they are in many ways worse off than the music industry. They have other problems: free content (in newspapers' case, it's the generic AP / UPI stories that are now on the web, and are no longer enough to sustain a regional paper); over-consolidation (many regional papers have turned to {censored} and justifiably deserve to close); competition (classifieds are far easier on the web); paradigm shifts (old "money drivers" in the newspaper world, eg advertising next to the home and garden section, no longer apply)

 

Much of this is similar in music. While cracking down on piracy will help sales to a degree, it will not help revive CD sales (digital singles are here to say); it will not help the competition problem (thanks to technology, more bands are exposed these days; it is cooler than ever to like obscure {censored}); it will not help the over-consolidation that has turned radio stations into {censored}; and it will not help the various paradigm shifts that have moved people away from the album format towards a quicker, more disposable song-oriented approach.

 

The newspapers that are not failing today do wall off some of their content, but they also have unique content that people are willing to pay for. This is not the case for the big music industry. Most of today's major label music is disposable and formulaic, with flash-in-the-pan artists.

[BlueStrat]

 

The ability to *only* buy singles hurts CD sales, too, yes. Newspapers don't have a "piracy problem", yet they are in many ways worse off than the music industry. They have other problems: free content (in newspapers' case, it's the generic AP / UPI stories that are now on the web, and are no longer enough to sustain a regional paper); over-consolidation (many regional papers have turned to {censored} and justifiably deserve to close); competition (classifieds are far easier on the web); paradigm shifts (old "money drivers" in the newspaper world, eg advertising next to the home and garden section, no longer apply) Much of this is similar in music. While cracking down on piracy will help sales to a degree, it will not help revive CD sales (digital singles are here to say); it will not help the competition problem (thanks to technology, more bands are exposed these days; it is cooler than ever to like obscure {censored}); it will not help the over-consolidation that has turned radio stations into {censored}; and it will not help the various paradigm shifts that have moved people away from the album format towards a quicker, more disposable song-oriented approach. The newspapers that are not failing today do wall off some of their content, but they also have unique content that people are willing to pay for. This is not the case for the big music industry. Most of today's major label music is disposable and formulaic, with flash-in-the-pan artists.

 

 

Well, it's back to the argument of bits vs bytes. I could give a flying crap about the medium itself. CDs are on the way out no matter what simply because the nature of the changing medium, just as the wax cylinder, the vinyl record, the 8-track, and the cassette before them. But I would bet my house that once a way is found to prevent illegal downloading, music sales will rise again, and profitability to those who pay to produce it will increase.

 

It is only human nature for people to take what they can take if there's almost no chance of getting caught. Simply put, the only reason people steal music is because they can, and it isn't any more complicated than that. It may be true that not everyone who steals something would have bought it, but it's also true that a large number who steal it may very well have if there were no alternative. You don't see the same people stealing music robbing banks or stealing cars, do you? But if there were a way to do it with virtually no chance of getting caught, well...

 

I frankly worry about the public morality of a culture where taking something that someone else produced with their own risked capital is seen as acceptable simply because the producer can't demonstrate a physical loss. The same people who justify this probably don't see anything wrong with tapping into their neighbor's cable, putting their trash in their neighbor's cans, or 'carpooling' with other people without chipping in for gas because they were driving there anyway.

 

There's a word for those kind of people. I think I used it already in this thread.

 

 

Most of today's major label music is disposable and formulaic, with flash-in-the-pan artists.

Perhaps it's that way because no one can afford to risk capital investing in something that no mass selling power or mass appeal but will be stolen and distributed before it hits then shelves, returning the investors a loss. Stealing more than anything else has brought us the increased mass generic pop crap we are getting, because it is the only music that can outweigh in sheer volume the effects of theft.

[paulz]

FWIW what we got here is the old question of when is infringement is more like conversion or more like unjust enrichment

I think the question is OK because it can help us understand some details and work some stuff out.......as long as we keep an eye on that it's just a metaphor.

Intellectual property comes from a different part of the constitution, a different paragraph of the basic social contract

It's apples and pears -- it has some similarities to real and personal property, but it also has differences. It's a different kind of property.

[BlueStrat]

 

FWIW what we got here is the old question of when is infringement is more like conversion or more like unjust enrichment I think the question is OK because it can help us understand some details and work some stuff out.......as long as we keep an eye on that it's just a metaphor. Intellectual property comes from a different part of the constitution, a different paragraph of the basic social contract It's apples and pears -- it has some similarities to real and personal property, but it also has differences. It's a different kind of property.

 

 

 

Indeed it is.

 

I just fail to see how anyone who gets something for nothing thinks that when millions of people do likewise, it isn't hurting anything or anyone. Their sense of entitlement is nearly as astounding as their short sightedness.

[soundwave106]

 

Perhaps it's that way because no one can afford to risk capital investing in something that no mass selling power or mass appeal but will be stolen and distributed before it hits then shelves, returning the investors a loss. Stealing more than anything else has brought us the increased mass generic pop crap we are getting, because it is the only music that can outweigh in sheer volume the effects of theft.

 

 

Perhaps that's part of the explanation; but another part of the equation, however, is what has happened to the music industry as a whole. It's naturally consolidated as time has gone on. As a result, it *needs* generic, mass-appeal pop with guaranteed results. It can no longer take risks. It's too big to do that.

 

I see this as a trend that has solidified especially since the early 1990s, which incidentally is where the last big, long-lasting groomed rock bands everyone knows came from (and even then, there was a lot of throwaway studio crap). Sure, there are long-lasting entities now, but they mainly last by doing what they want when they can get time to do so.

 

I don't see big, generic pop going away, in other words.

 

On the other hand, there's no doubt that controlling piracy will clearly help indie artists actually be able to make a living at their craft. As long as "controlling piracy" doesn't mean taking away the tools indie artists use to promote *their* craft (eg, the new media tools that the majors sometimes love to fight).

[Axegrinder009]

This is an interesting thread. I'm enjoying it.

 

The issue of 'intellectual property' rights is pretty complex, as the law is always behind technology.

 

I see it evolving this way: performers will make their money off of real appearances, rather than the sales of music by any means, physical or digital.

The thinking of a lot of folks today is that a performer's music should be essentially free. The die has been cast, and there is no going back. The digital age allows for almost effortless reproduction of most digital [and a lot of analog] products like music and video games. That is the way it is, and performers and musicians are just going to have to adapt to it.

 

That might mean that personal appearances prices will skyrocket, as it may well be the only way for performers to get paid. Protection schemes are many and varied, but none of them have proved to be effective so far. It is just too easy to copy things. If there is any epiphany, then it is the realization that you just cannot completely protect your creative output in a digital world. China is a big user of Microsoft products, but I read recently that 85% or more of those products are counterfeit, pirated versions. Even Microsoft, with all of it's power and money, cannot stop this trend.

 

The general concensus is moving in the direction that digit music is free music, and the 'stealing' digital works is not really stealing at all, but just free distribution. I can't see this changing in the future, as the laws dealing with intellectual digital property are just too complicated to effectively enforce.

 

This is a sad thing for those attempting to make money off of their work and talent, but it's yet another change advancing on the 21st century world. Some have called it the 'democritization' of the music business, but it's hurting a lot of people trying to make a living through their music and talent anyway. Nevertheless, this is the way it is and the way it's going to be, so people in the music industry will have to adapt or perish.

 

This is what happens when stealing becomes morally acceptable, and then morphs into normal behavior.

[Dancebass]

If everything I record is destined to be "free" because of the spoiled beliefs of the public, and my pay comes from selling tickets to see me live, then why record anything?

 

I don't see Cirque du Soleil giving 3.5 minute snippits of their {censored} out for free?