Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
from the The-Fat-Lady's-A-Mute dept
Attention everyone. If I could have all of your eyes looking forward please, I have an announcement to make: the pirating of music on the internet has officially ended. So says Wired's Paul Boutin:
"Mark down the date: The age of stealing music via the Internet is officially over. It’s time for everybody to go legit. The reason: We won. And all you audiophiles and copyfighters, you know who fixed our problems? The record labels and online stores we loved to hate."
That's quite a whopper, isn't it? Particularly from the same esteemed publication that brought you the news that the web is dead. You'd have to imagine there would be something pretty substantial in his article to make the claim that the record labels had somehow fixed things so that online infringement no longer should exist, right? Sadly, not so much. He starts off by listing out a couple of the problems most folks had with things like DRM, transferring legit purchases to multiple devices, etc. Then he tells us all why everything is okay now (and for a fun little game, see if you can spot the demeaning slight he sneaks in on music fans):
"Well played, protesters: In January 2009, Apple announced that it would remove the copyright protection wrapper from every song in its store. Today, Amazon and Walmart both sell music encoded as MP3s, which don’t even have hooks for copyright-protection locks. The battle is over, comrades."
So...because, after years of fighting, iTunes finally stood up and removed the DRM, followed by a few retailers, we're supposed to look to the record labels as our saviors? For not treating us like criminals? And while they're still pushing for new laws and demanding money from ISPs (that will come out of consumers pockets anyway)? That doesn't really pass the smell test. Paul then goes on to declare the joy audiophiles should feel now that MP3s are being sold with 256 Kbps audio quality, compared to the initial 128 Kbps offering, stating that if anyone wants quality better than that, "you can get a pretty good turntable for around $500" and go spin vinyl. Oh, and he wants to make sure you know that if you steal vinyl records, that's called shoplifting. Mmkay. What else you got, Paul?
"That leaves one last war cry: Music should be free! It’s art! Friends, a song costs a dollar...Most download retailers send about 70 percent of each sale to the record companies that own the music. Artists with 15 percent royalty deals get 15 percent of that 70 percent, or about 10.5 cents per dollar of sales. Those who write their own music and own their own music publishing companies—an increasingly common arrangement—get another 9.1 cents in “mechanical royalties.” Every download sends almost 20 cents straight to the band."
Yup, you read that right. This, of course, is pure nonsense. That isn't the way royalties with modern day recording contracts work. Through the magic of recording label accounting, the average musician makes roughly $23 for every $1000 in music sold -- and that's only if they actually recoup, which is difficult to do, thanks to the way the record labels account for things. For those of you who share my math skills and don't want to reach for a calculator, that's barely 2%. Some of that result stems from necessary things the bands may need to spend on: managers, lawyers, taxes. But a good deal of it also comes from neat little, and sometimes recoupable, charges from the record label, things like independent radio promotion, tour support, roughly fifty percent of the music video costs, etc. Other times, the record labels flatout don't pay the royalties from truly successful albums. Bottom line is, at the end of the day, record labels make money off of selling music, musicians do not.
And, even if we go with Paul's bogus number of 20 cents on the dollar, is that really that good of a deal? A musician today can use a service like Bandcamp, and get 85% of whatever money they bring in -- and can do so in more creative ways with pay what you want offerings, that can actually bring in much more money. The idea the "record labels" have solved "piracy" by offering musicians 20 cents that they'll never get because they'll never recoup is laughable.
But Paul chooses to ignore those things and instead offers up a pithy conclusion as to why music is still being pirated:
"You're cheap."
Uh huh. Nuanced arguments would probably be more appreciated from the group of folks you're talking to, who actually spend more money on music than those who do not "pirate". Funny definition of cheap you're working from...
In the end, there are many reasons why people still file share (and they are still file sharing in droves, which sort of debunks Paul's entire premise), but you don't learn any of that from Paul's article. Since when did Wired switch from thought-provoking analysis to pure trollbait?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hype, music industry, piracy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That is the most astonishingly stupid lead I have ever read. I mean really... "mark down the date"? So what, tomorrow all file sharing will be gone? That's some pretty pathetic sensationalist journalism.
... 256kbs ... It’s certainly better than most of the stuff out on BitTorrent. If you still hate the sound of digital music, you probably need to go back to vinyl
That is either a flat-out lie, or Paul has never actually looked for music torrents. Personally I'm happy with 256kbps, but I know lots of audiophiles whose main given reason for pirating music is quality. Not only is it easy to find torrents with MP3s at 512kbps and up, there are also torrents with giant FLAC (fully lossless) files all over the place - and those are virtually impossible to find through legitimate channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then these same corporations use govt. agencies (ICE) to enforce their will of what to buy, how to buy, and at what price. Very much like how totalitarian govt.'s use their secret police to do the same thing.
But even they still had a black market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Demanding that creators donate their work to the collective, and saying that they already make too much money... is Marxism.
The US fought two hot wars, a long Cold War, and spent billions to destroy communism.
Why would they stop now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one here is doing that....
"and saying that they already make too much money"
Or that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"music should be free"- translation: "creators should donate their work to the collective."
And don't tell me this blog isn't crawling with piracy apologists. There's some in this thread even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except we've never said music "should" be anything, either.
My goodness, you really have to make up lies all the time, don't you? It's sad. It also shows why you don't actually get what we're saying. You're so desperate to hate on the messenger that you won't even bother to comprehend what we're saying. No wonder you're failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read some of the comments in this very thread and tell me there's no pirate contingent here... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
epic fail
Hey, let me come over to your house and tell you to get out and go away.
Wow... just.... wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thats YOUR interpretation
If I see or hear something that I want to own then I look at how much it costs. If I feel that they are charging too much, I wont buy. If you dont like it, thats too bad for you. Create something that will make me want to part with my money. Thats how supply and demand really works. If they think piracy is too big of a problem then they need to look at why. THATS THEIR JOB. But I'LL help out a little.
If their price is too high then lower it. If they arent making enough money to cover their costs. find a cheaper way. If they feel that the money isnt worth their time and effort find a different job and leave it to someone who does.
Sharing/piracy/black market has been around as long as civilization. Have you veer borrowed something because its not worth paying for? Or bought second hand because its cheaper? Its not going to go away anytime soon. Its also the publics answer to an elitist-entitlement mentality. Thats just the way it is, "Sweat of the brow" means nothing except to the one sweating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is starting to seem however, like this right to control copying is being carelessly expanded just as its usefulness is dwindling. That is a problem. That is an economic problem that makes for inefficient markets and wasting of resources. That hurts all of us.
I'm not some socialistic idealist here. I'm as capitalistic as it gets. I'm all for competition, but I expect a level playing field. I also want the agreed upon return that we paid for in copyright, namely a rich, ever expanding public domain.
What we have instead is an increasingly limited one. That is NOT what we bargained for, and it's clear some adjustments need to be made.
You pontificate about copyright infringement like it's theft of some kind. Copyright is, by nature, statutory. Infringement is no more a moral wrong than speeding, and as with speeding, sometimes the posted limits no longer make sense. In fact most states have a system for conducting speed surveys so that appropriate changes can be made by the simple process of people doing a little bit of speeding within reason and with statistical consideration for the outliers. A similar adjustment really must be made for copyright so that we're not stunting our growth as a species.
Instead content industries have lobbied for even more control while returning back even less. Mike pipes up and tries to explain how reasonable we can all be about this, how all the hoarding is just spinning your wheels and limiting your profits, and how there are so many alternatives to the worst case scenario that you hold so dear, and you ridicule him and insult honest hardworking people as if we're the freeloaders here.
Listen jackass, if anyone is being cheated, if anyone is being stolen from, it is we the people. If anyone is a pack of thieving hucksters, it is the monopoly subsidized consolidated media corporations and content industry lobbyists who continue leach off of artists, leach off the public, and beat down the public domain like a bastard step child. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU CALL US PIRATES?!
No, I don't apologize for piracy, thank you, now kindly STFU, PIRATE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To you, and everyone else, thanks for making it easy.
You, Masnick, and everyone here, have never once defended the fact that a creator's work is supposed to be shared on their own terms, not yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean I have you to thank that its available on-line now? I only wish you'd done it sooner so that I didn't have to get Mike to send me the hard copy via secret courier for all those years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't get to have it be just one sided. Here I stand, gasp, exposed, for what? For wanting copyright to be reasonable and fair? Sure okay.
I think based on today's ease of producing and distributing work and the added value that can be had from sharing, that copyright should be controlled on the creator's terms - for somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 20 years for most works of actual art. Software I think really is something else and should be treated altogether differently for purely economic reasons (2-5 years).
As for whose terms it "should" be well, that's really a meaningless issue here has the terms are statutory. I think the statute should be changed.
As for hanging ourselves? What is my viewpoint, that the current laws are wrong and should be changed, is that somehow hanging myself? You WANTED to be a jerk to people on purpose just to get them riled up so they sound angry when they share their opinion. Dude, go get your auto-erotica somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know I dont speak for all here, but thats the biggest crock Ive heard in a while. Setting aside all the bleeding heart crap, how can I put this ...wrong!!!
If someone is expecting to receive money from me, then they need to deliver on my terms. They want something from me. Not the other way around. I can prove my point by stating it this way. If I dont like their terms do I starve or do they? Domt get me wrong. They have every right to do it on their terms. Just dont demand that I pay for it. Dont cry and whine that you cant survive on the money you get for a service that not enough people want. I think someone listened to the song "Money for nothing" one too many times. Get over yourself already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So..you are admitting that you have an agenda to discredit this site. Very interesting.
The only ones I have seen hang themselves with their own rope is you.
You, Masnick, and everyone here, have never once defended the fact that a creator's work is supposed to be shared on their own terms, not yours.
I have seen this defended on this site quite often. What I have not seen is many defending sharing a creator's work on the gatekeepers's terms. Perhaps that is what you really meant to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Forgive me if I do not see any hangman's noose. What, specifically, are you talking about? What have you "exposed"? That some people who *read* this site also engage in unauthorized file sharing? Um, no one has denied that. You do realize that even some people who work at major record labels engage in file sharing. What does that mean?
You, Masnick, and everyone here, have never once defended the fact that a creator's work is supposed to be shared on their own terms, not yours.
Because that's not how markets actually work. In a market, the creator of a product gets to set the initial terms, and that's it. Same thing with content. After that, it's up to the market. I would suggest reading an economics text, but you have mocked that suggestion in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious as to who on this site has made either argument? Certainly not any of the posts. We have never suggested "donating works" to any "collective" nor do we think anyone makes too much money. It's why we spend so much time showing artists how to make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pitagoras spread those ideas(His village was burned to the ground for it).
The Bible did it.
A lot of Saints did it.
All of them well before Karl Marx.
Besides you don't need to put it on the collective, I will just never know about it otherwise, you think I would spend money on people like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artificial Rights
THAT is infact part of the bargain. That's part of the bargain for the conflict that such monopolies have on the rights of everyone else.
> Don't complain about being a Marxist if
> you do indeed espouse Marxist ideas.
You mean like state backed monopolies?
Anarchism is a better and more accurate way to describe
the state where your creative works are not "protected"
and they can be copied freely by anyone that chooses to
exercise their own liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thats because it has more shock value.
My point was that our government and these corporations are the ones acting like a communist state and that their defenders are calling the opposition communists in order to hide it. The reasoning for this is to to put them on the defensive, marginalize what they are trying to say, and get them to shut up and go away.
They also get VERY upset when you call them on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Paul was sad already, b/c his article is not letting me comment in spite of being logged in. Sad because the page is not working or page is not working because sad? I don't presume to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a dollar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only a dollar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only a dollar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only a dollar!
Music cannot be bought currently only rented, copyright laws make sure you have no rights to what you paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Fat Red Herring
Just look at the iTunes store itself. Sure, they got rid of the DRM on the music but it's still there for everything else.
Also, things aren't nearly as simple as the industry would like to make out. There are other factors in play including the other side effects of technological change. One important aspect of that is the fact that there hasn't been another forced media format change in music since the Internet age started will likely never be one again.
Thus something like the Beatles coming to iTunes becomes much less important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons for piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons for piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasons for piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasons for piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He doesn't address another main reason for file sharing to exist. Every time the music industry changed formats, there was always music that didn't make the cut and was never seen again on the market. Through file sharing that music didn't die, even if it was no longer up for sale. It was simply unattainable in any other method.
That still hasn't changed and so I am very sure file sharing will be around long after these clueless people are doddering around looking for their canes and walkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read that article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I don't think that's being cheap. It's not being in a viable position to buy a lot of music. But I bet if you found an artist you really liked via downloads, infringing or otherwise, and they came to your town and put on a show, you'd at least consider going.
That's why I called for nuance. Paul didn't do that; he went for a one-liner....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
The main offerings of an online service are legality, convenience and breadth. Currently, they are at best on par with filesharing on #2, far behind on #3, and the strategy seems to be focused on increasing the value of #1 (through litigation, threats, etc.)
We can look at this from a CwF+RtB point of view as well. What the record companies are doing is cutting out the CwF and forcibly applying a RtB by artificially increasing the value of their goods. Nothing good can come of this, especially in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
The dickens you say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Are you that clueless? You set up your itunes and amazon accounts, and that's it. Whenever you hear something you like, you download it. It's fantastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Things will never be cheap enough for certain people, though they often claim otherwise. But when companies try to meet the supposed demands of the consumers, the goalpost shifts.
At this point, many of the original "demands" of those pirating have been met. But it's never going to be enough for pirates unless things are absolutely free. Free of cost, free of ads, free of DRM...
Ultimately, if the price is to high for someone, if they're to "cheap" to pay it, that's fine. Totally understandable. But that's not a reasonable justification for anyone to pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[Citation needed]
I've been involved in this debate for years, and I never heard such an argument.
What's with all the strawmen lately?
At this point, many of the original "demands" of those pirating have been met. But it's never going to be enough for pirates unless things are absolutely free. Free of cost, free of ads, free of DRM...
Not about "demands," it's about the market. Supply and demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Demands: No DRM. Lower prices. More money paid to artists. No advertisements. These are the arguments often advanced by pirates over the years. You might have missed them, I suppose. But I really don't understand how. Now, I get that YOU are talking about supply and demand. Good for you. I'm talking about something else, and you'll please notice that I did not address my argument to you nor did I attach it to you. Strawmen indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
But I think music piracy is over, not because the labels did anything but because good alternatives have sprung up and they are free.
Jamendo I luv you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
But of course you won't believe me. BTW I don't download the music at all, they just don't get any money from me, instead of the some money they could be getting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Why would I assume you're lying? I absolutely believe you didn't ever hear that. Hardly means it was never an argument advanced.
At the time, a CD might cost upwards of $20 and have a few as 10 tracks. Admittedly, that's the hyperbolic example. But extreme examples are typically what people would rally around and that was the example often given in support of piracy, at least the frequent argument I would encounter a decade ago.
Did I say that YOU download music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Price is an easy target for the justification of piracy. Same as DRM and other related issues. A percentage of those who make said justifications are certainly honest about their beliefs. But a percentage are likely using the rationale as a shield (intentionally or not), and will simply shift goalposts when needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Right here, writing about it. Never heard anyone say that if songs were just $1 everyone would be happy. At least not among the folks who were actively using Napster. There was some talk about "what if Napster charged" and everyone said they wouldn't use it, which seems like the exact opposite of the claim you're making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Like I said, I don't know how you missed that particular argument. It was quite common. It was along time ago, so much has been eaten by the web. However, a quick search found a valid example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/06/technology/l-music-to-download-by-230588.html
And that one, in 2000, was arguing that two bucks a song would be reasonable. This was a prevailing argument at the time. I'm sorry you missed it, but it was. And now we see the goalposts shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Banks charge pennies, water utilities are charged in pennies, electricity is charged in pennies so this other new marvelous services should be in pennies too.
No?
Then I don't want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
You don't want it, that's fine. Don't buy it. But don't acquire it illegally either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Forgive me if I am wrong, but the implication of your original comment was that it was those who were file sharing who argued "if only the music would be priced at $1, we'd stop file sharing." Now you seem to be changing that argument to say that totally different random people made that argument.
On that, I agree. Certainly some people thought that charging $1 was reasonable -- which is seen in iTunes. But, that's quite different than arguing that if the price is $1 it will convince people to stop file sharing.
If you were just arguing that some people somewhere argued for per song pricing, I'm not sure what point you're making. That's got nothing to do with whether or not such pricing would impact file sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Anyway, I was responding to someone saying that they would download if the price were more reasonable. I think that may be true of some (including the person I was responding too), just as it has been shown to be true that some people will purchase at $1.00. But that it is also used as a false justification for those who really have no intent on purchasing.
That was part of what I took from the original article. Not that piracy was literally dead, but that many standard justifications for piracy were no longer relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
If I may interject... and remember, this is my opinion... I would buy directly more often if two things happen... 1) those rare can't-find-them-legitimately songs are made available and 2) if I knew that the money went directly (or at lease MUCH more) to the artists. I LOVE to support musicians... but I don't like to support the record labels that use and abuse them.
If I knew the money was going to the artist, I would be more willing to pay even more than $1/song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
2: Pennies on a dollar are still more than 0. And no musician is ever abused by a record label without being a willing participant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
There are a few CD's (such as the Rockula soundtrack... yes, I liked it. :p ) that are tied up in litigation over copyright ownership that I'd very much like to get my hands on. There just happens to be no source that I can find to download them, legitimate or otherwise (some pirate I am. Heh). So if I happen to download it, are you saying that it'd be ok someday when I pay for it later? While that makes good ethical sense, I doubt the law would really be on your side for it.
2) I've read and heard about artists who didn't understand the situation they were getting into with particular labels and the abuse they suffered since. Young artists with "Jukebox Hero" going through their head are very easy to capture with promises of money and glory. A) I know there are three sides to every story, and I don't take the artists' stories on face value. B) Is it their fault that they got into the situation? yes. But I'm not going to support an industry that treats its artists like sweatshop workers... Just like how many people won't buy clothes made in actual sweatshops.
So I'm sure those pennies the sweatshop workers are being paid is better than nothing, but that hardly justifies supporting the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
2: My point with this aspect is that if record labels are taking advantage of artists by only paying pennies on the dollar, what are pirates doing by paying less than the labels pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
2) Most 'pirates' actually do more to support artists than the people who just pick up a CD every now and then. Now, before anyone asks, I don't have any hard evidence of this... just the understanding that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'll do more to support that artist than someone who goes to FYE and buys the same album and just listens to it.
Now I would have a problem of people who would go download a bunch of songs and burn them to CDs to be sold as bootlegs; but honestly, I've never seen that happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
2: I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that both pirates and those who purchase are equally likely (or unlikely) to go see a show or buy a t-shirt. Besides, the comparison was not between pirates and paying customers, but pirates and record labels.
3: I've seen lots of bootleggers over the years. Flea markets or just downtown "shops" operating out of the back of vans. Quite common, from my experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I was drawing the comparison between pirates and paying customers (of CDs) to show where support comes from. Now, granted, I was giving a comparison to CD purchasers who don't go to shows and I know that there are those who do. The point I was making was that pirates are not about trying to defraud musicians and just get all they can for free.
I also wanted to illustrate that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'm supporting the artists more than the label is since all the money (or most, damned Ticket Master) goes to the artist, not the label. Simply put, artists see more money from us supporting pirates than from their own labels.
I guess I'm looking in the wrong place for bootlegs. :\ Maybe I can find a copy of the Rockula Soundtrack at a flea market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I'm reminded of work I used to do for Disney. It was 100% creator owned, financed by Disney. I met multiple people who told me they pirated the work rather than pay because Disney was taking advantage of artists such as myself. Well, that certainly was never true in my instance. I was very well paid for my work and was granted full rights to my work. It wasn't even an unusual contract. Many of my peers worked under the same conditions.
Every contract is different. Even a company with a reputation as negative as Disney can be held up as an example of a company who has respected and even championed artist rights. So justifying piracy because artists are suffering and exploited... it doesn't hold up under real-world scrutiny. Not as a hard rule. No artist is compelled to enter a contract that is unfair. And many corporations offer contracts that side in the favor of the artist.
How is the purchase of a t-shirt more support for a band than what the label provides? You're ignoring all the invisible benefits of corporate sponsorship, such as promotion, production, management and distribution. That's all in addition to the pennies per album. If you circumvent the label in favor of getting a small amount of money directly into the hands of the band, the label has no motivation for continuing all these aspects of support it potentially provides.
You might do better searching for the soundtrack at a comic convention. The larger ones usually have some well stocked bootleg booths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
And I still stand behind my belief of exploitation of artists... especially the fad-of-the-hour artists that the labels gloss-up and toss out for mass consumption. I don't like that music, so I don't buy or pirate it. But they are the uneducated (in the ways of business) artists that are suckered in by promises of fame & glory. I remember reading somewhere that artists were so indebted to the label when they first sign on and do their first album that they actually don't see a thing for sales for quite a while, and then it's only a trickle.
You can argue all you want about the added benefit of being promoted, but if all you're going to get is a pittance, what's the point? And if you're in it for the art, then why pay someone else to show your art? Just record it for yourself and your friends or play it at the coffee shop on the corner. Basically: if you sign with an artist, you expect to sell your wares. Under those traditional contracts, you didn't get paid much at all, while the label is raking in the lion’s share of the profit (yes, profit, not just gross sales). That’s exploitation in my book.
All of that is for CDs... between tickets and merchandise,
artists do make more money touring than they do from album sales.
Sorry if all that seems rushed, but I'm trying to get out the door and didn't want you to think your points weren't worth replying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I'm not saying artists aren't ever exploited. Just that it can be nearly impossible to tell who is being exploited by who and when. So if the decision to pirate is based off speculation of exploitation, there is a good chance that the decision has been made off a misunderstanding of the facts.
The value of promotion is massive. Worth far more than... well really any other aspect of the immediate equation. For right or wrong, the validation of a corporate backer can go very far with a percentage of potential fans. Sure, you may only get a small percentage of sales. But you earn something very difficult to purchase. As you go forward, you can use that validation when setting up your independent efforts and then reap very large rewards. This method has worked for many.
And the benefit isn't just the promotion. It's the value of having a professional marketing team behind you. The value of having distribution professionals behind you. These are services the artist benefits from that they would normally be unable to afford.
Regardless: The key point I was making was this: If record labels are exploiting artists by paying very little, what are pirates doing when they do not pay at all? Yes, maybe some of them support the band in some other fashion. But that certainly isn't true of each and every pirate. In fact, I highly doubt it is representative of the majority. You might feel differently, but neither of us is likely to have definitive facts to back up what percentage of pirates compensate in other ways.
But even lacking definitive numbers, I suspect we can agree on the argument that not all pirates find a way to compensate. So what about those people? How are their actions not worse than the actions of the labels? Labels pay something. Pirates who do not compensate... well... they don't compensate. Not at all. They just take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
But that's making the assumption that every pirated song is a missed sale, which is still under argument in my (and others) opinion. You're right thought, that we don't have the numbers to really look one way or another. All of the studies I've heard about are a bit slanted one way or another.
But my logic tells me that if 50% of pirates contribute more to the artist than their proportionate CD purchases would have netted the artists (which I think a few concert tickets and a bit of merchandise would do), that would pay the artist more than what the 100% of both contributory and non-contributory pirates' purchases of CDs would have netted.
So 1000 pirates: if 500 purchase tickets and merch, that would be more money to the artist than 1000 CD sales through legitimate channels. But that's my logic based on incomplete data, so I could be wrong.
I'm not arguing that non-contributing pirates don't help the artist, but I don't think they hurt them either. Unless you want to look at the "what they could have purchased", which I think is a bottomless argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Why is it false justification? If a person was never going to make a music purchase in the first place and streamed a song, the possible outcomes are 1. they still never purchase the song 2. they are so enchanted with the music that they become huge fans and eventually do purchase. The ultimate outcome is a creator (musician + label + distributor) who gets x% of a sale (x~Prob(#2)) versus one who never gets a sale, and in either case has incurred no additional cost that was not awarded with a profit margin.
Help me here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Moreover, I'm not even sure they're asking the right question. It seems a more common question is "how can we get people to stop 'stealing' our files" or "how can we get people to value our output*". If they want to make money, I don't think those questions should even come up.
* I think this is the one that keeps them from dropping their prices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
> were $1.00 then I would buy music because
> I could afford to build a collection."
Too bad Walmart stepped in, interfered and changed the landscape.
Now I can get a major studio movie for $5 on DVD.
Times continue to change even as some companies struggle to get current with 10 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I already pay a levy on CDs. The music industry owes me a lot for music I haven't downloaded or made a back-up of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So does this mean...
...brig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So does this mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So does this mean...
It happened sometime in their first year in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dead Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dead Web
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dead Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dead Web
Shhh!!! don't tell anyone at wired, its our little secret!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dead Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dead Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
end of the world
my life is in ruin...oh woooooo is me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice article, DH.
GRAY legal, now that, I've been guilty of for a very long time. Abandonware, fan-subbed anime, fan-made hacks of popular games (using the original artwork or game engine or both), . . . stuff that is technically covered by law, and is technically illegal, but very, very few companies will actually send out C&D's or prosecute anyone even if they ignore C&D's.
I wonder if we'll start seeing more activity from the companies on those fronts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice article, DH.
Although, on the flip side, Activision eventually allowed a fan-made sequel to King's Quest to move forward (though they had previously sent a C&D to the creators)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not Dead Like Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not Dead Like Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whew!
(Shut up, everyone!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grooveshark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grooveshark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YEAH, Piracy is dead!!!
Disband ICE (no more need to protect the labels)
Get rid of DRM (no one is copying so its just a wast of money)
Throw out ACTA
Get rid of three strikes policies
SHHHHH!! Let them believe it. What they dont know wont hurt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grooveshark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More excellent news!
Everything that has happened in 2010 demonstrates that piracy as you once knew it is indeed dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't really pirate music anymore
i occasionally find new stuff, but for the most part it's indie and i get it for free legally.
it's to the point now that i have to find new music to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I certainly hope piracy isn't dead
So, as an artist, I certainly hope it's not true. Better a million pirates and a thousand fans, than a thousand pirates and no fans.
You know who else doesn't want piracy to be dead? Labels and studios. Without piracy as a scapegoat, they'd have nobody to blame for their own failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free love is dead!
Prices today are so unbelievable! You still want free love? Frankly, I think you're just cheap.
/mmhmmright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.hydrogen-music.org/
Well actually I didn't forget I was called a thief, commie, freeloader, parasite, bloosucker and other things, I didn't forget how those people threated their fans and above all I didn't forget what copyright really is, so pardon me if I will not buy for any price what those people are trying to sell unless it has a open license on it. I will support good people those being the ones that make it for the love of it.
Recently CNN has put an article about garbage pickers in Brazil and what the women said at the end stuck with me.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/30/brazil.gramacho.landfill/index.html
The important thing is to keep working, not fighting. She is faced with a life changing situation, with the prospect of being left without a job and it is choosing to adapt instead of fight which would be costly is like nothing can break her spirit. I look at those artists claiming they will be ruined and all I see is weakness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did we get here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy will go down if:
1) All of the music/movies/games (or just the good ones) are sold DRM-free (or at least make it easy to make them DRM-free, like DVDs)
2) I'm able to buy media internationally (I'm looking at you, Japan-only albums and video game soundtracks).
3) They actually bother to distribute/sell the media instead of hiding it forever. (Video game soundtracks, old public-domain movies and shows, non public domain shows that people would actually watch, etc.)
4) NO OVERPRICED MEDIA ($20 hour-and-a-half movies with barely any decent bonus features and won't let me rip it DRM-free legally, I hate you)
The internet is here; there's no excuse to not release something anymore! And if something wouldn't sell well, price it lower than average; simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Record labels are never going to go away.
And the reason is that despite the fact that the internet provides another outlet for promotion, success on a large scale requires the effort of many. And artists are always going to want to reach and please the largest possible audience. Some things are simply done better by a team of people than an individual.
And artists will always be looking for a way to get a leg up on the competition when it comes to exposure. They'll look for help in doing so.
They'll look to record labels for that.
The music business is never going away. And neither are the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I do believe is that tech companies will step up and be the new bosses around, the old players your dear "labels" will cease to exist.
Can you say "Google Records"?
LoL
BTW Jamendo is another contender is a record label but it is modern, so I guess you are right record labels are not going away but there will be some new ones on the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Record labels are never going to go away.
My goodness are you ever good with the strawmen. I have never said that record labels would go away. In fact, I've argued *exactly the opposite*.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100811/18040910598.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/a rticles/20080318/173833576.shtml
It amazes me how desperate you are to directly misstate my argument over and over again.
And artists will always be looking for a way to get a leg up on the competition when it comes to exposure. They'll look for help in doing so.
Indeed. As they should and as I've said time and time again that they should.
They'll look to record labels for that.
Yes. That's been my point all along.
The music business is never going away. And neither are the labels.
Agreed. Now why do you think you're saying something that goes against what I've said. I've said the exact same thing for years.
And you wonder why people think you're a troll when you roll out so many strawmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What, exactly, have you ever contributed to art?
Convince us that you're not just another geek/nerd/hacker that believes the vessel is more important than the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yours however is based on the same mindless protect-our-monies blather that we hear from the recording industry trying to keep little plastic disks a form of currency.
All we ever hear from you is "You are so wrong LOLOL!!!1!11" while Mike actually takes a moment to explain his opinion with fact and case law.
So I ask you, please remind us again why anyone would give a flying fuck about how YOU think the business of music should be conducted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one has to, but many who have listened to me have ended up making a lot more money. Seems like a simple calculation. Meanwhile, last I checked, you were complaining about how the artists you worked with were losing money for listening to your strategy of whining.
So, I'm a bit confused as to why you would suggest listening to you makes more sense than listening to me.
What, exactly, have you ever contributed to art?
Art, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thought we weren't discussing art, but business. If you are just concerned about art, sir, you should be thrilled to note all the creativity going on around the world. If you're interested in business, then you should also be happy because, as we've highlighted, more musicians are making more money than ever before. Life is good if you just opened your eyes.
Convince us that you're not just another geek/nerd/hacker that believes the vessel is more important than the content.
Once again, you appear to have assigned to me beliefs I do not have. I have always said that the content has tremendous value. It's all a question of how you monetize it. I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeatedly resort to silly strawmen, rather than listening to what I actually say. It's as if you simply don't want to hear things. Very odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That made me think about the anonymous accusation again...
By insisting that the only legitimate distribution of content (especially music) be in the hands of the industries which produce CDs and DVDs etc... Doesn’t that mean that the recording industries and their supporters feel the vessel (distribution method) is more important than the content?
Trolling, logical fallacies, and a hypocrisy... HAT TRICK!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What, exactly, have you ever contributed to art?"
Ah, what exactly as the business of music ever contributed to art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He wanted them to "to change and adapt to the times"? You mean give up on fighting piracy and go out of business?
Ain't gonna happen.
Piracy as you knew it is over. Mike is the one that needs to evolve, adapt, and accept the way things are now and will be in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The web isn't dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy is Dead?
The issue of how much artists make under a label contract can be disputed, however it seems to me to be besides the point. If an inventor signs over his rights to a discovery for a modest sum to a corporate entity, and that entity later makes billions off of the inventor's discovery, does this suggest that infringing the corporation's patent is just? If the inventor would have it otherwise, he is free to invest the time and energy to market the invention independently, just as authors are free to do today. To me, the argument that record labels rip off artists is just another way to justify infringement. If you don't like the labels' business practices, simply obtain your music elsewhere. If consumers choose to buy independent music because the companies justly compensates artists, for example, major labels will be forced to strike deals more favorable to the artist to stay afloat. That, to me, represents true market forces at work.
And a larger point: many on this blog make a fairly straightforward argument: music and movies are only worth what people will pay in the market, the market is flooded with free copies, and thus, copyright owners and artists must be more thoughtful in delivering content to consumers. My issue is with the premise that the market is flooded with free copies, and the idea that it will necessarily be that way forever. As has been made quite clear in recent years/months, copyright owners are working to change this via laws, regulations, and lawsuits. We can debate the effectiveness of these attempts, but it seems far from clear that entrenched online piracy is a foregone conclusion that copyright owners must accept before they can become "innovative."
Moreover, I take issue with the idea that copyright owners can only do one thing at a time: fight piracy or come out with new and innovative products and marketing. Movie studios, publishers, and labels can innovate while simultaneously pursuing options to control the wholesale reproduction and distribution of their works. For those who claim they truly do not support copyright infringement, these attempts should not be met with hostility. Pursuing new ways to reach consumers and market ancillary products is certainly something that all copyright owners should endeavor to do. However, I don't see how protecting intellectual property is in any way in tension with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy is Dead?
To the overall global issue, perhaps. But I was discussing an article in which the author seems to tell everyone that one of the reasons you SHOULD buy music is because of all the wonderful ways that labels compensate creators....and that simply isn't true.
"My issue is with the premise that the market is flooded with free copies, and the idea that it will necessarily be that way forever."
It's the simple nature of the medium. When your customer can recreate your product at zero cost, you don't have anything to sell, unless you give them a reason to give you money for that infinite good. Digital reproduction is done at zero cost. What the labels are asking people to buy is digital reproduction. That simply doesn't make sense.
"For those who claim they truly do not support copyright infringement, these attempts should not be met with hostility."
The problem is that their strategies against pirates don't affect the pirates, and instead only encumber their actual customers. DRM is absolutely useless. And I mean TRULY useless, unless its goal is to annoy legimate purchasers. The question is one of effort vs. benefit, and there's little evidence to suggest that fighting "piracy" brings about a net benefit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy is Dead?
Have you seen any evidence that those efforts have found broad success in curbing infringement? I sure haven't. Nor have I seen any indication that they have anything in the pipeline that will be any more effective.
Movie studios, publishers, and labels can innovate while simultaneously pursuing options to control the wholesale reproduction and distribution of their works.
They can, yes. But generally they haven't been innovating very well and have been suing instead of competing, not in addition to it. For examples of lackluster innovation and suing competitors, see Hulu and Redbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could I missed this?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
number of seeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy is Illegal
A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]