Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?

[JJAM]

I seriously doubt that, they're not exactly artist/writer friendly. You're forgetting that YouTube is a business model founded on the basis of the illegal usage of copyright content. They only started paying royalties because they were forced to. And what they pay is woeful...

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

The irony is that even with all the changes in how music is consumed and distributed, people are taking and listening to more music now than ever. They just aren't choosing to pay for it.

So interest in music isn't sagging. It's just too easy to get it through illegal routes.

My point is that it is too easy to get through LEGAL means. That feeling we all used to have where you had to listen to a song fifty times... And you couldn't get it without buying it, getting excited when it came on the radio or MTV... That feeling is gone. It's out there for free, legally.

[Forked Lightning]

Originally Posted by kirkhawley

Like it or not, the value of recorded music has been destroyed. Forever. There's only one strategy left - recorded music in a supporting role for bands who play well live. If the business goes in that direction, we'll end up with a music industry consisting mainly of a lot more people making a living playing live music. If you all had any sense that's what you'd be working towards.

Spot on 100%. Ownership of recorded music is purely an artifact of the days when people bought sheet music. It is actually unnecessary to 'own' recorded music. Ownership of it became fashionable to the point that it was seen as - and sold as - essential, and the actual merits of owning it therefore have never been questioned.

In reality, music is an emotional communication between a performer and their audience. But 99% of the time, recorded music is faked: it is sampled, harmonised, compressed, chorused, doubled, quantised, limited, edited, formularised, comped, eq'd, etc etc....It is hardly ever real.

It is due to a process of natural selection that the medium of recorded music is slowly dying. Through the creation of the internet humans have removed the physical constraints of recorded music - ie vinyl, casette, CD, tape, whatever - and now music can no longer be regulated commercially.

The vast profits of the 60's and 70's were the peak of that system: a system that has been in decline ever since. On a wider issue, the cultural downside of commercial recorded music has been the stupendous rise of acceptable mediocrity. The death of recorded music as a commercial entity will be the precursor for proper musicians to return to their rightful place - the stage.

So: ALL fake wannabees will be found out. Real live music will survive, played by real musicians for real audiences.

Flame me I don't give a f***.

[AwwDeOhh]

So: ALL fake wannabees will be found out. Real live music will survive, played by real musicians for real audiences

So what's to happen to the people who actually write real music being played for real audiences?

[foamboy]

Originally Posted by author

Say that to Berlin, Porter, Gershwin, Loesser, Rodgers, Hart, Hammerstein, Leiber, Stoller, and Beatles post '66.

Brilliant!


What can I say, I love you man!

fb

[foamboy]

Originally Posted by claend

A Pretty interesting study in the UK.


Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? — Times Labs Blog

Cheers!

I can't speak for UK artist,but obviously things must be tough for some american artists if they have to resort to this BS ......


Small Town Bar Sued Over Rock & Grohl Music | TMZ.com

I'm not saying I completely disagree in principal,but c'mon. Piracy MUST be affecting their paycheck. I guess.

fb

[Forked Lightning]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

So what's to happen to the people who actually write real music being played for real audiences?

The strong will survive....

[SpiralTrance]

Originally Posted by author

On the contrary!

What we hear is British thieves whining over THIS:
BBC NEWS | Technology | Government lays out digital plans

Just like French thieves whined over a similar law last month.

And there are more good news: Taiwan and South Korea introduced graduated-response laws earlier this year; 60% of Swedish thieves cut back or stopped stealing after new Swedish laws and the PB verdict, and German piracy is now down at 6% after 100,000 prosecutions.

In other words: The Download Decade is almost over! The future has never been brighter for music artists!

LMFAO. You'r kidding aren't you? The UKs 'digital plans' to stop downloading are a joke. Everyone is switching to SSL newsgroups as they are nearly impossible to monitor. According to Slyck News newsgroups have seen a 42% increase in usage, probably since the closure of piratebay, and that trend is set to continue I predict.

In the 10 years since Napster launched, you would tend to think the entertainment industry has managed to eke out some kind of victory in its efforts to protect its bottom line. It hasn't. Sure, there have been numerous network shut downs, legal wins, and cramming legislation down the throats of elected officials, but what has it accomplished? Not much, according to the BPI's latest press release.

The efforts of the entertainment industry to stymie P2P usage is no secret. Even though it's quite apparent that P2P usage/file-sharing/web based downloading really has no ill effects on the entertainment industry, and indeed probably helps with publicity, the "threat" (whatever that may be) presented by Internet acquisition of entertainment remains their enemy.

But this type of reactionary behavior is common - it's just human nature. When someone’s way of life, or product, or business model is at stake, those who are threatened will go through any steps necessary to prevent change - even if the alternative is considerably more rational, less costly, and popular. Case in point - the growth of digital music and the efforts of the music industry to save that dinosaur known as an optical disc.

So where does that leave us? Well it's also no secret that P2P usage has declined steadily over the years - but that's just one small avenue in the bigger file-sharing picture. Consider all multitudes of digital acquisition that have developed since the early days of Napster: web based services, digital lockers, MP3 stores, and search engines like YouTube. The bottom line is, you no longer need P2P networks to find music - yet they remain quite popular.

The BPI (British Phonographic Industry) was keen to point this out in their latest press release, which gathered very dire (for the old business model) stats from a November 2009 Harris Interactive survey of UK citizens. What did they find? Basically, P2P usage remains level and continues to be the single most important method of digital acquisition. So what’s the big deal then, right? If P2P usage is level, surely the entertainment industry is doing something positive, right? Not really.

Since P2P networking is only one small piece of the pie, file-sharers have begun to branch out and start eating the rest of the cake. Where are they heading to? Not surprisingly, the Newsgroups are among the most important new avenues. According to those polled, usage of the newsgroups has increased by a whopping 42%. Other methods of obtaining digital media are increasing too. Those surveyed increased their use of MP3 stores (allofmp3.com type, not iTunes) by 47%, while “…other significant rises included MP3 search engines (28%) and forum, blog and board links to cyberlockers (18%).”

Free Usenet Access
Of course, this dire picture is being painted by the entertainment industry because they have to – they need to paint an urgent picture in order to sway those in power to enact legislation to combat the perceived problem.

Geoff Taylor, BPI Chief Executive, said “It’s disappointing that levels of illegal P2P use remain high despite this and the publicity surrounding imminent measures to address the problem. It’s vital that those measures come into force as quickly as possible.”

There was plenty of publicity surrounding Naspter’s shut down, the lawsuits surrounding FastTrack, the flood of corrupt files against P2P networks, and the deconstruction of The Pirate Bay. Few took these threats seriously. It’s little surprise that few take threatened legislation seriously either.

Slyck News - P2P Usage Levels, Newsgroup Usage Soars

And ISPs in the UK aren't to keen on infomring of customers to the cyber police as with nothing to download how can they sell people premium 8mb+ connections.

[author]

Originally Posted by SpiralTrance

Everyone is switching to SSL newsgroups as they are nearly impossible to monitor.

No. The new laws and other initiatives you see all over the world right now are targeted at ordinary people who don't even know what SSL newsgroups are.

What nerds and piracy enthusiasts do to fight the 'system' may be important to you, but it's not relevant in the big picture.

This is about changing the behaviour of ordinary people -- and it is going to work.

[SpiralTrance]

Originally Posted by author

No. The new laws and other initiatives you see all over the world right now are targeted at ordinary people who don't even know what SSL newsgroups are.

Soon enough more people will begin to pick up on them I think. When torrents first appeared many said they would just remain the relam of 'nerds and piracy enthusiasts'. Usenet isn't that much more difficult to use than torrents these days as you now have indexing sites with downloadable .nzb files.

Originally Posted by author

This is about changing the behaviour of ordinary people -- and it is going to work.

Sorry my friend I don't think it will work. You must work for the RIAA or something if you seriously belive that by eliminating P2P everything will return back to how it was in the 80s & early 90s and people will start buying overpriced cds again.

It's not going to happen. Rightly or wrongly music and films are no longer worth what they once were and it's customers willingness to pay not what the music conglomerates say there product is worth that dictates the market.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by SpiralTrance

Soon enough more people will begin to pick up on them I think. When torrents first appeared many said they would just remain the relam of 'nerds and piracy enthusiasts'. Usenet isn't that much more difficult to use than torrents these days as you now have indexing sites with downloadable .nzb files.

Sorry my friend I don't think it will work. You must work for the RIAA or something if you seriously belive that by eliminating P2P everything will return back to how it was in the 80s & early 90s and people will start buying overpriced cds again.

It's not going to happen. Rightly or wrongly music and films are no longer worth what they once were and it's customers willingness to pay not what the music conglomerates say there product is worth that dictates the market.

I disagree - this is all the banter of the Pro-Free/Anti-Copyright set.

before I begin... you do understand that you are not buying a 5" plastic disc or light projected on a screen... You're not buying bits and bytes, you buying Human Labor - ALOT of human labor... bits and bytes are mearly the container of that labor...

how anyone can say that hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on recording an album isn't worth 10 bucks, or a how 200 million spent on movie production isn't worth 10-12 bucks is beyond me, but I digress...

Very soon, legitimate businesses will not be able profit from copyright infringement under very real legal penalties (myspace, youtube, facebook, etc) this extends to newsgroups, bloghosting sites etc.

Content filtering works - this is why you do not see porn on YouTube and FlickR (or SNL clips or WMG audio for that fact on YouTube).

Technology that is sophisticated enough to create the problem is also sophisticated enough to solve it. The "it can't be done" argument is just bonk.

The issue here is one of political will not technology. The tide of political will is changing and with it will come changes in policy - which will lead to broad stroke, "good enough" solutions.

We have laws against stealing cars, but cars still get stolen. No law or policy is ever 100% but rather it creates a deterrant effective enough to make the CRIME the exception not the rule.

It's coming. Like it or not - and the penalties for getting caught are going to get more severe, not less.

'bout time.

ps:

no one cares about CD sales - this is about allowing legitimate digital distribution models, including 99 cent song downloads, micro payment per unit streaming (Apple buys LaLa for example) and others to flourish.

this is about the protection of copyright and the leveling of the playing field to establish fair competition in the marketplace. that's how capitalism works... regulations and protections.

the new media pirates have had a good run, but it's coming to an end...

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by author

No. The new laws and other initiatives you see all over the world right now are targeted at ordinary people who don't even know what SSL newsgroups are.

What nerds and piracy enthusiasts do to fight the 'system' may be important to you, but it's not relevant in the big picture.

This is about changing the behaviour of ordinary people -- and it is going to work.

So once the bittorrent software all has IP masking and encryption on by default, how are you going to monitor traffic that can't be read or traced?

Just because the nerds and piracy enthusiasts are the only ones doing this now doesn't mean they won't make it trivial for the general population in a matter of months.

There was a time when allowing piracy on the internet didn't matter because it was only done by nerds... whoops, guess that changed a bit.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by SpiralTrance

Soon enough more people will begin to pick up on them I think. When torrents first appeared many said they would just remain the relam of 'nerds and piracy enthusiasts'. Usenet isn't that much more difficult to use than torrents these days as you now have indexing sites with downloadable .nzb files.



Sorry my friend I don't think it will work. You must work for the RIAA or something if you seriously belive that by eliminating P2P everything will return back to how it was in the 80s & early 90s and people will start buying overpriced cds again.

It's not going to happen. Rightly or wrongly music and films are no longer worth what they once were and it's customers willingness to pay not what the music conglomerates say there product is worth that dictates the market.

I don't think he works for the RIAA, but I do think he's completely delusional and allows his personal bias to impact rational thought.

[NoVi]

Originally Posted by Forked Lightning

Spot on 100%. Ownership of recorded music is purely an artifact of the days when people bought sheet music. It is actually unnecessary to 'own' recorded music. Ownership of it became fashionable to the point that it was seen as - and sold as - essential, and the actual merits of owning it therefore have never been questioned.

In reality, music is an emotional communication between a performer and their audience. But 99% of the time, recorded music is faked: it is sampled, harmonised, compressed, chorused, doubled, quantised, limited, edited, formularised, comped, eq'd, etc etc....It is hardly ever real.

It is due to a process of natural selection that the medium of recorded music is slowly dying. Through the creation of the internet humans have removed the physical constraints of recorded music - ie vinyl, casette, CD, tape, whatever - and now music can no longer be regulated commercially.

The vast profits of the 60's and 70's were the peak of that system: a system that has been in decline ever since. On a wider issue, the cultural downside of commercial recorded music has been the stupendous rise of acceptable mediocrity. The death of recorded music as a commercial entity will be the precursor for proper musicians to return to their rightful place - the stage.

So: ALL fake wannabees will be found out. Real live music will survive, played by real musicians for real audiences.

Flame me I don't give a f***.

I agree with you on the darwinist elements that are happening to the recording industry. On the other hand there is a constant need among people to hear new music people can identify themselves with and people want to associate themselves with the idols and icons involved. Only AFTER this music is available in some kind of virtual or physical format there will be a need for people to go and see these artists in a live performance (mainly a social event in which similar thinking people unite to see and hear their idolized icons).

The 'funny' thing is that we are going back to the period before the rising of the sheet music industry and the associated ownership of musical products. In a few decades from now we will look back on the whole period of music ownership as a strange, short interlude in a world where music was -nearly- free available. I think the final stage of this development will be a situation where networks have become so powerful that they will be able to supply the listener with any music ever made instantly. iTunes and Spotify are only tiny steps in that direction.

[author]

Originally Posted by NoVi

In a few decades from now we will look back on the whole period of music ownership as a strange, short interlude in a world where music was -nearly- free available.

Huh?

For more than 1,000 years, good music has been available for paying customers only. The initial lawless period you often see when a new society is created has no significance for the later development.

If you need good music in the future, you need to pay -- as always.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by author

For more than 1,000 years, good music has been available for paying customers only...

This isn't quite true. There has never really been such a thing as "free" music.

Somebody always pays:

The government
The church
A wealthy patron
A corporate patron
Advertisers
Theatrical and motion picture producers
The composer or performer
The listener

Arguably the most enjoyable music has been music the listener pays for. This is because he who pays the piper will always be the one who calls the tune.

[author]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

This isn't quite true. There has never really been such a thing as "free" music.

Um... and what do you think I meant?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by NoVi

I agree with you on the darwinist elements that are happening to the recording industry. On the other hand there is a constant need among people to hear new music people can identify themselves with and people want to associate themselves with the idols and icons involved. Only AFTER this music is available in some kind of virtual or physical format there will be a need for people to go and see these artists in a live performance (mainly a social event in which similar thinking people unite to see and hear their idolized icons).

The 'funny' thing is that we are going back to the period before the rising of the sheet music industry and the associated ownership of musical products. In a few decades from now we will look back on the whole period of music ownership as a strange, short interlude in a world where music was -nearly- free available. I think the final stage of this development will be a situation where networks have become so powerful that they will be able to supply the listener with any music ever made instantly. iTunes and Spotify are only tiny steps in that direction.

all the free music you want right here, right now, legally - this is the world of recorded music without a revenue model - enjoy:

SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

I'm not saying you are wrong or it won't happen, I'm saying that's what you get if it goes that way...

'funny' thing is, I don't think most people want, or have their ipods filled with legitimately free music from...

SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by subsonix

having read it, all I can say is - that's only half the story.

while it may be true with relation to bigger artists/performers it's the complete opposite for the smaller labels, artist and most electronic artists (who mostly don't perform)

I get sick of seeing these 'facts' wheeled out over and over because they don't actually relate to how much money ends up in the artists pocket.

Over the last 3 years I've never seen so many labels fold or producers/writers quit. Income is probably about 1/10th what it was 5 years ago and that's if the distributer or retailer hasn't gone bust.

File sharers don't differentiate between big or small acts and take anything they can find.

1000 tracks stolen from a major will hardly impact. 1000 tracks stolen from an indie, well - that may be all they would have sold...

what a load of horse shit

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by monomer

I'm not disputing your experience (i wouldn't dare!) but this seems strange to me.
The big labels have the money to promote their artists and make the public want their product.
How on earth will you find releases from small starting labels on a medium like peer to peer?
The general public shure does not care for artsy small labels.
I mean, all p2p networks i've seen so far are completely swamped by masses of the most obvious music in existance.

I'm realy wondering how this all works.

your right. Maybe Bob hasn't actually had a look for himself? It is all too easy to believe the propaganda the industry spits out.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

This is the problem. If someone steals a record, they are not out of the loop. They no longer have the right to say they wouldn't have bought it anyways because they are using the product. That product is then stolen and because of this theft, it has value. Now if that person doesn't steal the product and take the value of the product, then they can say they would never buy it. But once they steal something and take its value, they count.

absolute rubbish

lets look at some figures. end of 2008 RIAA claim digital downloads revenue was 1.6 billion. apparently 95% of downloads are illegal. If they really do equate to lost sales that would equal over 30 billion lost. dfegad Yeah right that money was there in the first place. Disposable income is infinite dfegad

Why on earth do people believe this dribble?

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If cars suddenly became stealable in a simlar sort of way, you'd be amazed at how many people suddenly would have never bought a car. Car sales would crash, but of course none of those people would have bought a car anyway, so sales are obviously down because cars now suck so no one wants to drive them (though everyone somehow has 5 in his driveway now) and the car companies are a bunch of rich fat cats who need to be taught a lesson, blah blah blah.

atomic vs binary? that makes sense NOT dfegad

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by Lemonsqueezer

atomic vs binary? that makes sense NOT dfegad

Actually, within 2-3 centuries, we should be able to replicate any physical product at an atomic level... and this same debate will probably still be going on.

You can just take your buddy's '63 Strat, put it in the machine, and bam, you have an identical copy.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Actually, within 2-3 centuries, we should be able to replicate any physical product at an atomic level... and this same debate will probably still be going on.

You can just take your buddy's '63 Strat, put it in the machine, and bam, you have an identical copy.

I am talking about present day

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by Lemonsqueezer

I am talking about present day

I hear you, just think it would be an interesting debate. Society could stand to benefit greatly by making atomic replicas of food, medicine, jackets, you name it... but the creators of these medicines, jackets, and farmers would be screaming bloody murder at the loss of profits.

Now imagine such a machine took as little effort and energy as a computer to make replicas... and we're sort of where we are with the music debate today.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I hear you, just think it would be an interesting debate. Society could stand to benefit greatly by making atomic replicas of food, medicine, jackets, you name it... but the creators of these medicines, jackets, and farmers would be screaming bloody murder at the loss of profits.

Now imagine such a machine took as little effort and energy as a computer to make replicas... and we're sort of where we are with the music debate today.

Well guess what would happen? Those who have money and power would see this a threat to their position and seek to control it. It isn't about making the world a better place. It is about power and control.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I hear you, just think it would be an interesting debate. Society could stand to benefit greatly by making atomic replicas of food, medicine, jackets, you name it... but the creators of these medicines, jackets, and farmers would be screaming bloody murder at the loss of profits.

Now imagine such a machine took as little effort and energy as a computer to make replicas... and we're sort of where we are with the music debate today.

The thing you guys don't understand, due I assume to lack of understanding of economics, is that, if you did that, then you would be stuck with the same medicine forever. No one is going to spend the money to produce a new one if they cannot make that money back. No one is going to put in the money to create a newer, faster computer if you just clone it as soon as it's made. Yeh, you can just rip off whatever anyone ever made, but you'll be stuck with that and nothing else. You'll then comletely lose as as society the know how to create these things because no one will be able to do that as a living. Then, of course, you'll lose the capability to fix the machines that clone the objects, and your society will fail.

You guys don't understand how financial incentives have given you everything you have and how it drives innovation. I bet that almost nothing you own was created by someone who wasn't making money from it, because thats (duh!) the nature of capitalism.

You know, the biggest problem that this internet has caused is that, back before that, people who had not a clue how the world works could have their incoherent theories and it didn't really matter. How, unfortunately, people are able to apply their incoherent theories to other people against their will.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

The thing you guys don't understand, due I assume to lack of understanding of economics, is that, if you did that, then you would be stuck with the same medicine forever. No one is going to spend the money to produce a new one if they cannot make that money back. No one is going to put in the money to create a newer, faster computer if you just clone it as soon as it's made. Yeh, you can just rip off whatever anyone ever made, but you'll be stuck with that and nothing else. You'll then comletely lose as as society the know how to create these things because no one will be able to do that as a living. Then, of course, you'll lose the capability to fix the machines that clone the objects, and your society will fail.

No, Pfizer would just have to come up with a different business model. Keep the medicine under lock and key and handle it with the sort of security seen with armored trucks in the diamond industry.

You also assume that the only reason researchers and companies want to cure cancer is money. I imagine more than a few lost a loved one to the disease and would like to see it wiped out regardless of the compensation.

I also think people will still create: Build guitars, design cars, whatever. Your idea that without financial compensation our world will turn into a zombie movie is laughable. We'd probably end up taking over the universe.

You guys don't understand how financial incentives have given you everything you have and how it drives innovation. I bet that almost nothing you own was created by someone who wasn't making money from it, because thats (duh!) the nature of capitalism.

You know, the biggest problem that this internet has caused is that, back before that, people who had not a clue how the world works could have their incoherent theories and it didn't really matter. How, unfortunately, people are able to apply their incoherent theories to other people against their will.

Believe me, I'm very much a capitalist. Financial incentive is a strong one and I feel it leads to the most efficient market. However, there are many other incentives out there. Unfortunately for people with your perspective, the computer and the internet have created some odd people who want to build products and give them away in markets that were traditionally for profit. There are free DAWs, plugins, OSes, and people going out of their way to make free file sharing software with built in proxies and encryption.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

You also assume that the only reason researchers and companies want to cure cancer is money. I imagine more than a few lost a loved one to the disease and would like to see it wiped out regardless of the compensation.

I also think people will still create: Build guitars, design cars, whatever. Your idea that without financial compensation our world will turn into a zombie movie is laughable. We'd probably end up taking over the universe.

You are completely incorrect. Do you know how much it costs to design a new car? Do you have any idea how the actual world works? Clearly you don't. Even with the very high costs of cars most car companies have trouble staying in business because of the huge costs involved. Do you have the slightest idea how much it costs Intel to come out with a new generation of CPU and set up the manufacturing for it? It's billions of dollars. Do you have any idea how much it costs to design a new commercial airliner?

You are delusional if you think these things would get done if the ability to profit substantailly from them didn't exist.

Unfortunately for people with your perspective, the computer and the internet have created some odd people who want to build products and give them away in markets that were traditionally for profit. There are free DAWs, plugins, OSes, and people going out of their way to make free file sharing software with built in proxies and encryption.

The amount of software made that way is a faction of a percent of the amount of software out there in the world. You are again delusional if you think this is the answer.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

You are completely incorrect. Do you know how much it costs to design a new car? Do you have any idea how the actual world works? Clearly you don't. Even with the very high costs of cars most car companies have trouble staying in business because of the huge costs involved. Do you have the slightest idea how much it costs Intel to come out with a new generation of CPU and set up the manufacturing for it? It's billions of dollars. Do you have any idea how much it costs to design a new commercial airliner?

You are delusional if you think these things would get done if the ability to profit substantailly from them didn't exist.



The amount of software made that way is a faction of a percent of the amount of software out there in the world. You are again delusional if you think this is the answer.

you need a history lesson. great things have been bulit in this world without financial compensation.