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

Bob-Dubery

But hang on... the record company can't be stealing because it's not theft.

Time to nail some colours to a mast.

singemonkey

X-rated Bob wrote But hang on... the record company can't be stealing because it's not theft.

Time to nail some colours to a mast.

Didn't say they were stealing, did I? They didn't run into the muso's houses and rip off their TVs ? They infringed their copyright. That's different.

Bob-Dubery

It seems little different from any other brand of piracy. With the notable exception that the record company is identifiabe and thus can be sued and has lots of money and is therefore worth suing.

Bob-Dubery

X-rated Bob wrote It seems little different from any other brand of piracy. With the notable exception that the record company is identifiabe and thus can be sued and has lots of money and is therefore worth suing.

ps: Copyright in the RECORDING may well reside with the record company, though copyright of the composition may not (depends on wether or not the composer sold the copyright on).

MIKA-the-better-one

X-rated Bob wrote
Seventhson wrote Well back in the 80s there was bootlegging. I don't think piracy will ever kill off music. I think all these justin dudes and pop sensations will kill off good music :'( ?
There is still bootlegging. It started earlier than the 80s and still goes on.

It deprives the artist of income, in some cases makes a profit for the bootleggers that they do not share with the artist, and deprives the artist and/or label of control of their output.

There's an essentially harmless form of bootlegging which is fans taping for their own records - but it can be more malicious and exploitive.

A good way to find out how you REALLY feel about these issues is to put yourself in the hot seat. This makes it a little more real, a little less theoretical.

So you have a band, you have a CD, somebody or several somebodies is making copies of the disc that it cost you money to make and you will receive no income as a result (neither will the producer, the recording engineer and so on). They didn't ask you, but it's cool because your record is good and they want to share it with their buddies.

You're in hock because you bought a PA system (or the company bought it for you, but you have to pay it back so the position is basically the same).

Somebody decided that your album is so cool that they loaded it onto some free download site so that the whole world can have it without paying you anything for it (nobody asked you if this was OK).

Meanwhile you played a crap gig last night and the drummer audibly called you an "ass wipe" after you gave him a dirty look when he mangled the beat, but you saw some microphones out there and you know they're nothing to do with you or your sound guy. So now there's a recording out there on the Internet (you have to assume) that has you sounding really crap and like you're about to beat each other up.

You have gigs, but nobody is paying you a lot upfront because who the heck are you? We had Dan Patlansky here last week and folks know who HE is, but you guys? Hmmm.... well let's see if you pull a crowd and how much business the bar does.

It's easy to make these decisions when you're not the guy with something to lose.

You seem to assume we are all a bunch of people who dont know anything Bob??? That we are just taking a theoretical stance but we have no experience whatsoever in the "real world of being in a band" to back it up....

Firstly in your little example, why did such a small band print CD's??? Especially in the current economic climate whereby U2 struggle to sell Cd's, and everyone is downloading.... Where ALbums sit in Look n listen and Musica for years... eventually endng in a bargain bin.

And for a band at one of their shows to be filmed ? ? ? I what if its bad ? ? ? well thats the age we live in whereby good or bad it goes to youtube, I can go for hours on youtube watching my fave bands messing up at particular shows....

It all just makes little sense to me, why this band put it all to disk, its just bad planning in current times and trends.....
Piracy may well be theft/ bad/ not fair........ but like many other things it is happening and you cannot expect the millions who do it to stop, or consider the consequences, its part of the culture now..... It has reshaped music, why not creat a plan that complies with it..... not an old fashoined approach of saying its mine, i dont want to give it away (yes its your right) but if you are anything of a business man its not smart. Money can still be made from ones music, as people still enjoy being a part of a band and "buy" into it..... maybe just not in the same way as before.

Bob-Dubery

MIKA the better one wrote You seem to assume we are all a bunch of people who dont know anything Bob??? That we are just taking a theoretical stance but we have no experience whatsoever in the "real world of being in a band" to back it up....

Well I certainly have a different POV from yours - which includes allowing people to make their own decisions about what they want to give a way. I don't know it all. I doubt you do either. I just happen to think that taking something without permission is not OK. As I said, I find it a useful test to put myself in the hotseat. Another useful test that I apply when I remember to is to ask myself what would happen if everybody did whatever it is I feel like doing right now because it seems expedient or justifiable right now.

The point of that exercise is this: You think it's OK to copy CDs, to pass music around etc. Fine. What if it were YOUR music. Things tend to look a little different.

I have people in my family who when they had nothing were very generous and demanding of everybody else's. One of them once told me that I was getting hung up over nothing because "it's only money." That person has a bit of money of their own now. He protects it quite diligently - which he should do - but it's interesting to note how the rhetoric has changed as the position moves from the theoretical to the real.

So to return to my example. We're trying, I hope, to establish some general principles here. What is OK? Try dealing not with the details but with the general principles. Sure that band are stupid, but that doesn't make it more acceptable for us to help ourselves to the fruits of their blood, sweat and tears. Or does it? They may well have been rash, but do they have a grievance?

Squonk

MIKA the better one wrote
Firstly in your little example, why did such a small band print CD's??? Especially in the current economic climate whereby U2 struggle to sell Cd's, and everyone is downloading.... Where ALbums sit in Look n listen and Musica for years... eventually endng in a bargain bin.

I am battling to understand this, most of my friends dont even use the internet, and if they do, they have no clue about downloading MP3's or where to even put them. I know the trend is changing but there are a plenty people who buy CD's, bargain bins or not.

Nothing Archaic about artists printing CD's and selling them at Gigs, Tommy Emannuel sells cd's at his gigs, he even mans the table at the back of the hall. When I saw John Martyn, pretty much the same thing. Come to think of it Crowded House did the same thing.

There are still plenty of technology challenged people out there, Every time I visit friends I am forever, setting up IPod's , setting up their DVD, Entertainment centres, explaining HD and Blu Ray and you will be surprised at how confused people are.

Maybe amongst the younger generation, paying for music is a thing of the past, but there is still a huge part of the population that pay for their music.

I just bought The Best of Gerry Rafferty at Pick and Pay yesterday, mostly for nostalgia reasons, maybe a bit of respect, we also have a family member who was Gerry's drummer.

Why did I buy the CD? I could have downloaded or copied it!
Maybe I am just old fashioned.
But I do enjoy having the CD Cover and reading all the information.

MIKA-the-better-one

you are very true when you should say a band should have a choice in what or how it happens to their music.
But like we have discussed they don't, and this is because of technology, and the current trend of "the buyer" (which I still claim them to be as a portion of them do buy in certain respects) The buyer and non buyer cannot really be divided by the band, so the really have an allegance to both (wehter they buy of itunes or download via torrents)

Ideally I would love it if we all just bought Cd's and Vinyl (it looks cooler and results in a more fulfilling feeling) but those days are gone...... and have closed alot of doors and yet opened many more. I am rather excited to be in this new age whereby any band can get there CD around the world (yes often free and unknown to them as they have no control over it once on the internet) But as I said this opens new doors.

Arctic Monkeys are a great example ( I use them alot in my examples adn do apologise) They started as a group----- They recorded 12 songs Demo Versions------ They then handed out 30 or so CD's per show---------- Some guy loved them so much he took the songs and uploaded them to the internet---------- and from their people all around the UK and Europe and USA heard them------- and they became and immediate success.... Selling and breaking records in the UK ( I think fastest selling group)

Sadly this will not happen to every band whose tracks get uploaded or distributed freely...... But WHat I have noticed is from distributing my music free on the net for hte last EP we did, was I got about 50 or so emails from USA from bands there who enjoyed the music, from blogs who wanted to post it on there sites (some didnt ask but in return we benifited) Some US colege radio got hold of me....... and some people even invited us to do shows ? sadly we could not. But in that free posting we got far more exposure their than we ever could have being from the "ass end of the continent" (where by music does not go far, and is generally 5 years behind) ?

What I am saying is not if its right or wrong but its their and not going, and further any one who wants to be in aa succesful band much work with it rather than against ... that remark was made toward metalicca ?

Bob-Dubery

Squonk wrote Why did I buy the CD? I could have downloaded or copied it!
Maybe I am just old fashioned.
But I do enjoy having the CD Cover and reading all the information.

Exactly. I LIKE to have a CD, not just the digital track. I suspect a lot of people do. More so I like ALBUMS. Standalone tracks are OK, but a well sequenced album with common stylistic and thematic elements is a pleasurable listening experience for me (unless the common thematic elements are things like "Ice the m......ing pigs" or "my little dog Fluffy" in which case my interest tends to wane). I like good liner notes and always read them.

OK... that's the way I like to do it. It costs me more in some circumstances, but that's my decision.

There is not just one way that it must be done or should be done. And I don't have the right to presume that because I would have done it in a certain way that I can assume everybody else is doing it that way.

MIKA-the-better-one

Squonk wrote
MIKA the better one wrote
Firstly in your little example, why did such a small band print CD's??? Especially in the current economic climate whereby U2 struggle to sell Cd's, and everyone is downloading.... Where ALbums sit in Look n listen and Musica for years... eventually endng in a bargain bin.

I am battling to understand this, most of my friends dont even use the internet, and if they do, they have no clue about downloading MP3's or where to even put them. I know the trend is changing but there are a plenty people who buy CD's, bargain bins or not.

Nothing Archaic about artists printing CD's and selling them at Gigs, Tommy Emannuel sells cd's at his gigs, he even mans the table at the back of the hall. When I saw John Martyn, pretty much the same thing. Come to think of it Crowded House did the same thing.

I refer to I belive a different scene, while yes people still buy on CD, we also live in south africa :/ where times are a bit slow.... For a say newsih rock band/ alternative/ hip hop to print Cd's starting out is risky......... I can refer to many sources even here in SA who printed MANY (500) disks and sadly have 450 in there houses wishing they had been smarter about it.

At the same time there are circles which sell Cd's still however I cant think of one of my friends in any bands that i know who have a working CD player still ....

MIKA-the-better-one

Just to clarify I am not denying the existance of selling CD's, but think of it like this......... I like 100 bands, 10 I will want to own their CD because I love them so much.. I already own this album on my computer because I downloaded it free, but as said I love them so much I want them to be supported I buy the CD.

BUT even more so if I can get the Vinyl then my life is much happier as vinyl is way cooler than CD ......... That is why vinyl sales are on the rise in the rest of the world...
a few bands I know now have people oreder fromn them for physical CD's make them and send them...... but then again a run of 100 vinyls is much more likely to sell in the rest of the world

[deleted]

Too much talking past each other going on here for the conversation to be viable. For the goalpost-shifters, fine, the word "theft" can be removed from the argument. There can still be a discussion on whether the copying of music is right or not. I don't think anyone's offered a good argument for it being right, but that's me. Secondly, some posters are making a category error in response to the question of "Is it right?" by arguing "Music given away for free can work for bands." This isn't the answer to the original question, and is just making this whole thread go on and on and on without hope for resolution.

Warren

Stratisfear wrote Too much talking past each other going on here for the conversation to be viable. For the goalpost-shifters, fine, the word "theft" can be removed from the argument. There can still be a discussion on whether the copying of music is right or not. I don't think anyone's offered a good argument for it being right, but that's me. Secondly, some posters are making a category error in response to the question of "Is it right?" by arguing "Music given away for free can work for bands." This isn't the answer to the original question, and is just making this whole thread go on and on and on without hope for resolution.

+1;

Lots of points made that were not properly addressed, and this whole focus on "piracy is not theft" which is not really the point, after all.

MIKA-the-better-one

Stratisfear wrote Too much talking past each other going on here for the conversation to be viable. For the goalpost-shifters, fine, the word "theft" can be removed from the argument. There can still be a discussion on whether the copying of music is right or not. I don't think anyone's offered a good argument for it being right, but that's me. Secondly, some posters are making a category error in response to the question of "Is it right?" by arguing "Music given away for free can work for bands." This isn't the answer to the original question, and is just making this whole thread go on and on and on without hope for resolution.

So as the great communicator do you plan to contribute ? or are you our referee for this evening

Warren

One day, when I invent tcp/slap, I am going to be rich. :dance:

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote 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

Something about this article has been niggling away at the back of my mind.

Here's the problem...

Let’s start off with some key figures published by the BPI last week regarding UK music sales. Unlike some news outlets claimed, these are not revenue figures but actually the number of units sold, counting both digital and physical albums and singles.

So what is a "unit"? Is it a CD with a dozen tracks on it? Or a single down-loaded MP3? The answer seems to be "either/or".

So when this claim is made

In 2010 the BPI reports that there were 281.7 million units sold, which is an all-time record. Never in the history of recorded music have so many pieces of music been sold, but you wont hear the music industry shouting about that. In fact, the music industry is selling more music year after year and today’s figure is up 27% compared to the 221.6 million copies sold in 2006.

Are they comparing apples with apples.

2009's 221.6 "units" sold might have been 221.6 million CD albums.
2010's 281.7 "units" sold might have been 281.7 million individual tracks.

OK... the truth is somewhere between those two extremes, but it strikes me that this report is at best confused, at worst deliberately misleading.

"Units" may be up at the same time as revenues are down. Because not all units are equal.

Bob-Dubery

Warren wrote One day, when I invent tcp/slap, I am going to be rich. :dance:

Warren, I like the cut of your jib.

[deleted]

dud im so gonn partisipet. Vinil is kooler

singemonkey

Stratisfear wrote Too much talking past each other going on here for the conversation to be viable. For the goalpost-shifters, fine, the word "theft" can be removed from the argument. There can still be a discussion on whether the copying of music is right or not. I don't think anyone's offered a good argument for it being right, but that's me. Secondly, some posters are making a category error in response to the question of "Is it right?" by arguing "Music given away for free can work for bands." This isn't the answer to the original question, and is just making this whole thread go on and on and on without hope for resolution.

Totally agreed. But I still feel it was crucial to point out that piracy isn't theft - because if that assumption goes unquestioned it leads to spurious conclusions. It hides the moral complexity of this issue.

It must be accepted that piracy is a separate issue, in a separate moral environment. I think that piracy is wrong in some way - although I've indulged in it myself. And probably most of you have swapped tapes or CDs when you were younger. We know that the industry has overblown the economic effect of piracy.

Ultimately I think piracy is nothing to be proud of. But neither is it a reason for massive self-condemnation. It's quite a hard thing to place morally. I don't think piracy does anything good for bands - as has been argued - but neither, I think, does it do them tremendous harm.

Bob-Dubery

Stratisfear wrote dud im so gonn partisipet. Vinil is kooler

Is not!

You can't copy vinyl with a mouse click. So it's much harder to boost the poor band's reputation and encourage people to go to their gigs.

« Previous Page Next Page »