Documentary on Music Piracy

Absolutely superb, well done.

Music stealing and/or copying is here long long ago before we had our first PCs.Since the first recording device.

Sadly MaSTaC7, don't expect too many responses to your well very well argued point that illegal downloading is theft, however you try and justify it and whatever you call it. There are just too many people out there who want to steal music and cannot bring themselves to admit to being thieves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Sadly MaSTaC7, don't expect too many responses to your well very well argued point that illegal downloading is theft, however you try and justify it and whatever you call it. There are just too many people out there who want to steal music and cannot bring themselves to admit to being thieves.

I used to justify it in a completely different way. Since I know a majority of the money wasn't actually going to the artists, I was like meh, so for every CD I bought, I was like, well I can download 5 now. Weird incorrect logic I know, but its not that I couldn't admit I was a thief, I knew damn well I was, I just thought and still do that the Music Industry big wigs are bigger crooks than I.

I think that part of the reason the music industry is affected to the extent it is by music piracy is because they are targeting the wrong demographic. Mainly, the one that tends not to pay. I'll repost a quote from Unkle Erik that sums this up nicely:

...The problem with Big Music is twofold.

One, the costs of production and distribution have dropped to almost nothing. Anyone who wants to record now can in a spare bedroom or garage, and get pretty decent quality. They can then distribute for very little on the Internet. They can compete effectively against $20 CDs - even $2 or $3 can justify itself. So Big Music is now having to justify an overpriced economic model.

The other problem is that Big Music puts everything into acts that only appeal to children. They only want the big score from disposable teen pop or manufactured rap. The problem there is that most consumers of it have fairly limited resources - they will get the cheapest version which is usually an illegal download. So Big Music is makinga product specifically tailored to those who don't pay for music. Idiots.

I like SACDs and LPs, have several thousand to spend on music each year, and am mostly ignored. I have to buy niche products and used records. Instead of focusing solely on consumers who will rip them off, Big Music would rather spit in the face of someone willing to hand over a few thousand. Like I said, idiots.

Considering that music has been the most easily copied saleable item ever, it is actually surprising an industry has been able to build up such big profits at all.

But does big profit = justification to rip the business off? No, though at times, such as with the drugs industry and the cost of some drugs, it is morally dubious how much profit they make. The same could be said of some of the music industry practices before, though often it was the artists who were ripped off by the industry themselves. Then, with file sharing the artists could be ripped off wholesale by the consumers as well.

But that is now irrelevant as you can access millions of tracks via the internet, many for free with the adverts. So the music industry has adapted and there is absolutely no excuse to steal the product, not that there was ever a valid excused in the first place. 

Piracy doesn't need to stop. You cannot restrict a person access to music because of socioeconomic background; particularly if you take into account theorists such as Gardner (who places music as a type of intelligence, quite controversially). It is similar, in a sense, to denying someone freedom or an education.

Music should be free, as it is a part of our culture. It is akin to say, charging people to go to the beach in Australia: it belongs to everyone.

The business model of the record industry is bankrupt and needs to change; artists should be offering their music for free for exposition to all (including those without access to a radio), and people should be charged to see these acts in person. Major recording artists need to earn less money, and the average fee for hiring a musician needs to increase (its about $60 for the hour, minimum 3 hour call-out locally for your run-of-the-mill pub gig). Additionally, I don't personally believe the products that are being released under major labels are worth anything at all - they are compressed to death and generally feature uninspired tracks that are mass marketed to a radio conglomerate to wash over the masses until they become popular.

Record sales attribute large amounts of profit to record companies, and not to the artist or engineers behind the work. Engineers should be paid by artists, and artists should be payed by performance. They should be performing more often, and the business should be more about the gigs (like it is on the jazz scene) than pumping out an album every three years and striving for 1M+ sales, of which you receive less than a 10% cut.

Those responsible for the music (those who have written it), should be receiving larger royalties each time the song is played by the people they wrote it for, or the purpose for which it is written (for example a film or a popular band), or indeed covers that are printed and sold. They should not receive profit for covers that are performed once and forgotten.

I do not engage in piracy, but I do not believe the current system is fit for an evolving society. Any piece of music I have ever made has been let into the ether for free, and, when I create my new one-man band, it will continue to be free.

You cannot put a price on the enjoyment a single child receives in their bedroom alone, when their father beats them and their mother doesn't even care. Call me idealist, but if there is one thing that shouldn't be subject to supreme capitalist notions, it is music.

I understand (as I have lived it) that living through music is not a "get rich quick", but I don't think a lack of money should interfere with art.

The music industry is one of the worst around, and not because it is brutal, but because of the huge gap between profits made and the evidenced greed at the very top for sub-par products. The little guys writing gems down at a corner shop are forgotten.

Actually artist earn from royalties and licenses not CD sales..

The big money comes from touring and gigs..

The only reason why CD sales make such big impact is because record companies pay alot of money for marketing and setting up sales network.

On the flip side, if there was no big wig record company, royalty and licenses sale won't be jacked up, record companies can't earn a cut to market an artist to world wide celebrity status.

However you can still offer music for free on download and yet make mad cash, cold play did and it earned them a bigger following because people who really liked their music came out to support them with their tour.

The only reason now for us as music lovers and audioholics is with special format audiophile grade which is too complicated for some to use computer as source or too much hassle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen 

Piracy doesn't need to stop. You cannot restrict a person access to music because of socioeconomic background; particularly if you take into account theorists such as Gardner (who places music as a type of intelligence, quite controversially). It is similar, in a sense, to denying someone freedom or an education.

 

Music should be free, as it is a part of our culture. It is akin to say, charging people to go to the beach in Australia: it belongs to everyone.

 

The business model of the record industry is bankrupt and needs to change; artists should be offering their music for free for exposition to all (including those without access to a radio), and people should be charged to see these acts in person. Major recording artists need to earn less money, and the average fee for hiring a musician needs to increase (its about $60 for the hour, minimum 3 hour call-out locally for your run-of-the-mill pub gig). Additionally, I don't personally believe the products that are being released under major labels are worth anything at all - they are compressed to death and generally feature uninspired tracks that are mass marketed to a radio conglomerate to wash over the masses until they become popular.

 

Record sales attribute large amounts of profit to record companies, and not to the artist or engineers behind the work. Engineers should be paid by artists, and artists should be payed by performance. They should be performing more often, and the business should be more about the gigs (like it is on the jazz scene) than pumping out an album every three years and striving for 1M+ sales, of which you receive less than a 10% cut.

 

Those responsible for the music (those who have written it), should be receiving larger royalties each time the song is played by the people they wrote it for, or the purpose for which it is written (for example a film or a popular band), or indeed covers that are printed and sold. They should not receive profit for covers that are performed once and forgotten.

 

I do not engage in piracy, but I do not believe the current system is fit for an evolving society. Any piece of music I have ever made has been let into the ether for free, and, when I create my new one-man band, it will continue to be free.

 

You cannot put a price on the enjoyment a single child receives in their bedroom alone, when their father beats them and their mother doesn't even care. Call me idealist, but if there is one thing that shouldn't be subject to supreme capitalist notions, it is music.

 

I understand (as I have lived it) that living through music is not a "get rich quick", but I don't think a lack of money should interfere with art.

The music industry is one of the worst around, and not because it is brutal, but because of the huge gap between profits made and the evidenced greed at the very top for sub-par products. The little guys writing gems down at a corner shop are forgotten.

If someone had trained for years and made a beach and only that training could result in a beach being made, then we should pay to go to the beach. But no one made the beach, so it is free. Someone has to make the music, so it is not free.

A single child alone in their bedroom because of the terrible parents listening to copy CDs are a tiny minority of the listening population and are still not an excuse for others to do the same. If their source was illegal downloads, then they would still be wrong because of the number of free to listen internet music sites such as Grooveshark and Spotify and internet radio stations.

when you buy second hand CD's, you're also not giving a dime to the record companies...so CD's should enclose a licence that forbids selling the medium itself afterwards?

should buying/selling second hand CD's be made illegal?

I'm sure many ppl were recording their favorite radio stations on tape ages ago, was that illegal? should they have been thrown to jail altogether?

I buy used CDs.  The artists and labels don't get my money. :(

Is that the equivalent of piracy?  Same ends, different means as far as the labels and artists are concerned.

So the second hand market justifies theft?!  Is that what you really mean? So because there is a second hand market for cars, it is OK for me to steal your brand new car?

I hardly ever buy brand new CD's coz they're too pricey, and usually the music I like is out of print...all I'm saying is that I show up as an evil pirate in their bloated stats duh.

I don't know who they are in 'their bloated stats' that you speak of. I don't understand how second hand is piracy. Second hand records, etc has been a massive part of the music industry as a whole providing many jobs in record shops.