Documentary on Music Piracy - Page 3

Who gets the lions share?

the artists get 0.5% when you buy a new CD...and I never buy a CD blindly, I always seek web previews/mp3's before paying for lossless goodness with my hard earned cash.

anyway, the problem is far more complicated than it'd appear...the new generation has/will/won't ever pay for music. that's what happens when you feed lady gaga crap to kids, it's not music per se and can't be sold as is. you hear the tune 10 times and you're sick of it already, replay value is very very low.

Has anyone got any real figures to prove their point? I am sure the distribution between artist and record company for a start varies from contract to contract.

The new generation were pirating as that was the only way for them to get music via the internet at first. Then the music industry caught up with downloads and now streaming. The new generation are not as morally corrupt as you suggest and I am sure with music from My Space etc are finding they can access it legally, for free quite easily. A few hefty prosecutions such as the founders of Pirate Bay will help turn most people off illegal file sharing. Never being able to end the illegal side of music is no excuse to participate in it.

Lady Gaga and other financially successful artists allow the record companies to invest in other artists as well. Mike Oldfield alone kept Virgin Records going for years in the 1970s and gave many bands a chance who would otherwise had no backing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry 

LOL.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn 

 

LOL.
 

Ha, next you will suggest it is all Canada's fault that illegal file sharing exists and that is when all the pirates live.

Canadians are too nice to be pirates. Yarrr!

TPB is only the tiny visible tip of the iceberg...kill it and it'll come back 10000x stronger! totally decentralized and totally impossible to shutdown. 15 years ago, piracy was only occuring on private elite ftp's...it got dumbed down, and now noone can try to ignore it any further.

kids nowadays already have a hard time paying for their cellphone bills, music is free in their mind and will remain so. the fight is lost in advance, resistance is futile. putting the CD sales loss on piracy is as dumb as can get, as it's a lie to believe that ppl have as much money to spend on music as they did 10/20 years ago.

what I see here in Europe is that they start packing CD w/ DVD-Video additional content in dual discs packages for low prices....that's the key! add more video content, lower the price...ppl will bite. but the days of selling audio CD's for $30 are long gone.

I personally very much enjoy 70's jamaican roots reggae, it's notorious that most of those artists got ripped off when signing contracts and don't see a single dime of royalties when you buy a new CD...even Lee Perry said that he doesn't want ppl to buy his old records, because he doesn't get any money from them.

another guy here in France sold 600K singles and got paid monkey money...like $500? the record companies have been ripping off the artists for too long, I make it a political engagement to NEVER buy a new CD anymore...."live by the sword, die by the sword".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

I hope leeperry reads the part about first sale doctrine, realises he is barking up the wrong tree and the second market has nothing to do with piracy.

 

Regarding the part I have put into bold, I see the future as either very cheap to access streamed music (£10 a month with Spotify Premium) or free to access with adverts (such as Grooveshark, We7, Spotify basic). When we can all access 'new' music, we don't need a second hand market anymore and there is absolutely no reason or justification for piracy.

The first sale doctrine is the rule of law in the USA.  Different countries are going to have different laws on the subject.  I'm not sure if leeperry is in the US, so he may be living and operating within a different set of laws.

I do very much like the benefits of the first-sale doctrine as a consumer.  I'm disappointed that the digital distribution of intangible things like software (which is also covered by copyright) has managed to erode those rights, or at least put them into a state of legal confusion.  The companies producing digital works covered by copyright want all of the benefits of copyright protection without giving the consumer any of the rights they traditionally have through copyright.  Companies doing that are just going to breed resentment of copyright law amongst consumers.  Consumers are going to retaliate and use their own means (piracy) to get what they should have by right (right of first sale, right to transcode, right to time shift, fair use rights, etc.).  Push things too far and you'll even get some radical thinking to abolish copyright altogether.  Copyright is supposed to be a two way street.  Benefits for the producer balanced against benefits to society as a whole.  Stop benefiting society as a whole and we just might take the whole game away and say "no, not yours.  No more copyright protection for you".  We've got the Pirate Party now proposing just that.

Subscription services don't take the place of actually being able to own the works and collect the works.  With a subscription service there is no sense of ownership and little emotional attachment to anything in the collection.  None of it is yours.  It isn't under your control.  Someone else is making the decisions about what can be in the collection and what cannot.  Want a particular mastering of a favorite album?  It might be in subscription catalog or might not.  If it is currently there it could be removed next month. 

Subscription services make music a commodity.  If you view the music you want to listen to as a commodity then a subscription service may be the right thing.  However, if you view music as something more than just a commodity, something to collect, something to cherish and to hold, then a subscription service is not going to fill that need.

A subscription service is going to be useful for say a high school student or college student who wants to explore the world of music and find what they like and learn and explore the music that they like.  It would be like having a whole library worth many thousands of dollars at your fingertips.  No real need to pirate if you have access to that.

But at some point you grow up and want to own and collect the music you like.  You don't want to be subject to the whims of some faceless company deciding what is in the library and what is not.  Dumping money into a library that you don't own and that will go away when the subscription ends begins to make less sense.  Better to buy and own what you want.  And at this point hopefully there will be proper ways to buy the music you want without having to resort to piracy to get certain music free and clear of a subscription service.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

The shop, the distributor, the recording studio, the record company, the recording artist, the songwriter, the CD manufacturer, the artist's agent/manager, the person who did the artwork for the CD and the people who are directly and indirectly involved as employees of all of the companies who are involved in the whole industry.

sounds good until you break down the percentages. 

I don't think there's any absolute here.  In buying a CD, you are getting the music legally and a small amount of your money goes towards people who have made that music possible.  But you are also supporting a corrupt system, and allowing it to prosper.  One could make the argument that if you don't want to support a system, you should just avoid the product.  For example, if you don't want to support poaching, you shouldn't just steal the ivory, you should make do without it.  But that's a hard bullet to swallow with music because that means no music for me and no support to the artists because I also will inevitably not go to shows.  I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In some ways, stealing the CD, and supporting the artist by going to shows, and even making a donation at that show (yes I have done this) is a rather ideal way to do it.  But it is still stealing.

Any way you shake it, IMO, someone or something gets the shaft.

Why is business always the protected? Because they buy the laws.

Technology has obsoleted many a business, why are the record companies different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man 

Lady Gaga and other financially successful artists allow the record companies to invest in other artists as well. Mike Oldfield alone kept Virgin Records going for years in the 1970s and gave many bands a chance who would otherwise had no backing.

Lady Gaga has also gone bankrupt several times since making it big. Why? Because the record company wont pay as much for the show as she wants to.

Quote:

 

Quote:Originally Posted by Happy Camper 

When we were kids (mid 60s), we recorded from the radio, friends records, etc. It was of poor quality and usually the artist never heard of. We were really marketing the group through this practice. When we heard something we liked, we bought it.

This is still happening today. In fact, many leaks are done deliberately by the record label. I believe stealth marketing is the term.

It's good to see the number of post-conventional moralists here according to Kohlberg's moral stages. Reminds me of the Vietnam war in Australia.

Keep it up

very good video OP i greatly enjoyed watching it

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry 

TPB is only the tiny visible tip of the iceberg...kill it and it'll come back 10000x stronger! totally decentralized and totally impossible to shutdown. 15 years ago, piracy was only occuring on private elite ftp's...it got dumbed down, and now noone can try to ignore it any further.

 

kids nowadays already have a hard time paying for their cellphone bills, music is free in their mind and will remain so. the fight is lost in advance, resistance is futile. putting the CD sales loss on piracy is as dumb as can get, as it's a lie to believe that ppl have as much money to spend on music as they did 10/20 years ago.

 

what I see here in Europe is that they start packing CD w/ DVD-Video additional content in dual discs packages for low prices....that's the key! add more video content, lower the price...ppl will bite. but the days of selling audio CD's for $30 are long gone.

 

I personally very much enjoy 70's jamaican roots reggae, it's notorious that most of those artists got ripped off when signing contracts and don't see a single dime of royalties when you buy a new CD...even Lee Perry said that he doesn't want ppl to buy his old records, because he doesn't get any money from them.

 

another guy here in France sold 600K singles and got paid monkey money...like $500? the record companies have been ripping off the artists for too long, I make it a political engagement to NEVER buy a new CD anymore...."live by the sword, die by the sword".

Just to confirm, because some artists have been ripped off by some record companies, it is OK to steal the music? And since piracy is hard to deal with, we should not bother? 

What if you 'steal' the music but donate money to the artist? Sounds like a moral dilemma. Piracy is always going to be a cat and mouse game and the music industry won't be able to get rid of it. They have also lost support with common people by suing them for ridiculous amounts of money. The only way to combat it, is to adapt their business model by making it more appealing to customers. I like what Radio head and Trent Reznor did. You could download the album for free and have the choice to donate money or not. This gives the consumer a choice. If they like it, make a donation, and if they don't, delete it. I've been burned many times in the past by buying a cd based on a single and it turns out that was the only song I liked. At least with iTunes you could buy the single but, iTunes needs to expand their library and make every song available in a lossless format. They are only hurting themselves by sticking with an archaic business model.