I've been saying it all along...

[bladespark]

And I'll keep saying it, especially as it seems that I'm right in saying it. Downloading free music doesn't mean you've "stolen" potential profits from the music industry. Downloaders download music they would otherwise never own in any form, not music they would otherwise buy.

It can still be argued that you stole the music, of course. The fact that "stealing" free music doesn't hurt music sales doesn't mean that you have any legal right to take it.

But on the other hand, I still maintain that the RIAA is hurting themselves FAR more than helping by trying to "crack down" in music piracy.

And really it can be argued the other way as well. Nearly every one of those illegal downloads began with somebody who bought the music, who owned it and decided to share what they owned, after all...

In any case, I still have hopes that eventually the music industry will realize that chasing DRM and trying to impose ever more stric penalties for music piracy really isn't doing them any good. It's a waste of their money and resources, a stain on their reputation, and is resulting in the alienation of their own customer base, all devoted to trying to stop something that's not actually doing them any harm.

Comments

[harliquinnraver.livejournal.com]

hey! im painting your chibi pony as we speak :D

so far shes a white pony with black hair. XD i had no idea these things were to tough to paint! ill be all proud of it when its finished! :D

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Awesome! Your wings aren't done yet, but I think I might be able to get them put together pretty soon.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

It may not be hurting the big music companies... but being lax on explaining how it constitutes theft hurts small indie labels.

I've been at a CD table selling CDs and on a pretty regular basis, I hear a conversation like this... "Oh, you guys are getting them, too? You don't have to do that, I'll buy them and burn you copies when we get home..."

Usually, I'm able to nip it in the bud by offering that if they buy them all together as a group, I can offer them the bulk rate, thus resulting in 6 or 9 sales instead of just 3... Often people just have no guilt whatsoever for taking what would have amounted to our gas money and lodging for the next show because they don't seem to realize that CD money is how we are able to afford to keep our heads above water financially.

I imagine that to the bigger companies cracking down on this stuff it may be a waste of their time and money in their own personal business, but it raises awareness for those who really just didn't know any better and it helps out small indie labels to keep their heads above water.

Out of all the musicians out there, you've probably only ever heard of about 5% of them. Those are the ones who can really afford to do something about the problem for the other 95%... It may be expensive for them, but I appreciate that they're doing it to raise awareness for those of us who can't afford to do anything about it ourselves.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

It's not the fact of the big companies cracking down, it's the way they're going about it. If their crack down was actually going to do any good, that'd be great. But they're not "raising awareness." They're just blundering around, flinging blame in every direction.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

I suppose some of what they're doing is useful and some is detrimental... it does appear that nobody knows how to solve the problem, so they're only trying to mitigate the damages... It is their property, though, and they do have the right to protect it the best they can.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about solving the problem if you were in their position? (I realize this is totally hypothetical, if you really don't think that it's causing them any damages or loss of profits, but humor me, please.)

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Let artists manage their own stuff, is one thing I'm in favor of. If you're going to protect music, let the person who created it have the first say in how it's treated, and whether or not it can be shared and downloaded.

And I like encouraging honesty rather than assuming everyone is a criminal.

And by that I mean, if I buy a song, let me PLAY the song, however I want, share it with whoever I want, and enjoy it any way I want. I bought it, I should be able to use it, rather than being able to listen to it only on an approved device, in an approved way. Most customers don't rip songs off and put them on filesharing networks anyhow. I never have! So don't assume I'm going to and insist I can't be allowed to buy something that's not DRM protected.

And make some songs freely available! In the realm of publishing I have gone out and bought new books, when I almost never spring for the cost of a new book, because I read one in a series, or one by an author, legally for free, in libraries or on the net, and wanted more. Why not give away samples? Those of us who are too broke to go buy full albums are just downloading it and not spending a cent on it anyhow, right now. If we had legal free, or really cheap options, we'd use them!

And there's another thing! Pricing structure. Why should I pay $20 for an album when I want one song? Why should I pay $1 for a song when it's a really old one that nobody much wants anymore by somebody obscure? They artificially set the market, and inflated prices are not necessarily the best way to make money, especially with digital media, where the production costs are very low! I've seen what it takes to record and distribute a song. Yes it costs money, but not that much! With digital media you could make money selling songs for fifty cents. Twenty cents even! Why doesn't anybody? And if you let free samples out to advertise, and LET people pass them along freely, so that friends can share artists they like with friends, you could very well get more business.

I've heard it said, though I haven't read any solid studies on it, that music sales jumped when Napster very first started. Because people got something free, liked it, and went and bought more like it. That's what I'd like to see, is music sharing used as viral marketing, rather than villainized.

But most of all I'd just like to see DRM go away. If I've legally bought it, then freaking LET ME PLAY IT. No mater what DRM scheme they come up with, the pirates crack it anyhow, and even if they couldn't most music is still sold on CDs, not online, and music from CDs hasn't got DRM on it at all. So they're putting all this effort into protecting their music on the net, and it's like building a really high wall in front of your castle, when out back of the castle there are no walls at all! So just leave it be.

If you want to have big public campaigns, let them be public information campaigns, talk about the damage done to artists by stealing, all that, and not talk about how awful and nasty and criminal everyone who buys music is, and we should sue them all! Why not spend the money they waste on lawsuits doing something productive to help their industry?

This is all just me throwing out ideas. What of that would work and what wouldn't I'm not sure. I speak from a consumer's standpoint, not a business standpoint here. But I know how I operate, and it's not "Oh, I'd go buy this, but I can get it free, so I won't," it's "Oh, I'd LOVE to buy this but I just don't have the money." If I couldn't download music anymore, I just would listen to less music, that's all. And I know I'm not the only one who operates that way.

[rimspace.livejournal.com]

As someone who used to know several crackers, I can assure you that the more effort that is put into any copy protection scheme, the more it encourages the crackers: the majority of them are not stupid criminals but highly intelligent people who get a kick out of the challenge of getting past security measures the publisher claims are inpenetrable. Whether it's because of personal opinions on information freedom or simply because of the thrill of one person or a small group of them getting past the schemes that cost millions of dollars and man-hours to produce, making it more complex is just a way to say "Nya, nya, bet you can't get past this!" to them.

The killer problem right now is that, unlike books and comics (where the free access as a hook method is very successful - for example this interview with Phil Foglio has some concrete information on the sales benefits) the pirate music option actually has more benefits than the legal route simply because you get to pick exactly what you want, get it in a format you can do what you want with and can get it any time you want. The only way this is going to be fixed is if the music industry makes the product they provide more attractive, and locking it up, preventing people from doing what they want with it and treating everyone like a criminal especially when proven otherwise is not going to do that.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

Let artists manage their own stuff, is one thing I'm in favor of. If you're going to protect music, let the person who created it have the first say in how it's treated, and whether or not it can be shared and downloaded.And by that I mean, if I buy a song, let me PLAY the song, however I want, share it with whoever I want, and enjoy it any way I want. I bought it, I should be able to use it, rather than being able to listen to it only on an approved device, in an approved way. Most customers don't rip songs off and put them on filesharing networks anyhow. I never have! So don't assume I'm going to and insist I can't be allowed to buy something that's not DRM protected. other than the "share it with whomever I want" part, I agree with you there... you should be allowed to put it on your cd player and blast it while washing your car. You shouldn't be burning a copy for a friend... if they like the song enough to want to listen to it at their convienience, then pay the $1 to own rights to listen to it whenever you want... if they don't like it enough to spend $1, then why would they ever want to listen to it? I do get frustrated that out of that dollar, an indie label only sees about 50 cents, and the download site, and credit card company get all the rest, but it's the cost of doing business for us small labels.

And make some songs freely available! In the realm of publishing I have gone out and bought new books, when I almost never spring for the cost of a new book, because I read one in a series, or one by an author, legally for free, in libraries or on the net, and wanted more. Why not give away samples? Those of us who are too broke to go buy full albums are just downloading it and not spending a cent on it anyhow, right now. If we had legal free, or really cheap options, we'd use them!

again I agree that people would be smart to give away some samples here and there... we do it ourselves, always have done. And I only use Rhapsody, so I can't speak for other download sites, but it appears that most artists provide free samples... in the form of free listens from your computer, or 30 second samples.

But it costs a lot of money to send out hardcopies to the city library systems. We only give out free copies to the ones that book us... and we're one of the only music genres that gets booked in libraries as far as I know... us and folk artists. Do you know how many library systems there are across the U.S.? And how many hardcopies we'd have to make just to give each system one copy? and how much postage that would be? and how much in manufacturing costs? we're talking an extra 30k-50k on top of the cost to produce the album in the first place. If the big labels did that for every artist, they'd go bankrupt... imagine what would happen to indie labels.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

And there's another thing! Pricing structure. Why should I pay $20 for an album when I want one song? Why should I pay $1 for a song when it's a really old one that nobody much wants anymore by somebody obscure?

That obscure somebody needs the money more that someone who's current if they're still alive... and they typically leave their copyrights to their estate so their kids have some sort of inheritence. This is not a business you can build up and then sell to an investor someday... a performing career can not be franchised. when it's over, it's over, and you have nothing left to show for it if you didn't work hard enough in the time you had at the top of your game to set yourself for life. Not only that, but as an artist, if you want to get anywhere, you have to pay your promoter, your booking agent, your publishing company, your CD manufacturer, the artist who makes your album covers, and travel expenses, your lawyer. You are essentially an employer, even if everyone around you is working for themselves.

They artificially set the market, and inflated prices are not necessarily the best way to make money, especially with digital media, where the production costs are very low! I've seen what it takes to record and distribute a song. Yes it costs money, but not that much! With digital media you could make money selling songs for fifty cents. Twenty cents even! Why doesn't anybody? And if you let free samples out to advertise, and LET people pass them along freely, so that friends can share artists they like with friends, you could very well get more business.

While it may be inflated for a major label, (which I don't disagree) They are making an investment when they spend 100k to 150k to make and promote an album, and yes, once they've sold 7k units, or whatever, they're in the clear, and the rest is profit... but to sell 7k units requires a TON of work... that's why it costs so much up front. In this business, you have to strike while the iron is hot. It's taken us two years to sell 5k units of CDs and that was split between 3 albums... and we were selling a high percentage of those at $10 each... oddly enough, when we finally gave in and brought up the prices to $15 (because amazon takes 55% and we have to pay for our own shipping on top of that... and they won't let us ship in bulk, or the property defaults to them and we don't get paid for it) suddenly we started getting a LOT more sales... apparently people think, $10 = bargain bin pricing... EWWW ... I don't want bargain bin music!!!

I don't like to charge $15 for a CD that a parent is buying for their kid... but when I find out that people can't deal with that low price psychologically for whatever reason... and I'm getting such a low cut from distributers anyway... it makes sense to go ahead and raise the price.

Granted, anything I say to you is coming from the perspective of an indie label, but considering that the vast majority of artists out there are on indie labels, it's worth saying.

I've heard it said, though I haven't read any solid studies on it, that music sales jumped when Napster very first started. Because people got something free, liked it, and went and bought more like it. That's what I'd like to see, is music sharing used as viral marketing, rather than villainized.
Again, I agree with you there... but I still hold to the idea, that the artist should be allowed to choose which tracks to share freely... You may not be of a mindset that you'd fileshare a whole album, or 10 of the 12 tracks you like best from an album... but there are a LOT of people who aren't so honest.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

But most of all I'd just like to see DRM go away. If I've legally bought it, then freaking LET ME PLAY IT. No mater what DRM scheme they come up with, the pirates crack it anyhow, and even if they couldn't most music is still sold on CDs, not online, and music from CDs hasn't got DRM on it at all. So they're putting all this effort into protecting their music on the net, and it's like building a really high wall in front of your castle, when out back of the castle there are no walls at all! So just leave it be.

I agree. I don't like this tactic very much, and I think that it wasn't a very smart idea to begin with.

If you want to have big public campaigns, let them be public information campaigns, talk about the damage done to artists by stealing, all that, and not talk about how awful and nasty and criminal everyone who buys music is, and we should sue them all! Why not spend the money they waste on lawsuits doing something productive to help their industry?

Again... I totally agree.

This is all just me throwing out ideas. What of that would work and what wouldn't I'm not sure. I speak from a consumer's standpoint, not a business standpoint here. But I know how I operate, and it's not "Oh, I'd go buy this, but I can get it free, so I won't," it's "Oh, I'd LOVE to buy this but I just don't have the money." If I couldn't download music anymore, I just would listen to less music, that's all. And I know I'm not the only one who operates that way.

And I appreciate that... you are not the only one who operates this way... but there's a good chance you're in the minority. but there's nothing new here... people have been recording songs from the radio for ages... now that the quality of a stolen song is pretty much identical to the quality of a purchased song, music people are getting scared and whiney, and lashing out instead of solving the problem...

TV has the right idea... there are torrents out there, so now the stations are using their own websites to host their shows for those who missed it, and they're adding limited "required viewing" commercials, so the bandwith is more than paid for... some shows have added little extra clips of the shows in the commercial breaks so you have to go back and watch commercial breaks to get those extra tidbits... How would it be if the music industry added subliminal commercials to all the popular songs? (please understand that last line was friendly sarcasm) :-)

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't; you're assuming that there is a problem, which there isn't, since freeloading is apparently only removing 0.7% of their profits.

Instead, I'd move to take more advantage of the free advertising that unauthorised copying gives me - remember, there are statistics which show that in other industries, people will later buy physical copies of data they've enjoyed - to produce music more like the most popular music shared, and to provide other features in the "physical" copies of the music existing. (Not just bundled DVDs, which are on the verge of being information-distributable themselves, but physical items - possibly even /limited edition/ physical items.) People who like the digital copies of the music will then be more likely to obtain the physical copies which I distribute, and will also be more likely to continue to buy them in the future.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

I'm not assuming there is a problem for the major labels... they've always been able to protect themselves when needed... I'm more concerned about small indie labels. They don't have the resources to defend themselves if there was a major problem, and not being able to protect themselves on minor things sends up a red flag to people who exploit that type... (that probably didn't make sense to anyone who hasn't had a major copyright or trademark theft issue... but since a lot of those issues require discression, I wouldn't even begin to know where to start explaining that)

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. But then, we were fairly sure that downloading or copying music didn't harm sales even before this study - both from the Baen Books example, and from the study of smaller-scale copying of tapes in the 1980s and 90s. That doesn't matter to the music industry.

The music industry thinks of copyright theft as if it is actual resource theft. They want everyone else to think that this is the case as well, and I suspect that most music executives genuinely don't understand why copyright theft isn't the same as resource theft.
We had a similar problem with the Catholic church and other bodies with large numbers of scribes once mass printing started being feasible, but even that isn't the same.

It's also fairly well established that in any given society, most people are intrinsically law-abiding, and most people will try to give at least something back to people who produce things they enjoy. The music industry has two problems with this:
Firstly, the music industry makes most of its money from distribution, not from creation. Free copying therefore removes the point of the music industry in its present form.
Secondly, the music industry is frightened of people. Like a lot of industries which have relied on various laws to support their actions, they've come to equate the law with deeper concepts of "rightness", and to assume that without laws the majority would no longer be "moral". In fact, old societies tend to bring up the vast majority of their citizens to obey most moral laws instinctively. And the ones who don't... will break laws in any case.
But, again, the music industry is used to relying on laws to protect itself.

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Yep.

What I do, and I don't think I'm alone, is the following:

1) Buy CDs only from indie labels, such that I don't fund the RIAA -- and copiously from those.
2) If I like music from a Big-5 signed artist, I will typically download the music and then buy merchandise, because I know that merch money actually goes to the artist and not the label. Plus, hey -- t-shirt! And we all know what that means: more clean laundry.

I think the main problem is that the record companies could easily survive in this environment, but they would have to slim down and change the way they do business with artists, and they don't want to do that.

Ideally, what they would have to do is eliminate the model where they buy the copyright from the artists in one lump sum, and instead focus on being production and promotion companies (which is how many indie labels work). Good luck getting BMI to do that, though.