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

Warren

Jericho wrote
So, according to you, IP is not comparable to physical property....but file sharing is stealing?!? Stealing is a physical action. That is the point I am making and one that you just confirmed . The legality is a separate issue.

Stealing is a physical action? This is a very strange thing to say, and it shows that you don't understand the concept of IP at all. ???

In modern life stealing takes many forms, lots of them not even closely resembling a physical action like stealing a car. Embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion, piracy etc. Lots of these activities involve moving bits and bytes around in a computer system somewhere, which is not even remotely like stealing your neighbour's jet-ski. But at some level it always comes down to not paying for something you were supposed to pay for, which is just theft by another name.

Legality can't be a separate issue to stealing either, because it's our legal framework that defines what is stealing and what is not. Piracy is, for me, a "small" crime, on an individual level. That one file you copied isn't nearly as big a deal as the Ferrari you're mate just nicked. Even the law bears this out: your mate will get jailed, and you will pay some sort of fine, if both of you were caught. But both are still stealing, and both are still illegal.

As for entitlement, we're all entitled to honest pay for honest work, thanks very much. People ARE obliged to pay for music if they listen to it (this isn't even debatable), regardless of their subjective feelings as to its value. It's the law. And the law is there to ALLOW people who make the music to continue making the music.

singemonkey

It's not theft. It's something else. Consider this.

After 100 years it becomes ok to steal that diamond ring. Does that make sense? Then why is their a expiry date for copyright if it's also theft?

I'm not arguing it's ok. I'm arguing that calling it something it isn't is propaganda, plain and simple.

Sean

singemonkey wrote It's not theft. It's something else. Consider this.

After 100 years it becomes ok to steal that diamond ring. Does that make sense? Then why is their a expiry date for copyright if it's also theft?

I'm not arguing it's ok. I'm arguing that calling it something it isn't is propaganda, plain and simple.

This is interesting. If it's not theft, but it's wrong...then why is it wrong?

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote This is important. While we can surely say that this passing on of a copy represents someone's work being duplicated with restitution, it is not the same as theft. Even if it is wrong. For the reason that Jericho points out, the two are not equivalent. How wrong it is is another story. But it is gross propaganda to claim that they are identical.

It not being identical to the theft of a physical item does not make it kosher either.

The "intellectual property" BS is an extension of copyright which itself was an invention of the printing guilds to monopolise their industry. It's not a wrong that's been acknowledged as wrong by people universally for all time. It's recent. Monks used to copy books without giving a half thought to remunerating the authors. Nobody imagined that that was wrong.

THe idea, generally, is that laws evolve over time to cater for things that weren't foreseen at the time the original law was written, and that we move towards a better society. Just because something was so a millenium ago doesn't mean that it's OK and inarguable. The world is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

In the case of books several things changed. The printing press came along, the populace grew more literate, books started to be used other than in purely academic ways. Now it's gone a step further because you don't have to physically print a book on paper to reproduce it. So laws change. They may not be ideal, but then there should be debate and change arising from the debate - or recognition that the current system isn't perfect but there's no practical way to improve.

I might agree that things need to change, but helping yourself is not a moral way to bring about that change. A boycott would be, but I think we want our bread buttered on both sides here.

singemonkey

Sean wrote This is interesting. If it's not theft, but it's wrong...then why is it wrong?

That's the tricky part. If you leave out the BS about theft, you start having to actually think. We believe certain stuff about this "intellectual property." We assume the creators should benefit from producing it. We assume that they shouldn't have a monopoly on it in perpetuity (making the right of heirs to benefit slightly questionable - although I believe that they should). Setting the boundaries is hard because it's a new problem.

It's clear enough to us that if you could duplicate cars leaving the original with its owner that we would be appalled if they were given an equivalent sentence to someone who took the owners car away (stole it). All of us would, I think, acknowledge that. So it has different parameters to theft.

Warren

singemonkey wrote
This is important. While we can surely say that this passing on of a copy represents someone's work being duplicated with restitution, it is not the same as theft. Even if it is wrong. For the reason that Jericho points out, the two are not equivalent. How wrong it is is another story. But it is gross propaganda to claim that they are identical.

The "intellectual property" BS is an extension of copyright which itself was an invention of the printing guilds to monopolise their industry. It's not a wrong that's been acknowledged as wrong by people universally for all time. It's recent. Monks used to copy books without giving a half thought to remunerating the authors. Nobody imagined that that was wrong.

Extending "intellectual property" concepts beyond the written word is far more recent still - and can easily be seen as corporate manipulation of the law through lobbying. As we've argued before, in countries in which these laws are less strict, innovation is unaffected. People still feel the need to create new things with the full knowledge that they will be duplicated.

While piracy is essentially wrong at heart for not remunerating the creators, this continual extension of "intellectual property" rights is more dangerous still and should be treated with extreme suspicion. We should not just be swallowing corporate propaganda here. Thank heavens the idea is so recent. Had it not been, there's no way on earth public libraries would have got off the ground. Imagine if they didn't exist. Imagine that publishers would allow it now?

IP BS? What alternative is there currently to protect the ideas which are yours? And why would an inventor, a software engineer or a musician pour their lives into a product if everybody else in the world could simply rip it off for free? Yes, there are a few who will always progress for the sake of it, or in spite of money, but the majority of us would like to get paid for our work.

I have some ideas for a piece of software which I've been working on, but I wouldn't bother if I knew the idea could just be snatched up by some larger development house and sold without any compensation to me at all. That's just not fair. I don't expect to become rich, but if it was my idea in the first place I don't see why I should have to sit back and watch somebody else make money with it.

You can't compare monks copying scripts to authors plying their trade in the modern day, sorry. Monks had a different motivation altogether. The modern writer invested time, money and energy into a career, and he quite reasonably expects a return on that investment if people like his work and enjoy reading it.

IP is certainly not perfect, but the concept itself is a good one from the perspective of the artist/writer/muso/whatever.

Jericho

X-rated Bob wroteIt ALWAYS costs somebody money to make the files that we think we are entitled to download for free.

I have not denied this. I have repeatedly said, the initial recording costs money. The subsequent copies do not cost that much (if anythi)ng. Therefore, the most to be recovered is the initial cost and any marginal cost in producing the subsequent copies. Anything higher invites competion to take advantage for that overpricing. Nowhere have I said people are entitled to download for free. But plenty of people have said musicians are entiled to payment....perhaps that should be a concern?

X-rated Bob wroteI know that it cost somebody money to make Justin Bieber's CDs. Saying that it has no value to me therefore it has no absolute value is self-serving and false. I personally am not going to pay money for his CDs, MP3s etc but that doesn't mean they have no value..

Again, nowhere have I said that just becasuse something is not valuable to me means it of itself has no value. I have said, value is a personal issue. People pay for what they value. Which you just agreed with.

X-rated Bob wroteAnd you know, the thing that bugs me most about this whole argument is that we are having the presumption to make the decision that the artist or the owner of the recording should be making. It's not ours to give away. We can decline to buy it if it's not attractive to us, if we think that it's injurious to society or a not in the public interest we might even campaign to get it banned or to have it's sales restricted, but it's not for us to say "hey! That should be given away and so anybody can take it for free." ...

I'm not saying it should be given away for free. The artist is definitely not saying that. The market is. If you put out a CD that retails for R200 and there is an option to acquire that record for free, free is going to win. The legality of the free option is irrelevant. It is there. It is competition whether you like it or not. You need to compete with it and give people a reason to buy.

X-rated Bob wroteI have a CD that I have made, and I think it is worth X rand. If you don't like it, then don't have anything to do with it. If you think it's OK but overpriced then state that you'll buy it at a lower price and decline to buy it until it's at a price that you deem fair..

Are pirates not stating that? They'll buy at a price they deem fair. Which just happens to be a lot lower than your price.

X-rated Bob wroteJust helping yourself, without having the decency to ask the owner, is not on.

That is very true. However, we shouldn't include issues of morality in a business model discussion. Selling guns, that's just not on. Yet lots of money is made by arms companies. The morality is a completely separate issue.

X-rated Bob wroteIrrelevant. Nothing that you buy is sold at the cost of it's constituent products.

I know that. The issue is how far above the costs of its constituent parts the market willing to go. Turns out lots of people are not willing to go too high above that.

X-rated Bob wroteSingemonkey has something that he should have paid for and paid nothing for it - and without the owner's consent. If the owner says "go ahead and make as many copies as you want and give them to whoever you want by any medium you like" then OK. If the owner says "You can pay for this track for your own use but you cannot redistribute because that hurts my profits" then that's a very different matter.

Again, the point I'm making has not been proved wrong. Singemonkey has acquired a copy of the file and owner still has his. That is not stealing.

MIKA-the-better-one

It basically is happening..... I agree that it may be a bit of a awkward situation for artists who seemed to htink there Cd's were worth something....... But as mentioned musicians need to gig live, and your CD is like a little advert for the real thing.....

The fact is there are lots of bands who have formed around this new situation in the USA and Europe, loads of small record companies, loads of small blogs which air upload MP3's....... if you like a band enough you will go get there album from Itunes for $5.00 or somehting, or go see them live.

Basically the music industry is fast on its way to moving on. Real music enthusiasts will still by Vinyle, or maybe in Cd's, if they really like it.

The truth is, the song does belong to the artist.. but thats not the product that everyone assumes you sell, or has all the value, its rather the band.

singemonkey

X-rated Bob wrote
singemonkey wrote This is important. While we can surely say that this passing on of a copy represents someone's work being duplicated with restitution, it is not the same as theft. Even if it is wrong. For the reason that Jericho points out, the two are not equivalent. How wrong it is is another story. But it is gross propaganda to claim that they are identical.
It not being identical to the theft of a physical item does not make it kosher either.

Agreed. As I mentioned. But it means that calling it theft is going to lead us to unsupportable conclusions. And therefore we should leave calling it theft to corporates and their self-serving lies.

The "intellectual property" BS is an extension of copyright which itself was an invention of the printing guilds to monopolise their industry. It's not a wrong that's been acknowledged as wrong by people universally for all time. It's recent. Monks used to copy books without giving a half thought to remunerating the authors. Nobody imagined that that was wrong.
THe idea, generally, is that laws evolve over time to cater for things that weren't foreseen at the time the original law was written, and that we move towards a better society. Just because something was so a millenium ago doesn't mean that it's OK and inarguable. The world is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

In the case of books several things changed. The printing press came along, the populace grew more literate, books started to be used other than in purely academic ways. Now it's gone a step further because you don't have to physically print a book on paper to reproduce it. So laws change. They may not be ideal, but then there should be debate and change arising from the debate - or recognition that the current system isn't perfect but there's no practical way to improve.

I might agree that things need to change, but helping yourself is not a moral way to bring about that change. A boycott would be, but I think we want our bread buttered on both sides here.

Again. I agree that piracy is not morally neutral. But let's be clear on what I meant about the copyright laws. If it was ok for a monk to copy a book for free - how does it become wrong when there are more books? It was ok for the monk to make one copy without paying the author, but it's not ok for me because the book was printed?

The reality is it was the printers themselves who came up with the idea - because they stood to benefit, not to benefit the author.

It's all a lot less clear than the propagandists would have us believe.

MIKA-the-better-one

Bob-Dubery

MIKA the better one wrote
X-rated Bob wrote Singemonkey has something that he should have paid for and paid nothing for it - and without the owner's consent. If the owner says "go ahead and make as many copies as you want and give them to whoever you want by any medium you like" then OK. If the owner says "You can pay for this track for your own use but you cannot redistribute because that hurts my profits" then that's a very different matter.

I think the way to solve this puzzle is to start from the beginning. How does the recording happen. How much does that cost? Who owns the various copyrights and work forwards from there. Starting from the end, working backwards and eliminating whatever is not convenient is never valid or conclusive.

So when I BUY a CD does this mean I cannot show my wife??? cuz technically i payed for it.. she didnt she better get her own copy......

No. It means you may not use it to make a profit without giving consideration to the owners and obtaining their permission. That would include unilaterally deciding to copy and give it away, because the recipients don't pay and therefore have received value.

This goes beyond mere profits BTW. It means that if I want to use your song to market some item that you do not wish to be associated with then you can refuse permission. Or that if I want to use your song to market some item that you don't have an issue with but where your song contributes to my profits then you are entitled to a share of the action.

It means that you can tell a politician whose policies that you abhor that s/he cannot use your song at their rallies.

singemonkey

Warren wrote
You can't compare monks copying scripts to authors plying their trade in the modern day, sorry. Monks had a different motivation altogether. The modern writer invested time, money and energy into a career, and he quite reasonably expects a return on that investment if people like his work and enjoy reading it.

IP is certainly not perfect, but the concept itself is a good one from the perspective of the artist/writer/muso/whatever.

Are you actually saying that medieval authors didn't put time, money, and energy into writing their works?

I agree that some form of protection is needed, if out of gratitude to creators if nothing else. But the entire agenda here has been set by distributors, not creators, in order to monopolise creations. As a result there's a lot of rubbish that has been accepted as morally clear that really isn't.

IceCreamMan

MIKA the better one wrote Put thousand into an album, thats a bands decision/ artist..... also they should know in the current climate the way you make that back is via TOURING..... you cant make an album now and go "hey we made an album we are gonna make this back just because people are gonna buy it"......... An album is no more than a promo tool these days when you really sum it up ....... thats the truth.. no matter what your choice is..........

why not just sneak into the show , u make promotoers rich by going to a concert .....

Contrary to belief muscicians do make money fromn record sales as do song writers ,producers and record companies ....its their reimbursement for the risk they take.

CD's make money ....Musica will attest to that.

singemonkey

IceCreamMan wrote
MIKA the better one wrote Put thousand into an album, thats a bands decision/ artist..... also they should know in the current climate the way you make that back is via TOURING..... you cant make an album now and go "hey we made an album we are gonna make this back just because people are gonna buy it"......... An album is no more than a promo tool these days when you really sum it up ....... thats the truth.. no matter what your choice is..........

why not just sneak into the show , u make promotoers rich by going to a concert .....

Contrary to belief muscicians do make money fromn record sales as do song writers ,producers and record companies ....its their reimbursement for the risk they take.

CD's make money ....Musica will attest to that.

They take too much based on the fact that historically they owned the studios and the distribution. Those things are now completely affordable to the band itself and are not a great offer - not enough to take the cuts they do (>50% - actually almost always >80%). As to the marketing, they used to do that because they sold the records and knew the record store scene. Now any marketing company can do the work.

Jericho

X-rated Bob wrote
MIKA the better one wrote
X-rated Bob wrote Singemonkey has something that he should have paid for and paid nothing for it - and without the owner's consent. If the owner says "go ahead and make as many copies as you want and give them to whoever you want by any medium you like" then OK. If the owner says "You can pay for this track for your own use but you cannot redistribute because that hurts my profits" then that's a very different matter.

I think the way to solve this puzzle is to start from the beginning. How does the recording happen. How much does that cost? Who owns the various copyrights and work forwards from there. Starting from the end, working backwards and eliminating whatever is not convenient is never valid or conclusive.

So when I BUY a CD does this mean I cannot show my wife??? cuz technically i payed for it.. she didnt she better get her own copy......
No. It means you may not use it to make a profit without giving consideration to the owners and obtaining their permission. That would include unilaterally deciding to copy and give it away, because the recipients don't pay and therefore have received value.

You listen to music on the radio for free. You dont pay for it. How is that different?

Bob-Dubery

Jericho wrote
X-rated Bob wroteIt ALWAYS costs somebody money to make the files that we think we are entitled to download for free.
I have not denied this. I have repeatedly said, the initial recording costs money. The subsequent copies do not cost that much (if anythi)ng. Therefore, the most to be recovered is the initial cost and any marginal cost in producing the subsequent copies. Anything higher invites competion to take advantage for that overpricing. Nowhere have I said people are entitled to download for free. But plenty of people have said musicians are entiled to payment....perhaps that should be a concern?

X-rated Bob wroteI know that it cost somebody money to make Justin Bieber's CDs. Saying that it has no value to me therefore it has no absolute value is self-serving and false. I personally am not going to pay money for his CDs, MP3s etc but that doesn't mean they have no value..
Again, nowhere have I said that just becasuse something is not valuable to me means it of itself has no value. I have said, value is a personal issue. People pay for what they value. Which you just agreed with.

X-rated Bob wroteAnd you know, the thing that bugs me most about this whole argument is that we are having the presumption to make the decision that the artist or the owner of the recording should be making. It's not ours to give away. We can decline to buy it if it's not attractive to us, if we think that it's injurious to society or a not in the public interest we might even campaign to get it banned or to have it's sales restricted, but it's not for us to say "hey! That should be given away and so anybody can take it for free." ...
I'm not saying it should be given away for free. The artist is definitely not saying that. The market is. If you put out a CD that retails for R200 and there is an option to acquire that record for free, free is going to win. The legality of the free option is irrelevant. It is there. It is competition whether you like it or not. You need to compete with it and give people a reason to buy.

I can't accept that. After all there is always, in any country, an option to paying the asking price for a car. If I think something is too expensive then I'm entitled to not buy it. I am not entited to just help myself.

X-rated Bob wroteI have a CD that I have made, and I think it is worth X rand. If you don't like it, then don't have anything to do with it. If you think it's OK but overpriced then state that you'll buy it at a lower price and decline to buy it until it's at a price that you deem fair..
Are pirates not stating that? They'll buy at a price they deem fair. Which just happens to be a lot lower than your price.
[/quotes]
Pirates should not enter into the equation. You say to me "I think X is too much". I say "OK then... X-1" and we shake hands or continue haggling. The pirate has no stake, no risk, no claim at all to ownership and they are dealing in something that's not theirs. Full stop.

X-rated Bob wroteIrrelevant. Nothing that you buy is sold at the cost of it's constituent products.
I know that. The issue is how far above the costs of its constituent parts the market willing to go. Turns out lots of people are not willing to go too high above that.

Then let them not buy at all. That will send a message. As I said elsewhere, a boycott is one thing, helping yourself (which is the alternative you are proposing and trying to defend) is quite another.

X-rated Bob wroteSingemonkey has something that he should have paid for and paid nothing for it - and without the owner's consent. If the owner says "go ahead and make as many copies as you want and give them to whoever you want by any medium you like" then OK. If the owner says "You can pay for this track for your own use but you cannot redistribute because that hurts my profits" then that's a very different matter.

Again, the point I'm making has not been proved wrong. Singemonkey has acquired a copy of the file and owner still has his. That is not stealing.

[/quote]
Then please answer my questions about the digital master files of your recording and the song you wrote down on a napkin.

IceCreamMan

Jericho wrote
X-rated Bob wrote
MIKA the better one wrote
X-rated Bob wrote Singemonkey has something that he should have paid for and paid nothing for it - and without the owner's consent. If the owner says "go ahead and make as many copies as you want and give them to whoever you want by any medium you like" then OK. If the owner says "You can pay for this track for your own use but you cannot redistribute because that hurts my profits" then that's a very different matter.

I think the way to solve this puzzle is to start from the beginning. How does the recording happen. How much does that cost? Who owns the various copyrights and work forwards from there. Starting from the end, working backwards and eliminating whatever is not convenient is never valid or conclusive.

So when I BUY a CD does this mean I cannot show my wife??? cuz technically i payed for it.. she didnt she better get her own copy......
No. It means you may not use it to make a profit without giving consideration to the owners and obtaining their permission. That would include unilaterally deciding to copy and give it away, because the recipients don't pay and therefore have received value.
You listen to music on the radio for free. You dont pay for it. How is that different?

Radio stations pay for the right to play the file

and it aint free, after the song the same radio station plays an advert ... u pay in time listening to the advert ...there is a cost

RobK

Jericho wrote
I have repeatedly said, the initial recording costs money. The subsequent copies do not cost that much (if anythi)ng. Therefore, the most to be recovered is the initial cost and any marginal cost in producing the subsequent copies.

So, how would the cost of the original recording be recovered? If a copy costs nothing, then they should be free, right? So if the original recording cost you R20 000, then you sell the original at R20 000 to recover the cost and give away the copies? Or do you make 20 000 copies and sell them for R1 each? To me the second way seems like a lot easier way to recover your cost.

A simple example, I know, but I think I got my point accross ?

Bob-Dubery

MIKA the better one wrote It basically is happening..... I agree that it may be a bit of a awkward situation for artists who seemed to htink there Cd's were worth something....... But as mentioned musicians need to gig live, and your CD is like a little advert for the real thing.....

Says who? That's the artist's decision to make. The Beatles gave up touring completely - partly because they didn't want to be constrained by having to record music that they could reproduce live.

Your attitude takes the choice away from the creators of the work. It's THEIR decision to make.

Jericho

Warren wroteAnd why would an inventor, a software engineer or a musician pour their lives into a product if everybody else in the world could simply rip it off for free?

Because you can compete with free.

You assume that if I write a song and you come along and copy it, that I am worse off. That is not true. Firstly, most copying is done with little understanding of the real reason something is valued. There are things that cannot be copied. Van Gogh's paintings, Jimi Hendrix's guitar playing, Paul Newman's acting. These are things that are scarce and unique that are incapable of being copied. That any kid can pick up a guitar and solo like Eric Clapton in a couple of years does not mean Eric Clapton wasted his time and effort in developing his skill. He still gets paid tons of money to play guitar even though there are thousands of pople around the world that can play guitar.

« Previous Page Next Page »