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

[HairyScaryMark]

I tried to stay out of this discussion for a while but decided to join in as few people have expressed a view similar to mine, so far.

 

Many of the people slating Mr O'Brien work with the assumption there is a big trade off between the profitability of music and internet downloading and are ignoring all the new opportunities that have arisen as a result.

 

Some artists are still making huge amounts of money off selling recorded music (Lily Allen being an example of someone who's made millions then announced she was going to quit the music industry due to pirates).

 

We should also be grateful that so many people are still as interested and passionate about music as they are currently. Many tours are selling out quickly, sometimes within days or even hours of tickets going on sale. Some festivals aim to sell all their tickets before even announcing a single band in the lineup. Some acts are charging silly prices i.e £70 GBP sterling for their concerts and still sell out within a ridiculously short space of time. On occasion an album get leaked to the internet and huge numbers of people download it illegally before it's even released. Like it or not, they simply wouldn't do these things unless they were passionate about music.

 

I-Tunes is worth an extonishing amount of money as a business as it was the service which finally brought people a convenient legal alternative to downloading music illegally. I honestly believe that there was a real appetite for such a service for a number of years prior to it. I even remember reading around the time of the Napster legal troubles that a study showed that people who downloaded music also bought more CD's on average. I doubt that is the case now but I think a bit opportunity was missed around that time.

 

People are perfectly willing to spend money on music but not in exactly the same way as in days gone by. The smart business people are not the ones who wish to condemn their fans for downloading their music but instead know how to utilise the opportunities that arise from this. A lot of businesses would love to have 100,000 potential customers who cost them absolutely nothing.

 

When some people contributing to this thread grew up where there were a much smaller range of things to do. Perhaps Books, Music, 2 channels of TV (at least in this country) or Sports. People now have a lot wider choice of things to do and many of them are 'instant action' things which allow people to get away with having shorter concentration spans and I think this is also a factor in the popularity of certain types of music.

 

Music is a business/hobby/art form/entertainment which has survived in light of increased competition from other things. Young people today have a lot more choice of things to do as alternatives to listening to and buying music and many people weigh up spending money on music vs buying a video game. The video game sound track market is also a something which is growing and worth more than ever before. Then also films (or Movies for people across the Atlantic)? They're doing unnaturally well at making money currently as are some of the bands featured on films. A song featured on a TV programme i.e 'don't stop believing' by Journey is now one of the most popular/over-played songs around after being played on Family Guy and Scrubs.

 

900 channels of digital TV, computer games, nintendo Wii, X box, I-Phone. This is what a lot of people spend their money on instead of buying CD's. Music easily could have become some 'underground' thing for 'weird' people only, but it's not. It's what cool people are into as well as the geeks (i.e me).

 

There is money to be made for those who know how to adapt and take advantage of the new opportunities. It's not perfect, the music industry never was perfect and it never will be. I honestly don't believe it's any less perfect than it was before the digital revolution.

[Dancebass]

900 channels of digital TV, computer games, nintendo Wii, X box, I-Phone.

 

 

"Should all be free!!! Stinking BIG VIDeo game corporations and cable providers have been getting rich for years on the backs of low paid Indian programmers and lowly laborers working the cable lines! If I steal their product WHO GETS HURT???" - signed, The Public

 

I suppose maybe when all the content above becomes free then maybe someone will take this seriously.

 

Hollywood??? The toilet awaits your profits.

[HairyScaryMark]

 

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.

 

 

There is a lot of parallels between the newspaper and music markets.

 

Most newspaper content is now available legally free on the internet. Rupert Murdoch wants to change this and make people pay to read it on their I-Pads. I'd be interested to see if he's successful.

 

For a while this worked quite well for newspapers as it happened during a time when newspaper the circulation of many newspapers increased and there was notable revenue from advertising both in the newspaper itself and the internet.

 

I remember during my early-mid teenage years in 2001-2002 it was widely considered that there appeared to be a increased interest in rock music. This was also around the time where the Napster legal troubles were at their height. I also remember reading that people who download music also bought more CD's.

 

Now we have a number of legal forms of music downloading and although the artist doesn't get much per individual song. Was this ever really the case?

 

I heard you only get something like £15 GBP per minute of song for being played on BBC Radio 1 during peak time. I don't know if anyone can verify this. I'd be genuinely interested.

 

The idea it was easy to make money from music in the past and now it's difficult is not the case. It's merely a different system (or set of systems) with different (or less) rules to the game.

 

The London Evening Standard has gone completely 100% free and distributed to people on the London Underground (commuter railway, in case you didn't know). Now circulation is up as is the profitability of the newspaper due to increased advertising value.

 

Circulation went from 250,000 to 600,000 with an estimated 1.37 million regular readers.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/feb/03/london-evening-standard-newspapers

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/02/london-evening-standard-free

 

In Scotland, there has also been the launch of an internet-only newspaper which has met it's readership targets, so far. In the future, It plans to launch a 'premium print' product which will have in depth reports and quality journalism that people will wish to read multiple times.

 

http://caledonianmercury.com/

[BlueStrat]

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).

 

I can't disagree with anything you said here.

[BlueStrat]

 

The thinking of a lot of folks today is that a performer's music should be essentially free.

 

 

Shouldn't that be the performer's decision, rather than that of some pimplefaced bedwetter with a computer in his bedroom uploading the latest (insert band name here) CD onto Limewire?

[HairyScaryMark]

Let's look at how other things are making the online part of their buisness profitable. Video games have been particularly good at this. One example of how it's possible to make someone pay for something they previously would have assumed was going to be free is maps packs in video games.

 

For example, I used to play computer games around 2000-2003 and there were usually map packs available for free on the internet. Many games also came free map editors and people could upload them to the internet for others to download them.

 

Last year I buy Call of Duty - World at War only to find out there are 3 map packs available at £8.99 GBP each. Irrespective of whether or not you buy them. The game will try and put you online matches involving the maps from the map pack, I don't know whether or not this is an error in the software but I almost caved and bought them until my disc mysteriously stopped working and Modern Warfare 2 was released.

 

Also, look at how many games now operate with a subscription? i.e World of Warcraft. First time I remember anyone signing up to a game with a subscription was around 2002 and I was rather surprised they did this. I still personally can't bring myself to do it as I don't want to pay each month to encourage an addiction.

 

I don't know if this is really applicable to music however. These things were never illegal in the first place. It's more just an additional revenue stream for the developers.

 

I don't believe cracking down on internet downloading would boost profitability for 'indie artists' for one simple reason. People want to discover music themselves. This has been a large part of why music downloading and new media has been so popular.

 

Mainstream Music TV and Radio plays a relatively small selection of songs and artists within a relatively small range of styles. Even with something slightly more 'alternative' like rock TV and radio, you are likely to hear the same songs being played over and over again. We also have a fair number of 'generic rock' bands. This really doesn't excite people in the same way as being given the freedom to go on the internet and 'discover' a whole new world of music they weren't previously aware even existed.

[Poker99]

I don't believe cracking down on internet downloading would boost profitability for 'indie artists' for one simple reason. People want to discover music themselves. This has been a large part of why music downloading and new media has been so popular. Mainstream Music TV and Radio plays a relatively small selection of songs and artists within a relatively small range of styles. Even with something slightly more 'alternative' like rock TV and radio, you are likely to hear the same songs being played over and over again. We also have a fair number of 'generic rock' bands. This really doesn't excite people in the same way as being given the freedom to go on the internet and 'discover' a whole new world of music they weren't previously aware even existed.

 

 

You are totally wrong on this imo.

 

Most people don't want to discover music themselves. They are pretty much happy with the mass media feeding. They get all the music they need, and more.

 

Those people go on the internet and download the songs they already know about.

[HairyScaryMark]

 

You are totally wrong on this imo. Most people don't want to discover music themselves. They are pretty much happy with the mass media feeding. They get all the music they need, and more. Those people go on the internet and download the songs they already know about.

 

 

While it may be true that many 'download charts' tend to reflect the popularity of music in the wider world and the types of artists popular on the internet tend to be similar to those popular in the wider world. This however does not take away from the fact that many of us with a genuine passion for music enjoy discovering new artists on the internet that we previously had no realistic chance of ever hearing.

 

A lot of my experience of music is within 'specialist scenes'. The internet is a huge gift to specialist scenes as it allows people to discover the style of music in the first place, when often it wouldn't have been realistically possible before. Then you can discover other similar artists quite easily (often being recommended to you automatically or by other fans of the music).

 

Some of the facilities available for discovering music from previous ages are no longer with us. In the UK, we used to have a TV programme called 'The Old Grey Whistle Test' which exposed a lot of people to styles such as progressive rock, fusion as well as many things we now consider to be 'classic rock'. The format of this programme got altered in various ways and eventually died. We now have a 'later with Jools Holland' programme but it's on at a silly hour and perhaps I'm wrong in saying this but I think in some ways it's designed to be a bit 'inoffensive' with choice of music it has on it, compared with it's predecessor.

 

Radio DJ John Peel has also died and he championed many styles of music and in turn exposed people to things they otherwise would have never came across.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of some music radio. Earlier today, I listened to a programme about Sonny Rollins on BBC Radio 4. Last week I watched a TV programme about Latin Music in the USA. The week before that, there was a series of programmes about Brian Eno. These are all great things to have but this doesn't take away from the fact the facilities to discover music from 'specialist scenes' are far greater on the internet than they are from any Radio or TV channel we get in this country.

[BlueStrat]

 

There is money to be made for those who know how to adapt and take advantage of the new opportunities.

 

 

We keep hearing this so much, it's become a cliche.

 

Can you elaborate, and show us where a significant number of people have found a way to earn real money by taking advantage of 'new opportunities'? Because I'm not seing it. I see a very few who have made decent money, more making a little bit of money, and most people making none.

 

The moneys seems be in selling the idea that you can make money by taking advantage of new opportunities. In otherwords, a DIY service provider rather than a DIY musician.

[BlueStrat]

 

This however does not take away from the fact that many of us with a genuine passion for music enjoy discovering new artists on the internet that we previously had no realistic chance of ever hearing.

This is true, but it as always been thus. The fact is, audiophiles have always existed, and have always pored through record stores, pawn shops, estate sales and so on looking for records. Today, those same guys are doing it online.

 

But another fact is, just as it's always been, most people aren't audiophiles, and tend to buy music they've heard before. But most music isn't on the radio anymore, or on TV or advertised. It relies on word of mouth or the consumer actively searching for it, mostly on the internet. This seems to be something the average consumer is less inclined to do. If I, a person who is into music, finds it frustrating and ultimately boring clicking on link after link after link and getting little for my efforts, how do you think it affects the average consumer?

 

 

A lot of my experience of music is within 'specialist scenes'. The internet is a huge gift to specialist scenes as it allows people to discover the style of music in the first place, when often it wouldn't have been realistically possible before.

Agreed. It's an audiophile's dream. But then again, I like pawn shops, flea markets, and second hand stores.

 

 

Some of the facilities available for discovering music from previous ages are no longer with us. In the UK, we used to have a TV programme called 'The Old Grey Whistle Test' which exposed a lot of people to styles such as progressive rock, fusion as well as many things we now consider to be 'classic rock'.

True, and I loved the Old Grey Whistle Test. There are still some great youtube videos form that show floating around.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of some music radio. Earlier today, I listened to a programme about Sonny Rollins on BBC Radio 4. Last week I watched a TV programme about Latin Music in the USA. The week before that, there was a series of programmes about Brian Eno. These are all great things to have but this doesn't take away from the fact the facilities to discover music from 'specialist scenes' are far greater on the internet than they are from any Radio or TV channel we get in this country.

Well, that's my point. Radio has become more and more either niche marketed (as has TV) or completely bland generic with no in between. Most of it is the latter here. since very little radio is public funded aside from PBS and some college stations.

 

We're a country of 330 million people. The number of audiophiles willing to dig for new music is shrinking compared tom the overall population, not growing. I'm into music, and I have to set aside time to look for it. A typical browsing session on the internet for me is at least an hour to search, click on links, listen to sound clips (which vary greatly in the amount of times they take to load) and decide if it's good or bad.

 

A lot of music gets passed by the average consumer because it doesn't have a chance to grow on people. There are lots of songs that hit the charts at 50 and moved up to number one in a few weeks. Now, a song gets a 30 second listen if that, before it's discarded and the listener moves on to the next.

 

And lastly music just isn't important to the average consumer, at least not as much as it was 30 years ago. As we've discussed her ad infinitum, the entertainment choices are far and away more numerous than 30 years ago. Everyone used to go to clubs for entertainment, where live music was going 6 nights a week. They watched variety shows on TV, bought music. My parent, pretty much clueless rednecks, bout probably 4 albums a month because of what they saw on the Johnny Cash show or Andy Williams. It's not much like that anymore.

[HairyScaryMark]

I'm not just talking about 'self promotion'. I actually think that self promotion is often not a good use of time for a musician. The number 1 focus has to be the art and if people like your art and you have convenient ways for them to hear it, they will listen to it and you've taken the significant step in potentially making money from it.

 

My view is a lot of the potential to make money from music through new media is yet to be fully utilised. Many things are changing and we see new businesses appearing regularly. Just think of Myspace, youtube, ITunes, spotify etc. There'll be a new one next year and the year after.... Bands don't make money directly through the first two but if their fans go and use the latter two then go to their shows and buy merchandise. I've been to gigs where a majority of those attending have bought t shirts.

 

Band hoodies were the height of fashion a few years a go.

 

Just look at how much money some tours are making. It shows to me there is still plenty of money to be made from music.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7158293.stm

http://jamtopia.com/blog/top-10-highest-earning-concert-tours-of-2008/

 

Madonna made more money in 2004 than any female artist had ever made, ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5391154.stm

 

Getting the fans in the first place is how to make money.

 

It's an issue that a lot of businesses (particularly other media based ones) are trying to solve. If we have 100,000 people using our product for free, how do we make money from it?

 

Innovation is the way forward.

 

Blue Strat: I agree with your last post and it's sort of what I've been trying to get at. I do however think a lot of these things are cultural issues and the answer lies with people individually and collectively as supposed to anything that is going to be achieved top-downwards by changing the law or 'clamping down' on music downloading.

 

My view is where government or official action can make a difference is for the public funded broadcasting to stop competing directly with commercial broadcasters and go for an increased emphasis on quality, diversity and education. Broadcasting more things that aren't already catered for by commercial broadcasters is the way forward.

[paulz]

The thing about distribution technologies like peer-to-peer is it's not really 'discovering music themselves' -- a peer needs to make it available and the tracker functions as an aggregator.

 

Yes, the internet can allow for niches of a variety of kinds (SIG - "Special Interest Group" predates the web in internet style use), but this can be done without illegal use.

 

Maybe successful new business models can develop, but that doesn't require illegal activity. If an artist thinks "hey, peer-to-peer downloading can give me an audience and it'll be a loss leader for money elsewhere" they can currently do this - they can OPT to release content on peer-to-peer or other such and that would be legal.

 

It's kind of weird that "downloading" means "piracy" in some circles. We download data all the time, when you click on HC you download data. A lot of the oft-cited benefits to the artist of downloading don't require illegal activity, if the artist decides it could be of benefit then they can structure their copyright licensing to allow for that. Copyright law allows for a creator to choose from various models or come up with new ones.

[BlueStrat]

 

I'm not just talking about 'self promotion'

Neither am I. I'm talking about the average guy or woman working a 9-5 day job who might want to listen to some music or go dancing on the weekend. People on this particular forum would be a horrible example of what the average person likes or is willing to do to get new music.

 

 

The number 1 focus has to be the art and if people like your art and you have convenient ways for them to hear it, they will listen to it and you've taken the significant step in potentially making money from it.

All that is true, but it does not change the fact that you have to get the consumer to go actively look for your stuff in the first place. You can present it to them in a convenient way, but as long is the onus is on the consumer to go look for something, you still have to hope they find it. This is the biggest difference between the old model and the new one and, IMO, the biggest obstacle to overcome.

 

 

My view is a lot of the potential to make money from music through new media is yet to be fully utilised. Many things are changing and we see new businesses appearing regularly. Just think of Myspace, youtube, ITunes, spotify etc. There'll be a new one next year and the year after....

I agree. I'm hopeful that the future will provide some way for musicians to make a living playing music, but I remain a bit skeptical as well.

 

 

Bands don't make money directly through the first two but if their fans go and use the latter two then go to their shows and buy merchandise. I've been to gigs where a majority of those attending have bought t shirts. Band hoodies were the height of fashion a few years a go.

This I hear a lot, that the band has to sell merch. But if your primary income is coming from merch, at what point does the band stop being about the music and start being a brand that sell schwag? I didn't spend 39 years learning to play an instrument and honing my craft to become a T shirt salesman.

 

The other issue is that none of this helps the songwriter one iota.

 

 

Just look at how much money some tours are making. It shows to me there is still plenty of money to be made from music. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7158293.stm http://jamtopia.com/blog/top-10-high...tours-of-2008/ Madonna made more money in 2004 than any female artist had ever made, ever. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5391154.stm

With all due respect, none of those examples apply to what we're discussing here. All of them, every single band listed in those articles, are a product of the old model, and if they show anything, the main reason they're still raking it in touring is because the new model is such a dismal failure at producing someone as big as the Police or Madonna. Where are the DIY internet acts that have risen from the gutter of obscurity to take the world by storm?

Lily Allen? Corey Smith? Please. Besides being not exactly household names, dig into their pasts and you will see that they weren't exactly what they've been hyped as. Both had advantage and help from inside sources. They were hardly products of a grassroots internet campaign.

 

 

Getting the fans in the first place is how to make money.

Well, yes, that's a given, and what we have been discussing here for a long time. But having fans is no guarantee that will translate into income. Over the years, we've seen bands here with tens of thousands of downloads and youtube hits, myspace hits, and so on. and still not earn a dime.

 

When I put my music up on download.com for free, I was getting a good volume of downloads and nice emails from people. As soon as I started charging for it....oops. There are just too many other bands giving it away to necessitate the consumer paying for it. Fame has become the new currency, but a way has yet to be found to translate it into income.

 

 

Innovation is the way forward.

I hope so, because so far, all it's succeeded in doing is dismantling a flawed system into a nearly unworkable one.

[paulz]

Bluestrat - I think you'd really enjoy looking at "You are Not a Gadget" - I posted about it on another thread with no action.

 

I don't mean it's proof of anything - none of those books are, but I think it offers an interesting view on some of these issues...and it's written by Jaron Lanier -- He was one of the early Open Source kind of guys and is a musician (he's played with Ornette Coleman and Vernon Reid and all kinds of guys and has had label contracts and such) and it's sort of his reeaxamination after 15 or so years of the web really taking off

[HairyScaryMark]

Yet again, I agree with your last post and it opens up many interesting questions..

 

The fact the highest earning acts appeared with old system and are continuing to rake it in under the 'new system'. It would suggest that we are unlikely to get very many more 'super bands', although Muse, Nickelback and the Arctic Monkeys are rather huge names that have appeared under the new system and perhaps in the future their tours (or whatever is the largest source of income) will bring in just as much money.

 

Most of the 'internet sensation' stories with music are quite false when you look into it further. They've paid money to PR companies, had financial backing etc. rather than being entirely 'self made'. It is however true that many bands have got new fans they would never have otherwise had.

 

The internet is still in it's infancy. I believe the best way to get people not to download music illegally is to offer workable legal alternatives. We have this with Spotify and I-Tunes, amongst others. Neither of these things are perfect and hopefully better ones will appear in the future and hopefully it will be good for music as well as musicians.

 

It's true to some extent wherever your music is played; you're a beer salesman, t shirt salesman, car salesman (if played on an advert) or whatever. We might have to sell different things from before to make money from our music. I'm not convinced it's more difficult than it was in previous days to make a living from music, perhaps it is. I don't know. The fact that the 'dinosaur bands' are still raking in the cash makes this argument very blurry in many ways, as there are many ways to interpret this data.

[BlueStrat]

One thing is sure, it's fascinating to be in our lifetime watching a quantum historical paradigm shift tasking place before our eyes.

 

Sucks to be in the middle of it, though! Hopefully the guys on the other end of it will enjoy a period of relative stability like it did from the 1950s until the 1990s.

[CountRobula]

Well, I hope I live to be able to live comfortably off of my music if it happens to find an audience.. I don't want to die broke flipping burgers at Mc D's.. lol

[nerol1st]

Eh...I don't see this as an apt comparison. A CD is a physical thing.

Ok, there is somewhat of a point here. But I still think the point works, but if you view every mp.3 illegally downloaded as no loss to the creator I think we lose the point. What that MP.3 is, no matter how many times it has been download is intellectual property.

Kind of an odd concept I admit, we can actually OWN our ideas? Property? Yeah according to our laws, and we should have a right to charge for those ideas, or give them away for free even if the means to delivering the product is through download.

Until the law states that I don't have any rights to my intellectual property, then no matter how this gets twisted it's theft. Like I said before, if you can't afford something then you just don't get to buy it.

[BlueStrat]

Ok, there is somewhat of a point here. But I still think the point works, but if you view every mp.3 illegally downloaded as no loss to the creator I think we lose the point. What that MP.3 is, no matter how many times it has been download is intellectual property . Kind of an odd concept I admit, we can actually OWN our ideas? Property? Yeah according to our laws, and we should have a right to charge for those ideas, or give them away for free even if the means to delivering the product is through download. Until the law states that I don't have any rights to my intellectual property, then no matter how this gets twisted it's theft. Like I said before, if you can't afford something then you just don't get to buy it.

 

What I hate is that otherwise intelligent people seem to think that millions of people getting something for nothing isn't hurting anything.

[paulz]

 

Originally Posted by caeman View Post Eh...I don't see this as an apt comparison. A CD is a physical thing. Ok, there is somewhat of a point here. But I still think the point works, but if you view every mp.3 illegally downloaded as no loss to the creator I think we lose the point. What that MP.3 is, no matter how many times it has been download is intellectual property .

 

 

Bluestrat had a couple of posts about that point.

Even with many physical things offered for sale, the value just isn't in the physical item, but in the opportunity for the sale.

Produce is perishable, magazines and books are either returned or turned into "tear offs" when not sold, the cost of the actual popcorn at a movie theatre is negligible -- and these things are often kept in surplus so stealing one CD doesn't have to mean the retailer won't have a CD to sell.

That's the old 'more like conversion or more like unjust enrichment' thing you hear people talk about

 

 

Kind of an odd concept I admit, we can actually OWN our ideas?

 

 

We can't, copyright protects expressions, not just ideas so it's narrower protection

[Kramerguy]

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.

 

 

no way to prove anything if you apply enough bull{censored}.

 

Captain obvious swung by and pointed out things called common sense and "obvious" clues.. I guess you were in the loo when it happened.

[soundwave106]

I don't believe cracking down on internet downloading would boost profitability for 'indie artists' for one simple reason. People want to discover music themselves. This has been a large part of why music downloading and new media has been so popular.

 

 

At this point, however, there *are* legitimate discovery services that do not involve piracy. When I said "don't take away the tools of indie artists", that's what I was meaning. The major industry have thrown legal threats at legitimate business models like Internet / satellite radio, Pandora, Youtube, even iTunes -- and that's an issue.

 

You cannot crack down on MP3 trading completely -- but shutting down the big, easy to use central hubs would probably benefit the independent artist. More people would download digital files, IMHO, from iTunes or Amazon (or wherever) if it is a pain in the ass to pirate. It currently isn't... in many ways it's more of a pain in the ass to purchase the legitimate product, in fact.

 

Something like Youtube is a completely different story. Youtube has become the MTV of this generation, and shutting that down would be *very* hurtful for the independent artist. From an indie label perspective, I would think that efforts should focus on controlling / commercializing content instead of pure legal actions. (Which to be fair seems to be what's happening, lately... but IMHO it's because Google/Youtube is too big to take down. Small players like Pandora, on the other hand, are still in danger of being driven out of business by lopsided royalty rates.).

[Poker99]

You cannot crack down on MP3 trading completely -- but shutting down the big, easy to use central hubs would probably benefit the independent artist. More people would download digital files, IMHO, from iTunes or Amazon (or wherever) if it is a pain in the ass to pirate. It currently isn't... in many ways it's more of a pain in the ass to purchase the legitimate product, in fact.

 

 

 

Yes. People don't realize this. They think fighting piracy is useless because you will never stop it. Yes, we will never stop it completely, but that's not the point. The nerds will always find a way to illegally download, but who cares, if they are in the minority.

[HairyScaryMark]

Most of the major pirating sites are hosted in far away countries, so shutting them down is not possible and the ones that are shut down have a tendency to open elsewhere, yet again oversees.

[BlueStrat]

 

Most of the major pirating sites are hosted in far away countries, so shutting them down is not possible and the ones that are shut down have a tendency to open elsewhere, yet again oversees.

 

 

Well, that's what Bono was addressing, partly- and something I have mixed feelings about. His point is that if we can track child pornographers and if China and other countries can prevent content from entering or leaving their country, so could anybody, for anything. I'm just not sure I want them to have that power here. In short, it could be done, but at what price?