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

[claend]

A Pretty interesting study in the UK.


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

Cheers!

[author]

Originally Posted by claend

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

Of course not -- but there's ONE interesting link in that blog:

Lily Allen: my message for big stars who back piracy... | Lily Allen - Times Online

[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...

[Protools Guy]

My answer to your question is simply no.

[claend]

First of all, it's not a question, but an study's title by Times online...

And folks, it's simply a fact, the music artists revenue has increased in the Uk from 2004... those are BPI numbers.

Although the recording industry (mainly labels) are suffering.

[Bob Olhsson]

Live revenues are growing simply because heritage bands have watched the bottom fall out of their royalty checks over the past decade so they are setting up tours with immense ticket prices that no young artist could ever hope to command.

I worked for a small "art" label that Napster killed dead within a couple years. Artists who used to be able to eek out a subsistence living from recording and performing their music were forced to stop most of their musical activity and get day jobs.

Make no mistake about the fact that it is the small labels and most creative niche artists who have been MOST devastated by illegal file looting. I wouldn't be wasting my time posting about this issue if it only hurt the big labels and stars.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by claend

First of all, it's not a question, but an study's title by Times online...

And folks, it's simply a fact, the music artists revenue has increased in the Uk from 2004... those are BPI numbers.

Although the recording industry (mainly labels) are suffering.

those are incorrect BPI numbers. Revenue has changed but not that the BPI could measure because it's moved into syncs as well as live. The "guitar hero" style games have made a significant contribution. I reckon I sync a few million quids worth every year in movie and video games...... BPI isnt exactly known for their ability to keep a check on the loose change for a fekkin kebab... useless is being kind.

It's also not adjusted for price increases and changes - look at the steepness of the increase curves - no one suspicious that it's the same price hikes and inflation? And the years that more and more festivals came up?

Oh - and artists do NOT get paid directly for gig - it goes to agents and, if tour supported, is label money.

[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.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Live revenues are growing simply because heritage bands have watched the bottom fall out of their royalty checks over the past decade so they are setting up tours with immense ticket prices that no young artist could ever hope to command.

I worked for a small "art" label that Napster killed dead within a couple years. Artists who used to be able to eek out a subsistence living from recording and performing their music were forced to stop most of their musical activity and get day jobs.

Make no mistake about the fact that it is the small labels and most creative niche artists who have been MOST devastated by illegal file looting. I wouldn't be wasting my time posting about this issue if it only hurt the big labels and stars.

so true.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Live revenues are growing simply because heritage bands have watched the bottom fall out of their royalty checks over the past decade so they are setting up tours with immense ticket prices that no young artist could ever hope to command.

I worked for a small "art" label that Napster killed dead within a couple years. Artists who used to be able to eek out a subsistence living from recording and performing their music were forced to stop most of their musical activity and get day jobs.

Make no mistake about the fact that it is the small labels and most creative niche artists who have been MOST devastated by illegal file looting. I wouldn't be wasting my time posting about this issue if it only hurt the big labels and stars.

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.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by subsonix

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...

These people would never buy a record so you can count them out of the loop.

[subsonix]

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.

and if you create 100% electronic music for people to enjoy at home... ie chillout - are you supposed to just give it away?

not all forms of music are best appreciated standing infront of a stage or in a field. that doesn't make them any less meaningful.

[narcoman]

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.

we had the same. First album did something like 400,000. Second album - in a wave of publicity during Napster time did a LOT less.... far less than expected. Ands we were on an indie after our deal in the nineties ended with EMI.

Of course - maybe we were just that bad.....

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by monomer

These people would never buy a record so you can count them out of the loop.

haha, if only that were the truth, but it's not.

how can I say that? well one of our releases got leaked and didn't even sell 100 copies, where we would usually sell 500+.

According to shops, DJ's and club play it should have easily sold more then 500 AND be repressed.

We didn't give the next release to anyone - no promos, no freebies and guess what, we sold 800...

On a small scene those people will buy, BUT only if they have no way of getting it for free.

on a bigger scale I've seen compilation CD's shrink from 300,000 copies to less than 20,000... in a very short space of time.

[CallMeAl]

Originally Posted by subsonix

On a small scene those people will buy, BUT only if they have no way of getting it for free.

True... but that's never going to be the case again... no matter how many sites are shut down. We are in the information age, and that's all there is to it... may as well be debating whether it's good or bad that the sun rises.

I do wonder sometimes (as someone who hasn't yet completed their indie album) whether file-sharing does help an artist with buzz appeal reach a much larger audience... even if the money doesn't come with it at first and is slower later... wonder if maybe in a sales-only world they would have simply missed a lot of those six degrees moments where someone heard it at a friend's house, gave it to their dj buddy, etc...

I suppose it's different if you're a known brand with equity to protect... or a label making financial decisions... but for an artist whose primary goal is to reach as many people as possible and become a household name... well, I wonder sometimes... that's all.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by monomer

These people would never buy a record so you can count them out of the loop.

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.

And consumers generally don't know what label is involved when it comes to the music they listen to. They don't consider if the label is big or small. If they hear something and like it, they may buy it or steal it.

Also, one thing often overlooked is that a contributing factor to some sales going back up is due to a lot o crack down on sites like pirate bay. Every time there is a big bust or event like this, sales go up because piracy takes a hit. But just because it goes up doesn't mean it never went way down below what it used to be. This is a tactic often used by climate denialists to claim the temperature is going down. Looking at one of the many small fluxuations while ignoring the overall trend. Basically the blog is saying that while overall sales are plummeting, there's an increase in live sales. This doesn't make up for the losses. It just shows where the trend of music SHOULD be since live sales cannot be stolen like recorded music is. The music sales should be in sync with the live, but is not clearly because of piracy. It shows that the interest in music is there as it always has, but just not the payment for it. And keep in mind that that live revenue does not count the costs that then have to go to paying the vendors, promoters, etc.

Hopefully once some law enforcement begins to take place we can maybe see music once again having a air shot at surviving.

[colinmiller]

Here's an analogy I tend to use for people who think that people who steal wouldn't buy anyways an therefore don't have an effect on sales and aren't taking anything away by simply making a copy.

Imagine being in a band and you spend $10,000 to make your CD that you want to sell to fans at a show. You make 1,000 CDs to sell at $10 each. I buy one of your CDs for $10. I then proceed to make 1,000 copies and offer them for free to everyone at a table next to yours. Everyone of course opts for the free version instead of paying $10. Now I only made a copy and you still have your 999 CDs, of which I have not taken from you. Yet you are now in debt $9,990. Even though you now have $9,990 less money than you would had it not been for my actions, I am going to tell you that I am not stealing from you and that I am not having any affect on your sales because none of those people would have bought your CDs. In fact I will then go one step further and blame you because you are using outdated business methods. And I will ignore any arguments about how no business plan can compete with free.

Does that seem pretty fair?

[author]

Originally Posted by kirkhawley

the value of recorded music has been destroyed. Forever.

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!

[claend]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Live revenues are growing simply because heritage bands have watched the bottom fall out of their royalty checks over the past decade so they are setting up tours with immense ticket prices that no young artist could ever hope to command.

Hey Bob,
The heritage bands factor is something I've come across in internet, I really can't understand why we don't know, I guess the figures can be filtered by ticket price, can't it be done?

But looking at the growth - more or less 30% over the last 5 years, you think it can be only that, isn't it too much of a gap??

Cheers

[mamm7215]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

Here's an analogy I tend to use for people who think that people who steal wouldn't buy anyways an therefore don't have an effect on sales and aren't taking anything away by simply making a copy.

Imagine being in a band and you spend $10,000 to make your CD that you want to sell to fans at a show. You make 1,000 CDs to sell at $10 each. I buy one of your CDs for $10. I then proceed to make 1,000 copies and offer them for free to everyone at a table next to yours. Everyone of course opts for the free version instead of paying $10. Now I only made a copy and you still have your 999 CDs, of which I have not taken from you. Yet you are now in debt $9,990. Even though you now have $9,990 less money than you would had it not been for my actions, I am going to tell you that I am not stealing from you and that I am not having any affect on your sales because none of those people would have bought your CDs. In fact I will then go one step further and blame you because you are using outdated business methods. And I will ignore any arguments about how no business plan can compete with free.

Does that seem pretty fair?

[claend]

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 don't know the scene in you area, but that is simply not truth in Spain and all the countries I know, why should be the electronic music less enjoyable live??? If there's an audience, they will enjoy the live IMO.

[claend]

Originally Posted by kirkhawley

Like it or not, the value of recorded music has been destroyed. Forever.

That one hurts... But man, I think you are right.

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

Here's an analogy I tend to use for people who think that people who steal wouldn't buy anyways an therefore don't have an effect on sales and aren't taking anything away by simply making a copy.

Imagine being in a band and you spend $10,000 to make your CD that you want to sell to fans at a show. You make 1,000 CDs to sell at $10 each. I buy one of your CDs for $10. I then proceed to make 1,000 copies and offer them for free to everyone at a table next to yours. Everyone of course opts for the free version instead of paying $10. Now I only made a copy and you still have your 999 CDs, of which I have not taken from you. Yet you are now in debt $9,990. Even though you now have $9,990 less money than you would had it not been for my actions, I am going to tell you that I am not stealing from you and that I am not having any affect on your sales because none of those people would have bought your CDs. In fact I will then go one step further and blame you because you are using outdated business methods. And I will ignore any arguments about how no business plan can compete with free.

Does that seem pretty fair?

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by claend

I don't know the scene in you area, but that is simply not truth in Spain and all the countries I know, why should be the electronic music less enjoyable live??? If there's an audience, they will enjoy the live IMO.

I didn't say it would be less enjoyable.

the point being that you can't re-create a lot of electronic music live - it's studio music and that's the great thing about it... the whole point of it, is that it's not all live.


It's a bit like watching a stage play version of Star Wars... Sure it's live and the same story but not quite the same as watching the Film.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by monomer

These people would never buy a record so you can count them out of the loop.

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.

[SubwayRocket]

Im not against the internet, but before the internet, there wasn't such an information overload, When I was a kid, I had like 30 Lp's , Ya really listened to your album all the way thru both sides, you had time. Now a kid has 30 albums in one folder and a hundred folders in the ipod. It's so many choices that ya never get to really know the whole album. I remember when I got a new Queen, Styx, Ac/Dc, album It was maybe all ya had for the season, ya saved money, took the bus down to the mall and bought it. Ya played the hell out of it, loved every minute of it. It wasnt as simple as point/click, ya got the album and just like anything else earned vs. handed to ya... ya know. There's another thread going on about the depth/clarity of the 70's, 80's mixes. I think with MP3, P2P , it's just not worth it for anyone to put that kinda time and deeper level of arrangement into the stuff, only for it to just get flipped thru in the ipod and or stolen. I use the internet daily but I think we were better without it. My 16yr old son and friends are always over, looking at my guitars,drums and im amazed at how they are drawn into the music playing at my house... Stevie - Songs in the Key of life, Billy Cobham , Styx, Floyd, Chicago, Eagles, and all my heavy 70's fusion they know them b/c guess what... it's the background music in all their video games, Lol. They ask my , how come they dont make music like this now !!! Yeah, they listen to new stuff but seriously appreciate gravitate to the classic stuff of the 60's,70's,80's , almost instinctively.
These kids are hungry for deeper, more arranged music with 60's 70's and 80's heavy vocal harmony, power, ect . . . Owell... my 2 cents, fwiw . . .

[hipass]

I fail too see how bands I know get 200-300 hundred thousand hits on youtube.
Play opening shows on arena tours and then sell 15,000 copies.

[claend]

Originally Posted by subsonix

I didn't say it would be less enjoyable.

the point being that you can't re-create a lot of electronic music live - it's studio music and that's the great thing about it... the whole point of it, is that it's not all live.


It's a bit like watching a stage play version of Star Wars... Sure it's live and the same story but not quite the same as watching the Film.

Daft Punk, Kraftwerk, Orbital, Infected Mushroom, Younger Brother, Cepia, Klaus Schulze, Amon Tobin, Mathew Dear, Mathew Herbert... I've seen them all playing live, I don't agree, it's just potentially different IMO, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by subsonix

haha, if only that were the truth, but it's not.

how can I say that? well one of our releases got leaked and didn't even sell 100 copies, where we would usually sell 500+.

According to shops, DJ's and club play it should have easily sold more then 500 AND be repressed.

We didn't give the next release to anyone - no promos, no freebies and guess what, we sold 800...

On a small scene those people will buy, BUT only if they have no way of getting it for free.

on a bigger scale I've seen compilation CD's shrink from 300,000 copies to less than 20,000... in a very short space of time.

Interesting view.
Thanks for the insight.

[monomer]

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.

I was refering to the people that just download everything (because they can).
So i'm not realy sure they would go out and hunt for pearls in a record shop anyway.
In any case the whole media consumption pattern has changed dramatically over the last decade.
Nothing is the same anymore.
The games industry has become the biggest entertainment industry for one, beating both movies and music.
Which means people are spending their moneys elsewhere.
That may be either a cause for the drop in sales of music, or it might be a reaction to the fact that people have money left from not buying music anymore, i'm not sure yet, propably a bit of both.