Piracy killing music! - the industry's explanation for its increase in sales

singemonkey · 2011-01-10T20:13:34+00:00

Music industry "victims" blame reduced revenues on piracy. But sales are up. Is this the whole story? http://torrentfreak.com/more-music-sold-than-ever-before-despite-piracy-110110/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

blackie

I read biogs all the time. Biogs of old bands that toured and toured and toured and struggled and stole their meals and took forever to start moving units to speak of. The money they made from their shows got them through for years. Their album sales were supported by tours and fell off when they weren't supporting them with gigs. Legendary albums like Dark Side of the Moon and such were not overnight sensations and Floyd bust their bums gigging. If you can earn a passive income, you're set, but I don't think it's ever been easy or worth relying on at all.

singemonkey

This article is relevant to this debate and begins in some way to provide support for some of MIKA's propositions:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/management-secrets-of-the-grateful-dead/7918/

Skim through to where it begins: "Oddly enough, the Dead’s influence on the business world may turn out to be a significant part of its legacy. Without intending to—while intending, in fact, to do just the opposite—the band pioneered ideas and practices that were subsequently embraced by corporate America."

The dead used allowed music to support their music/community brand. They did not allow others to profit from their work. But they didn't stop fans from taping. They became one of the most commercially successful bands of all time while working through an entirely alternative business model.

Bob-Dubery

This is actually not what Mika was proposing, though it may be what he using as an excuse.

A key aspect here is that the Dead DECIDED to work this way. Their decision, their risk. What Mika and, not to pick just on him, other folks were arguing for paid no consideration whatsoever to the artist's wishes.

MIKA-the-better-one

All I think is, The artist yes may have his wishes, but with this new technology its no longer in the artists hands... the artist has ownership, so yes he can call up on thats nazi party who uses his songs and say you cant do that (an thay cant) but to stop the peer to peer, downloading and exchange of music :-\ its no longer in the artists hands.
Its like me driving a car and saying this is my car, and its my wish to have no own look at it when i park it.... people are going to look at it, so have to accept that. IF this is right or not no matter how enthusiastic I am about it its a part of my reality that they will.

unless you keep your elbum/ music to a select few, who you trust to not upload it ( which is never th case) it will nd up being distributed.... And as I mentioned I am ok with it, maybe its because I have grown up with it like this... I dont know

Warren

MIKA the better one wrote All I think is, The artist yes may have his wishes, but with this new technology its no longer in the artists hands... the artist has ownership, so yes he can call up on thats nazi party who uses his songs and say you cant do that (an thay cant) but to stop the peer to peer, downloading and exchange of music :-\ its no longer in the artists hands.
Its like me driving a car and saying this is my car, and its my wish to have no own look at it when i park it.... people are going to look at it, so have to accept that. IF this is right or not no matter how enthusiastic I am about it its a part of my reality that they will.

unless you keep your elbum/ music to a select few, who you trust to not upload it ( which is never th case) it will nd up being distributed.... And as I mentioned I am ok with it, maybe its because I have grown up with it like this... I dont know

And I must say, this entire post I agree with (and can understand in full). ?

The technology is here to stay, and it's GOOD technology. Being anti-piracy doesn't mean being anti-technology. I can now upload some music and people everywhere can listen to it. You used to have to sell your unborn child's soul to a guy in a suit for that kind of exposure, once upon a time. I really love what technology offers the Joe Average musician who doesn't fill a stadium and who doesn't have a contract.

However, let's take the Arctic Monkeys, whom you cited as an example earlier:

They built their fan base on digital distributions (note: fan-base, not market - yet). At some point a LOT of people had listened to and decided they liked their stuff, and at some point a whole bunch of those people went out and BOUGHT their music (assumingly a lot of the people who already had some of it in some form or another) making them the fastest selling UK band of all time so far.

So good for them, they embraced the technology and it has worked for them, but how would they have been successful if at least SOME people hadn't decided that their music was worth paying for? And, interestingly, why would people who may already have downloaded their stuff, gone and spent money on the album?

[deleted]

Appreciation of music has moved further an further away from the actual artist. People have to buy sound systems and have the technology to download music in the first place. I can see why people feel justified in listening to music they haven't paid for. To me it seems like they're meeting the musicians half way, as opposed to a concert, where it's all coming from the musicians all the audience needs are ears. So it's a little give and take and artists must weigh up the cons as well as the pros of having an audience that is much more accessible.

bassmanwa

Hi the only thing getting killed by piracy are cd sales, still if music download sites let you purchase at a low cost for singels and albums and allowed them to have no restrictions as to what you can play them it would be helpful to encourage people to purchase, like Amazon music, but of course they only sell in the US, if you want to see a good idea how to get free music not rubbish and good quality and artists are still getting paid visit www.guvera.com this something you can pass on to anybody because artists do get paid - Enjoy ?

Bob-Dubery

Paying for MP3s that you can download from a reputable site isn't actually piracy. The artist still profits from these sales.

Piracy deprives people of income.

DonovanB

bassmanwa wrote Hi the only thing getting killed by piracy are cd sales, still if music download sites let you purchase at a low cost for singels and albums and allowed them to have no restrictions as to what you can play them it would be helpful to encourage people to purchase, like Amazon music, but of course they only sell in the US, if you want to see a good idea how to get free music not rubbish and good quality and artists are still getting paid visit www.guvera.com this something you can pass on to anybody because artists do get paid - Enjoy ?

1. Punctuation is our friend.
2. The Terms of that site state

YOU AFFIRM THAT YOU ARE RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND THAT YOU WILL ONLY ACCESS THE WEBSITE THROUGH AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU ARE NOT USING A PROXY SERVER AND THAT YOU ARE NOT ACCESSING THE WEBSITE THROUGH AN AUXILIARY COMPUTER WHICH IS INTENDED TO DECEIVE YOUR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.

IOW , only Americans..

Then it goes further to say

THE EVALUATION MATERIAL WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT USE, DUPLICATE OR DISCLOSE, OR PERMIT THE USE, DUPLICATION OR DISCLOSURE OF, ANY OF THE EVALUATION MATERIAL IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER

then

IN ADDITION, YOU AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT DISCLOSE TO ANY PERSON (OTHER THAN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF GUVERA WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO YOU) THE FACT THAT THE EVALUATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU

and if you want to leave the "Trial"

YOU WILL PROMPTLY DELIVER TO SUCH AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL OF GUVERA OR CERTIFY DESTRUCTION OF ALL EVALUATION MATERIAL (AND ALL COPIES THEREOF)

Also note

Subject to the rules and limitations set forth in the Terms and Conditions, you are granted a limited, non-sublicensable right to access the Website, the Content and the Software for your personal non-commercial use only (and not for redistribution or transfer of any kind)

What does that all mean? You don't get it to own, you can't "share" it and someone else is in control. In fact, it seems even worse than buying a single off Ovi or iTunes.

Bob-Dubery

MIKA the better one wrote All I think is, The artist yes may have his wishes, but with this new technology its no longer in the artists hands... the artist has ownership, so yes he can call up on thats nazi party who uses his songs and say you cant do that (an thay cant) but to stop the peer to peer, downloading and exchange of music :-\ its no longer in the artists hands.
Its like me driving a car and saying this is my car, and its my wish to have no own look at it when i park it.... people are going to look at it, so have to accept that. IF this is right or not no matter how enthusiastic I am about it its a part of my reality that they will.

That's a complete load of bollocks! Looking at your car deprives you of nothing and doesn't damage anybody's sales.

People who insist on their rightful return for the sweat of their brow are not Nazis.

Interesting that your stand doesn't have any moral component at all. It amounts to "well they can't control it so they must live with it." No motivation along the lines of this is right or this is wrong or I believe... it's just "this happens" with no consideration as to whatever it is that happens is desirable or ethical or what it's consequences are likely to be.

Burglary happens.

MIKA-the-better-one

X-rated Bob wrote
MIKA the better one wrote All I think is, The artist yes may have his wishes, but with this new technology its no longer in the artists hands... the artist has ownership, so yes he can call up on thats nazi party who uses his songs and say you cant do that (an thay cant) but to stop the peer to peer, downloading and exchange of music :-\ its no longer in the artists hands.
Its like me driving a car and saying this is my car, and its my wish to have no own look at it when i park it.... people are going to look at it, so have to accept that. IF this is right or not no matter how enthusiastic I am about it its a part of my reality that they will.
That's a complete load of bollocks! Looking at your car deprives you of nothing and doesn't damage anybody's sales.

People who insist on their rightful return for the sweat of their brow are not Nazis.

Interesting that your stand doesn't have any moral component at all. It amounts to "well they can't control it so they must live with it." No motivation along the lines of this is right or this is wrong or I believe... it's just "this happens" with no consideration as to whatever it is that happens is desirable or ethical or what it's consequences are likely to be.

Burglary happens.

But you dont deny its no longer in the hands of the artist, once you distribute once to one person there is the potential and most likelyhood of it being past on.. I look at it as being there once was a viable industry where now through change there is no longer an industry.
Consider if I got paid everytime someone saw my car, but then one day no one wanted to pay anymore because well everyone could look at it all the time free of paying... I cant hold it against them, its a change and now I have to find a new way to make money. I know its a bit of a weird way of showing my point but maybe you get it...
Ethically, I dont really want to get into because we will both get annoyed, angry and out of hand, there is no way to argue ethics unless you want to get into a full philosphical row.... In short I think ethics are relative, and change with experience, and individual, so whats ethically moral to you is far different to me... Further I think at certain points certain things change ethical status... And I bet you dont like where that is going so I will stop there....

Jack-Flash-Jr

Maybe this will help decide the morality:
The Veil of Ignorance: The veil of ignorance and original position are concepts introduced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.[1][2] It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind the veil of ignorance, one does not know what role they will be reassigned. Only then can one truly consider the morality of an issue. For example, whites in the southern United States, pre-Civil War, did indeed condone slavery, but they most likely would not have done so had there been a re-fashioning of society so that they would not know whether they would be the ones enslaved. An important feature of this thought experiment is that one doesn't get to keep any aspects of their current role, even aspects that are an integral part of their self. As put by John Rawls himself ..."no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like" (Rawls, A Theory of Justice). For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, this theory encourages thinking about society from the perspective of all members.

Now... the interesting part is that Mika, as much I know about him, appears to be in more or less the position that one would imagine in the thought experiment...

MIKA-the-better-one

? Yes the Veil of Ignorance applies here, its a fairly decent way to work out morals... It will help you route out the oppressed in a sense... And then decide if it is fair treatment... Sadly I think its obvious when I apply it, which end of the fence I come out on in this issue ?

Bob-Dubery

The veil of ignorance! Never heard of it before and I thank you for revealing to to me here. It's a crystallisation of something I've been bouncing around in my mind for a while now.

It forces you to ask the questions that several participants in this thread are avoiding. What if it were me?. What if everybody did that?

DonovanB

Nice Jack.

Funny enough, As much as I hate the idea of piracy, the consumer still wants free music.

A while back I resigned myself to finding a solution to this problem. I might just have one but it needs some experimentation which I intend to do with Stereo In Flight. Finding the balance between something being free, yet still paid for is the trick.

That is without a hectic gigging schedule. I have a family, the second son is on the way very soon and I don't want to spend months and months away from them. I want to make music, and money from it so I'm trying to adapt to the environment.

But I can't condone anyone copying my music for nothing.
I ran a short survey on my blog.
10% said they don't want to pay for music.
30% each said they'd pay R6, R10 and R20 for a single song.

I have Stratisfear to thank for this link.

Mika I have to ask the question, if you were to love a band, would you not be willing to support them financially so they can continue to play and make music, instead of having to "get a real job" and stop?

Bob-Dubery

MIKA the better one wrote
X-rated Bob wrote Interesting that your stand doesn't have any moral component at all. It amounts to "well they can't control it so they must live with it." No motivation along the lines of this is right or this is wrong or I believe... it's just "this happens" with no consideration as to whatever it is that happens is desirable or ethical or what it's consequences are likely to be.

Burglary happens.

But you dont deny its no longer in the hands of the artist, once you distribute once to one person there is the potential and most likelyhood of it being past on..

Did you see my reference to burglary? I am saying that just because something happens doesn't mean it's desirable or that it justifies what we ourselves do.

Jack-Flash-Jr

X-rated Bob wrote The veil of ignorance! Never heard of it before and I thank you for revealing to to me here. It's a crystallisation of something I've been bouncing around in my mind for a while now.

It forces you to ask the questions that several participants in this thread are avoiding. What if it were me?. What if everybody did that?

I think it is incredibly difficult to ignore one's own personality when attempting this... I can't rid myself of the feeling of being flattered people want to listen to my music, pirates or no ?

doc-phil

Interesting to see John Rawls being brought up. It must be remembered though that his philosophies were largely refuted by Robert Nozick. Nozick argued that placing society behind a veil of ignorance is an artificial exercise - all proper theories of justice are historically contingent and should be found in specific economic, political or social contexts.

People will never be seperated from the knowledge of their position in society so nothing would be achieved by pretending that everyone existed behind a veil of ignorance - I therefore believe moral issues cannot be decided in this way ?

I think Nozick's views are more relevant - i.e. the example using Wilt Chamberlain, the NBA basketball player: every person should be able to exploit his/her talents in order to maximise their personal gain. If an artist truly is good enough, they would be able to use their talents to generate their own wealth without the help of the record companies. This is more realistic in todays music industry than it was say, 20 years ago.

RobK

Donovan Banks wrote Nice Jack.

Funny enough, As much as I hate the idea of piracy, the consumer still wants free music.

A while back I resigned myself to finding a solution to this problem. I might just have one but it needs some experimentation which I intend to do with Stereo In Flight. Finding the balance between something being free, yet still paid for is the trick.

That is without a hectic gigging schedule. I have a family, the second son is on the way very soon and I don't want to spend months and months away from them. I want to make music, and money from it so I'm trying to adapt to the environment.

But I can't condone anyone copying my music for nothing.
I ran a short survey on my blog.
10% said they don't want to pay for music.
30% each said they'd pay R6, R10 and R20 for a single song.

I have Stratisfear to thank for this link.

Mika I have to ask the question, if you were to love a band, would you not be willing to support them financially so they can continue to play and make music, instead of having to "get a real job" and stop?

I'm one of those consumers that doesn't expect anything for free, including music. As far as I'm concerned, if music is your chosen profession, you should be paid for the work you do, and I have no problem paying for it, if I want a copy of it. No difference to hiring an electrician or a plumber to do some work on your house, as far as I'm concerned.

What I don't like doing is having to buy a full album with only 1 or two tracks that I like. To me that is a waste of money, but I still won't just go download the track I want for free. I'll rather go without - I don't do the piracy/file sharing thing. That's why I like services like Ovi and iTunes and other legit online music stores. They allow me to choose the tracks I want and pay for them. Keeps my conscience clear and the musician gets paid for their work. I think that's fair.

MIKA-the-better-one

Donovan Banks wrote
Mika I have to ask the question, if you were to love a band, would you not be willing to support them financially so they can continue to play and make music, instead of having to "get a real job" and stop?

I know there are alot of posts here but if you read back I certainly do support artists I deem worthy...... I recently went out and bought the Blk Jks album, even though I had a downloaded version, I also went out and bought a number of Radiohead albums, At the Drive in, As well as many more which I already own on my computer...... DVD's etc.....

I am also certaqin I am not the only one doing this, luckly for artists people still want a bit of memorabilia in physical form. And when concerned with selling a Cd via the internet, its not unheard of to sell it for a few rand a song.... the joys of being a super small band are your Cd is not big enough to find and copy, thus the only place you can find it is places where it is sold... but copying still happens. for example if i get a Cd the rets of my band probably gets it to because I am so excited for them to listen to it.

X-rated Bob wrote Did you see my reference to burglary? I am saying that just because something happens doesn't mean it's desirable or that it justifies what we ourselves do.

Yeh I saw your referance to burglary, and yes burglary is bad... but that ties back to, the situation, and because of it burglary is still ethically wrong..... the situation with music is fast changing whereby ethically it can be justified... It has almost got to the point in the USA where internet is free, accesable to anyone anywhere.... when the internet started there were profits to be made of it, slowly it became available to more people (legally or non legally) (burglary as you call it) and what happened was the business scheme changed to still include profit.
There may have been a product before whereby now you can say it has been cheapened, and value removed (fast on its way) this will trouble many as its a sense of theft of their livelyhood, but its simply evolution of a product.
I am sure there was once a time where GFSA could have charged R100 per year to be a part of, but htat is not a liable idea anymore, its lost its worth in those respects.

« Previous Page Next Page »