They gonna steal your music anyway, whats the solution?

[Kiwiburger]

Originally Posted by pegleg

So you're comparing freedom of speech, even at its extremes, to stealing.

I realize that not everyone on this forum, or in the music business, is from the United States. Maybe there are places where the two are equally "frowned upon".

You're still not hearing what i'm saying. I'm not defending stealing anything. However - the pirating of music is ages old, and exactly the same ethically as kids in the '70's making mix tapes from FM radio to cassette.

Yes - it was stealing then, and it's stealing now. Honest people shouldn't do it. I usually buy all my CD's and DVD's.

I'm just saying that it is completely ridiculous to expect the situation to change now.

Just to put some perspective on all of this. When I was a kid in the '70's, a murder was an extremely rare, headline grabbing news item in my country. During the '80's it got to be around one murder per month. During the '90's it was probably around one murder per week. Now, it's so common that in each paper there are many small news items about sundry murders. They don't make the headlines anymore, unless they are extremely gross or unusual. We have people killing their babies - that makes the headlines on a regular basis.

OK - so over the last couple of decades, there has been a dramatic moral decline in the western world. It's happened so slowly we've got desensitised to it.

What are the causes? There are many. Drugs, obviously. Poor nutrition and shonky medical practices too, imo. Money is always at the root of most evil - but we are talking about the rich nations of this planet. Why are there so many arseholes roaming the planet these days? The moral decline begins in the soul. What are our souls feeding on?

Many people (rightly or wrongly) blame artists, musicians, game-makers for this moral decay. IMO, we are all humans, standing in the same cess pool, and adding to it. Does pop, rock, rap music feed our souls with virtue and niceness and uplifting, noble thoughts? Usually not. Often the exact opposite.

Do you think it's acceptable for the musical industry, in general, to insist that the general public display a higher standard of morals and ethics than is promoted and displayed in the music itself?

I just think trying to educate the public about stealing is futile.

So the criminals MUST behave. Problem solved. Next.

[Watersound]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

No, soon the government will regulate the internet. And if you dont follow the rules you'll be in serious legal trouble. There will no longer be a difference between virtual and real life. Theft will be theft, no matter if you did it online or in the supermarket round the corner.

Which government? It's gonna have to be a "world" government which brings into view even closer the one world government...it will come unfortunately.

[melodic_disaster]

Originally Posted by pegleg

paraphrased..... blah blah blah..... paraphrased

OK Father Pegleg.

Brushing up on some world history might be in order when it comes to human behavior and morality.

Hopefully you're at least making some good trappist ale while wearing the cloak.

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by Watersound

Which government? It's gonna have to be a "world" government which brings into view even closer the one world government...it will come unfortunately.

No it doesn't. It is ILLEGAL to download in France from any business. They are all monitored and if you get caught, fines start at 4000 euro. The same doesn't apply to personal internet accounts, only business, but it's still a step in the right direction.

Every ISP could block torrent sites, and P2P access as well as blocking child porn, and hate sites. Not that I don't agree with Freedom of speech, but illegal is illegal.

[melodic_disaster]

Originally Posted by pegleg

I have no idea what this means...

exactly. the longer you go defending yourself on this thread the less of a favor you are doing yourself.

Originally Posted by pegleg

It IS encouraging that if you suggest anything about morality, you're branded a monk

guess i'm out of line reacting to your commets that were so eloquently communicated with such balanced objectivity and complete lack of utopian idealistic fanaticism.

Originally Posted by pegleg

Should we look to "world history" as the guidebook for the future?

puhlease tell me you didn't say that.

history offers significant information about how people and societies behave.
the past causes the present, and so the future.
only through studying history can we grasp how things change
only through history can we begin to comprehend the factors that cause change
only through history can we understand what elements of an institution or a society persist despite change.

if you would like to challenge these premises i would recommend contacting the historians at your closest university.

i am not responsible for your human enlightment.
so this OT conversation stops here.

i would recommend trying to own this thread at your own risk. you started downhill after your first post.

[Master Tang]

Some compelling reading to be sure. And some valid points on all accounts, but being the parent of two young people one 14, and one 20, I have seen the habits of "pirating" kids, and having spoken to them and their friends at length, here's some things I noticed.

They do find and download the occasional tune from a torrent or Limewire application. Singular. They don't like the rest of the CD. They do have iTunes accounts, and do still buy songs there as well.

They do still buy CD's. Regularly.

They do scour MySpace for the up and comers.

They do look for tunes by those artists at other places, be it Garage Band, Soundclick, Independent Artists, MP3.com and many other music hosting sites.

They do spread the word about the latest things they have come across, whether it is YouTube hilarity, or embarrasment, and they do check out what people that their friends find, but they still share song files, much like they share the e-mails they get from friends, and geeks, and the YouTube goofs they tape as a lark while watching a bud take a nasty spill on a skateboard.

On the other hand they complain about having too many sound alike acts put out by the major labels.

They still listen to the radio.

They find it annoying when CDs cost 18.99, when they can buy 100 blanks for on sale 21.99 at Comp USA, and when a t-shirt that cost 1.50 to make costs 30.00 at a show.

MySpace and the self promoting like sites are full of artist produced acts who think that they should be making 99 cents a download, and the world owes them a listen. And they piss and moan when they think they have been "ripped off".

Bottom line is, if you are, unique enough, soulful enough, skillful enough, or any other variety of descriptions that would make you something unusual and worth listening to, the world will find you and happily pay for the privilege.

But meanwhile kids will always be kids, and share and share alike.

[wm_b]

As a sociological micro-experiment I suggest:

For those who know someone who steals music as their main means of procuring tunes, delete the folder on their computer where the downloads reside. Report their reaction. My suggestion is CTRL+A and then SHIFT+DELETE. In windows it takes seconds. If they get really pissed saying it took them weeks, months, years or whatever to collect all that music then remind them how long it took the artists to write, tour, record so that they might care about it. Report the reaction.

[lofi]

As a sociological micro-experiment I suggest:

what if they also had they original music in the very same folder ?

oh is that your tooth on the floor ?

now seriously...

Soon There Will be Trackers to track people down who download, so be on the look for that

No, soon the government will regulate the internet. And if you dont follow the rules you'll be in serious legal trouble. There will no longer be a difference between virtual and real life. Theft will be theft, no matter if you did it online or in the supermarket round the corner.

that is not the solution at all. get real/inform yourself. no justice system is perfect but virtual is virtual and real is real. we are not in matrix yet. or you want more inocent ppl in jail and more murderes free ???

I would suggest than half the youngsters who are 'ripping' music, using P2Ps, or burning discs for their friends DON'T actually understand that it IS stealing,

pegleg, you are not of this earth man. they do understand !!! thats a part of the reason they do it !

another thing... why do you think all music should be positive at all ? why bad ppl automaticly shouldnt create music ? ever heard black metal genre ? ppl are ppl. some of us are sheep and some of us are big bad wolfs

[robd]

Just to weigh in here. First, I am not talking about grey areas, but, rather, unintended consequences. Second, I in any way, making an analogy between pirating music and free speech, so please read the post carefully before spouting out some knee jerk response.
To anyone who has even the faintest grasp of history and doesn't have their head wedged up their a**, it should be completely obvious that any action will always have unintended consequences, and that this especially applies to any government regulation that is enacted with the intent of fixing something.
For many people in a lot of places in the world, like china, to name just one of many many examples, the relative anonymity provided by the internet has been the first ray of hope of being able to exercise anything resembling free speech in history. Speaking as an American, I don't think we should be too smug about that either, as, while things aren't too bad yet, our country seems to be heading rapidly in that direction.
When that anonymity breaks down, as in the case of Yahoo outing those reporters in china recently, people can expect to be sent to jail for 10-15 years and have the shit beaten out of them every day, or worse, for writing even fairly mild critiques of the local secular or religious authorities.

Bear in mind here that i am not defending the practice of pirating, but any potential solution to the problem of piracy necessarily involves breaking down completely the relative anonymity of the internet. In other words, if there were any way left to use it anonymously, people would probably use it for piracy. Breaking down that anonymity would also effectively remove any chance a lot of people have of exercising free speech without being tortured or killed for it. With this in mind, I think you should weigh giving the government the extremely broad powers over the internet that would be necessary to stop piracy against the other consequences of giving ANY government that kind of power.

If, after considering that, you still think giving the government those powers is a better idea than trying to find a new revenue model, I can only conclude that you either have a very limited grasp of history, or an extremely trusting nature.

[Saudade]

If I may offer my 2cents worth of opinion.

"Illegal" filesharing is left unchecked currently not because it is impossible to stop. It is just that none of the people who have the power to stop it WANTS to.

Why would they? Besides the "kids" who are enjoying "free music", everyone from utility software makers, legislators, lawyers, ISPs, computer OS manufacturers, mp3 blog owners, consumer hardware manufacturers, internet startups etc etc are all benefiting directly/indirectly from the filesharing phenomenon.

It's a free-for-all feast, the content owners are picking up the tab but are not invited to it.

The only way to stop it is to somehow give all these "players" an economic stake, a $$$ incentive to stop it. If these players earn more from some new form of direct, legal monetization of music(with the content owners compensated) than from just profitting passively and indirectly from the phenomenon, you will see how the tables turn.

Now it only takes some genius to figure out how we can "cut them a deal", get them on our side, and still have enough $ to put food on our tables. How difficult is that ?

It's all about the money, it's all about the dum dum da da dee dum

[jsswtpmp182]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

I dont agree... why pay if you can get it for free, even if its a classic record/song? It's not like people still want vinyl or cds with booklets, all they usually want is the damn mp3 file. And getting it for free is oftentimes much more convenient than paying for it. Think about it, you can either go to iTunes or Amazon and buy music, or start your filesharing program and have everything on your computer within minutes. As long as stealing is easier than paying, people will always steal.

i disagree- itunes is way easier to use and you're sure to get a quality product thats legit... people are dumb (unfortunately) and most people don't wanna have to sit and worry about getting a bad quality file or even worse for the pc users- a virus. itunes is the wave of the future and it's catching on.

ps- illegal file sharing helps spread the word too ya know... without it- some bands wouldn't be where they are

pss- even when i was downloading crazy- i never didn't buy my favorite artists records...

[melodic_disaster]

Originally Posted by jsswtpmp182

pss- even when i was downloading crazy- i never didn't buy my favorite artists records...

i agree and do think this is the case with a lot of people. i don't agree with that harvard study that said illegal downloading doesn't affect cd sales.

when you look at the financial state of the industry (and sheer number of mouths to feed past vs present and future) i think what you see is that a lot of people used to buy their favorite artists, but they also used to buy ones they just liked, as well as perhaps taking a flyer on a few they don't know.

the latter two are pretty much going away, i think that the illegal dl has spurred most of it - directly or indirectly. indirectly, given that the bowing to itunes 99 cents was a result of trying to monetize the bloodbath of illegal downloading. historically - for example in 1970 - the single was about 20-25% of the cost of the album. since very few artists ever have albums full of singles (beatles, etc) you would mark up the gem to a place where people would still see value in buying the album.

now at 99cents, with no markup of the gems, only those very "favorite" artists get cd's purchased. and why not - it makes perfect consumer sense to do so, because overall the mass buying public will do what is in their best interest comparatively. without illegal downloading the record companies never would have caved-in to Apple and its 99c requirement. the industry would not be living on bread and water and kicking the professionals on the fringe out of the business.

some would like to see the fall of big record comapnies. i can't say that would not be an interesting proposition, and not completely implausible, but it is unlikely for a host of reasons that could fill another thread. the only realistic way i could see this happning is if the ad agencies decide to get into the music business. not sure if they want to go there, but they are already in film produciton and sure would fit their core competencies..

Repricing singles upward or reprice the album downwards is a possible goal. OR (as I said in previous posts) create more percieved value for the consumer to buy the album at current prices.

OR move into "music 2.0" ty to devalue the illegal download and give free (or really cheap) downloads with advertising support, (spiral frog, etc). A large part of the consumer market obviously wants free music, and the only way I can see to get them close is to offer an ad-supported option. This would bring distribution back into the industry, and while no longer soley resting with the majors, at least the industry could compete with itself over consumers rather than having to compete with the black market of gnutella. et al.

by the way, here's a radical proposal that i do not buy into, but it sure does provide one with the concept of what some in the internet generation would ike to see with the business model of musical and intellectual property. http://www.muserati.com/

[Master Tang]

Originally Posted by melodic_disaster

when you look at the financial state of the industry (and sheer number of mouths to feed past vs present and future) i think what you see is that a lot of people used to buy their favorite artists, but they also used to buy ones they just liked, as well as perhaps taking a flyer on a few they don't know.

Great post as a whole, but this part stuck out to me, because your right. The sheer number of available artists has increased exponentially over the past 10 years which happens to coincide with the availability of PCs, and the use of home based studios. The indy scene is burgeoning, and "favorite" artists are the only ones that have the mass market appeal enough to sell complete CDs.

I don't think raising the price of a single is the answer.

As far as an indy act succeeding, I know of a fellow who has for at least the past 4 years of freely given away his music, that he self produced in a home studio and let HQ downloads happen on every tune he wrote.

Funny thing is, with NO help, NO label, NO live gigging,and NO other advertising, when his first CD came out with the SAME songs he gave away, he sold over 10,000 copies, and is still counting.

I bought one, and I HAD all the free tunes, and so did over 9,999 other people. At 14.99 a pop US as well.

Again, if you have the creativity, and the talent to stand out, the world will still sit up and listen, and pay happily for the privilege.

[fanriffic]

..interesting points,many grey(Big up U.K slutz)areas,and some.. pointless arguments..comon peeps this is something we all need to think seriously about if we're planning 2 continue in the business of recorded music,and there may not be general,all encompassing solution but maybe more specific ones suited to different areas.

..So I'm stepping up to defend the pegg-ed one.First of all melodic_disaster i feel you're making some great points but why get so sh#%y and personal?-pegleg is:putting some ideas out which he feels may benefit OUR situation.pegleg is not:questioning your/mothers/sisters/ sexual integrity..

I personally think that the education thing is a very valid one and not utopian..etc at all.
If people who really value the music of a particular artist understand that in order for that artist to keep producing music they need to be paid and that getting their music from an illegal download prevents them from doing so... i don't see why its so ridiculous that they might realise the importance of it.

Of course much of the younger demographic still won't care and are only concerned with having the latest 'stars',latest 'hit' now and feel no real affinity with that 'artist',cause they'll be a new one along next week anyway..

But i,and many of my friends,are very happy to invest the price of a CD towards the continuing production of music from an artist who resonates deeply with us..

I do feel we're talking about two almost unrealated things here which confuses matters..one is something that the artist pours his heart,body,mind (..and money) into and the other is a transient business project devised to make dollars-but of course there are grey areas here to.

..the 'business model music' will not resonate with people on a particulaly deep level and thus i feel people are less likely to be concerned with how it came to be or if it'll be around tomorrow,will generally be consumed by people who are happy with what they're given with maybe a little descrimination here and there...but music that people love,that means something to them,that the artist cares about,will have them ..umm.. caring about it..and the power of that shouldn't be underestimated.

We are more aware than ever of the power and effects our consumer habits have and that has been bought about through education-many won't give sh#t,but many will and do.

[melodic_disaster]

Originally Posted by fanriffic

I personally think that the education thing is a very valid one and not utopian..etc at all.

you're entitled to that opinion and i wish you luck in the exeution of that idea. i don't think you can teach someone morality, i believe their parents do, and the data supports that.

i'd look forward to examples of past successes. I've asked that pegleg and didn't hear anything to change my opinion.

all i'm going to say is this last thing before signing out -

Point 1 - after all the drug prevention education (this is drugs...your brain on drugs fried egg), in the past 15 years drug use has gone steadily UP in teens, negative perception has gone down over the last 15 years. Only half of teens think its dangerous to use crack or heroin once or twice.

Is it too far fetched to say that kids will do exactly opposite what big brother preaches?

Point two - After all the smoking lawsuits which mandated and resulted in anti-smoking ads and awareness - i think this might be in the $ billions - the negative perception of smoking at least once a day went up 5-10% over 15 years; pretty flat over the last 6 years. What a return. Woo hoo!

Point three - Sex abstinence education.....coinciding with an increase in federal spending on abstinence (hundreds of $ millions!!!), a decade long trend of teen sex went....UP! you can't make this stuff up. the timing of the reversal is uncanny and directly in the face of the longstanding aids scare since 1990 stats.

Now if you're talking about educating facts - not morality - aka safe sex, that does work. But morality has not worked. Ironically, the political right believes educating facts promotes bad behavior, and teaching morality promotes good bahavior. Scientists who have no political skin in the game have the proof in the data that says to the contrary.

Still think that education is a solution?

I would call it dreaming, but I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by fanriffic

..So I'm stepping up to defend the pegg-ed one.First of all melodic_disaster i feel you're making some great points but why get so sh#%y and personal?-pegleg is:putting some ideas out which he feels may benefit OUR situation.pegleg is not:questioning your/mothers/sisters/ sexual integrity..

If you followed the thread, I came in with positive general suggestions and he comes out of left field swearing in caps out of the gate. I did not pick this confrontation, you should re-read the thread noting the behavior of who you are defending - ironically mr, morality likes to fight.

OK, look I don't want to dominate this thread I'll jump out as I came in the thread looking to add valued ideas, not pick a bar room fight and the need to convince people to think I am right and they are not.

g'day mate!

[Kiwiburger]

The argument "everybodies doing it" doesn't make an activity right. But - there comes a point where a government needs to make a decision. To continue to criminalise an activity, and not be seen to police it, becomes a farce and an embarassment. It is much more honest and reasonable to say: ok, this activity isn't right, BUT, there aren't enough courts and prisons in the land to put all these "criminals" behind bars.

Time to legalise it, I think. For personal use. Maybe draw a distinction between compressed formats and uncompressed.

At the same time, I would suggest that the penalties for the bastards copying and selling CD's should be increased and policed with a vengeance. Take their assetts; sell their cars and houses; do them.

To me the analogy between free to air radio and internet file sharing is a strong one. As many people have seen, it gives exposure to new music, and actually causes growth in CD sales. I usually will not buy a CD if I haven't heard at least one song from it first.

[abit]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

I It's fairly easy to set up a shopping card or online store where you can sell your music independently..

How much did you personally sell in 2007?

[fanriffic]

Originally Posted by melodic_disaster

If you followed the thread, I came in with positive general suggestions and he comes out of left field swearing in caps out of the gate. I did not pick this confrontation, you should re-read the thread noting the behavior of who you are defending - ironically mr, morality likes to fight.

..you know melodic_disaster i did re-read the thread and whilst pegleg wasn't questioning your/mothers/sisters sexual integrity,as i pointed out,he did seem to be questioning the sexual integrity of your world view in replying to some very calm and valid points you had made.So my apologies-you didn't pick this confrontation.

Re:the education point-I'm not sure we are talking about trying to impart morality here.I believe the majority of people filesharing/illegally downloading really don't actually think this whole thing through to its logical conclusion.

They see free music and think 'woohoo its free',they may have a vague idea its not right and maybe illegal but i don't think they are really aware of the whole picture and the consequences.

If we were coming from a moral perspective we would say 'this is stealing and stealing is wrong so don't do it' which of course will have,in the best case senario a very minor impact and in the worst,the opposite effect.

But I think what we are talking about here IS explaining the facts-If you download this illegally instead of paying for it this artist will not get any revenue from it and if enough people do that this artist will not have sufficiant funds to continue making music thus we will eventually loose them along with their work-there's no 'thou shalt nots' here,its giving simple facts and logic and putting the ball in the consumers court.

Like i said many people won't give a sh#t but i think many will.

Re examples;I feel its sort of similar to the cheap sportsware thing.All people initially saw was 'woohoo cheap clothes' but behind that was the whole sweatshop business;the publics awareness of that and the power of the individual consumer forced the main perpetrators to do something about it-albeit fairly cosmetic.

Similarly,people have made huge changes to their lifestyles and consuming habits in the light of education(how accurate it is,is another matter)about carbon emissions and global warming.

..and you don't find alot of ivory around these days because people were educated to the fact that if that trade had continued at the rate it was going there would have shortly been no more elephants.

..Maybe you've gone MD and i'm happy to agree to disagree-but my respect to you for some great points and suggestions.

[Kiwiburger]

The idea that artists won't make money or produce good work if everyone downloads their songs is not rational.

IMO, the best art has been produced by artists long before they made any money. Often, when the big money arrives the artists get self indulgent and their work turns to crap.

But apart from that - any popular artist can make truckloads of money by touring. If they are too lazy to tour, should they make any money?

[abit]

So far we've got alot of a good observations and consumer psychology
related points, which is cool and we can find more of it on the
net.
I think we have quite clearly scarry picture now.

At the same time we can admit, we didn't invent anything to actually sell our music.
Obviously it's not that easy.
So my suggestion would be if slutz we'll shoot here anything on the subject.
Please feel free to post your ideas on how to sell music in this world wild web.

[abit]

If every one of those people tried to convince two friends or kids they know to stop illegally copying music - and those people passed it on... It's not going to go away..

Ppl education, aight.

As far as how to sell music - are you talking about stopping illegal downloading in favor of selling CDs and legal downloads, or just in terms of promoting and selling your music? (It's not clear in your post)..

Promotion is always the leverage in sale of anything as we know.
Mostly downloads. This is what killing the biz at the moment, right?!
Yes in regards to illegal downloads.

AGAIN - let your audience know (even if it's currently only 10 people) that you need their help to keep going.

Education once more.
Yeah that's cool.