P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[...AndTimeBegan]

I think the issue lies in people that complain about the cost of a CD but have no problem throwing down $200-300 for an MP3 player.

Except that not everybody who downloads music owns an MP3 player. Plenty listen to it from their computers. Further, there are MP3 players for $150-200 bucks- which was at one point the price of CD players.

 

[DreamThief]

What about the existence of used cds for 2 decades now? Nobody was claiming that "hurt" the industry like they are with downloading.

Thank you, I brought this up awhile back and nobody else mentioned it. Before downloading, I used to buy a ton of used cd's from a local shop. No one was complaining back then that I was killing the music industry.

 

[dcowboys311]

So only like 4 out of 10 people actually paid for the Radiohead album. Not sure the end meaning for this. But i'm curious how many didn't pay for it, got it, and then went back and paid for it.

Also, a lot of Radiohead fans are elitists and audiophiles and refuse to pay money for a 160kbps album download. Plenty, like myself, will purchase the album when it's available in good audio quality on CD.

 

[AMBR]

Also, a lot of Radiohead fans are elitists and audiophiles and refuse to pay money for a 160kbps album download. Plenty, like myself, will purchase the album when it's available in good audio quality on CD.

Few. Very few. That keeps coming up as a validation for downloading, but it's a rationalization that doesn't come anywhere close to meeting up with the huge loss from those that don't buy. Most don't. This is a great argument full of rationalization but the fact is that once most....most people have it, despite even good intentions, they don't buy it. It is hurting the industry and that idea that advance listening equals sales is not living up to the reality of the decrease in sales.

 

[Matt Crooks]

This is where I stand.
Try this analogy, say you own a "restaurant." Someone snuck in your establishment and stole a whole bunch of food. They then proceed to stand across the street and handout free samples to anyone that will take some. Now one of two scenario's will happen, either the food is really good and everyone will want to eat there, or the food is shitty and no one will want to eat there.

Now, the "restaurant" with good food will thrive because people will now have a reason to go there and PAY for the food. Not everyone who sampled the food will agree, but the better the food, the higher the chance people will PAY.

The shitty "restaurant" will struggle if all they do is blame the thief and not concentrate on the real problem, the food.

If the food keeps getting stolen from the good resturant and given away free, then there is no incentive for anyone to ever pay for it.

 

[Ascension]

Music is being bought less. Sure. But little evidence states that downloading is the cause. Also, with fuel prices increasing, foreclosures increasing, DVD sales increasing, video game sales increasing... maybe people are just spending their money elsewhere.

QFT. The entertainment field has exploded in the past 15-20 years...attention spans & dollars are being spread thin. l promise you this has impacted record sales more than you can wrap your brain around. Music has lost appeal in relation to the other genres of entertainment.

Back in the day, you heard maybe one song on the radio or MTV & you went and bought the album/cassette/cd based on that one song. Only to discover you had a album/cassette/cd with 2 maybe 3 good songs and alot of filler. Record companies & artists killed doing this. There's tons of that out there today...but we get to sample before buying via downloads. Therefore, less bogus material by semi-talented artists is being bought.

 

[Matt Crooks]

2) "having it stolen from them."

There are only 2 ways someone can steal music (that I can think of off hand) from a musician: 1) if I were to publish someone else's music as my own, or 2) if I were to steal a physical CD and run off with it without paying for it. When you download an MP3 from a P2P program or website, the artist doesn't lose the rights to that piece of music/recording. Therefore nothing is being stolen in the first place. Someone might be downloading it "illegally" since he doesn't have the license for that piece of music (which costs money), but nothing is being lost on either end. Therefore, nothing is stolen. This is how one can argue that there is more gained from downloading than "lost".

What you are saying here is that there is no value to intellectual property. That ideas, inventions, works of art should all be available to the public without compensation to the creator of that IP. It is true that there is nothing physical being "stolen" when a song is downloaded. However, as the owner of a piece of intellectual property I have the right to dictate how it is used. If I decide that I want to sell that IP for $10 that's my decision, it's not up to someone else to decide that value of that IP for me.

Regardless, there seems to be three trains of thought:

1. All downloading is bad.
2. I download to get a preview of the album, everything else (books, art, food) can be sampled before purchase, why not music?
3. Downloading is fine, all music should be available for free download.

I can't say that I agree with #1 or #3. If the industry could come up with some sort of "try before you buy" that didn't lead to free distribution of the music, I think that would adress a lot of the concerns raised in this thread. However, even if the industry could come up with that solution, I think too many people are acustomed to getting music for free and won't ever go back to paying for it.

 

[Michael TEOF]

I just wanted to add the part that annoys me. P2P sites get advertising revenues for traffic to their sites. That is incredibly unethical if you ask me; regardless of your position on the legality/morality of "downloading."

Labels should get together and sue P2P sites for those advertising revenues. These ad agencies and companies have to be paying someone to post their ads. Find out who it is and go after them.

The Michael

 

[Kenso]

dont bands make more off touring than album sales usually?

thats just my personal guess, i dont know too much about it, but i think that all the illegal downloads would in-turn get much more people at their shows.

to be honest i probably wouldnt go see many of the bands i see cause of illegal downloading. i imagine they make more off of my ticket sale than my cd purchase, but once again i am aware that i could be wrong.

 

[AMBR]

dont bands make more off touring than album sales usually?

Oh, lord no. Touring is usually a loss.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

What you are saying here is that there is no value to intellectual property. That ideas, inventions, works of art should all be available to the public without compensation to the creator of that IP. It is true that there is nothing physical being "stolen" when a song is downloaded. However, as the owner of a piece of intellectual property I have the right to dictate how it is used. If I decide that I want to sell that IP for $10 that's my decision, it's not up to someone else to decide that value of that IP for me.

What you are forgetting is that music is ART. Anything that can be creatively expressed, can be publicly be admired for free whether or not you want to slap a fee on it. You can choose to sell a painting for $150, but that won't stop people from going on Google and saving the image of the painting onto their desktop. Sure, they won't own the physical thing, but they can still admire the artistic value of it. Some people want to own the physical thing AND admire the art, whereas others just want the art. That latter group wouldn't want the physical package and therefore wouldn't have purchased the album in the first place- thus you are not losing any sales.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

If I owned an online record store right now and it was my livelihood, I'd be talking to all independent record labels about making albums available in mp3s (with attached cover art, lyrics and liner notes in pdf format) as that is the way of the future. I'm not saying do away with cds completely (because traditionalists/collectors hate mp3s and want to line the walls of their homes with thousands of cds), but jump on the bandwagon while it's gaining momentum and make the best of it. Some bands/labels have already realized that you can use torrents to your advantage by releasing EPs or select songs to create a "buzz", but that should be followed by an AFFORDABLE download-able version to encourage people to pay for the album (without blowing a 20-spot) when it's officially released.

Actually, eMusic already does this. Unfortunately, it is not perfect, though. First you have to sign up a monthly plan to download music from there. They don't you the ability to buy single tracks ala iTunes. Fortunatly, thier plans are fairly reasonable (thankfully, I was "grandfathered" in with my 90 downloads for $20/month, which comes to about 22 cents a track. I think it is now 75 downloads for $20). They do include cover art with the files, but no lyrics or liner notes (would be nice, though). Also, they do have a pretty extensive library of music, but it is far from complete. For example, I tried searching some of those artists mentioned at the beginning of this thread and many of them are not available (for example, Seventh Wonder is not on eMusic). Thankfully, the files you do get are straight-up MP3 without any DRM. They seem to be using 256bit variable rate encoding (at least they sound pretty good on my fairly high-end Klipsch/B&K setup)

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Oh, lord no. Touring is usually a loss.

Incorrect. The fees required to tour are high, but the merch you sell on tour (with a few exceptions) will see 100% profit on your end. With an album, you've only got mechanical royalties and standard royalties which is only a small amount. Even if you lose money during the first few tours, bands will generally be able to profit from touring through an expanded fanbase. The more tours a band does, the less the band pays for touring-related fees in the future. This is also why it's a lot smarter for labels like Lion who sign 800 million bajillion bands and only have enough money to pay pressing and recording costs to concentrate on a smaller number of bands and invest more in tour support and promotion.

 

[AMBR]

Incorrect. The fees required to tour are high, but the merch you sell on tour (with a few exceptions) will see 100% profit on your end. With an album, you've only got mechanical royalties and standard royalties which is only a small amount. Even if you lose money during the first few tours, bands will generally be able to profit from touring through an expanded fanbase. The more tours a band does, the less the band pays for touring-related fees.

Oh really? Maybe with well-established bands. But I bet your going to get opinions from smaller bands/lables here that will greatly differ. Venues take a percentage of those merch profits too.

What you are forgetting is that music is ART. Anything that can be creatively expressed, can be publicly be admired for free whether or not you want to slap a fee on it. You can choose to sell a painting for $150, but that won't stop people from going on Google and saving the image of the painting onto their desktop. Sure, they won't own the physical thing, but they can still admire the artistic value of it. Some people want to own the physical thing AND admire the art, whereas others just want the art. That latter group wouldn't want the physical package and therefore wouldn't have purchased the album in the first place- thus you are not losing any sales.

Ouch! Not all forms of art are created equal! A painting will sell, possibly for hundreds or maybe thousands, a CD sells for a few dollars. An artist makes his money on the sale of the original work; a band needs to sell quanitity. An author may have his/her book posted on the web, (i.e. the last Harry Potter), which may slightly diminish sales, but most people will want to hold and read the book when and where they want, not just on the computer screen. Music is the one art form that can be copied and distributed in many forms and reviewed anywhere the listener wants. Therefore, it is more susceptable to theft, (yes it IS theft) and the artist is more vulnerable to making almost no profit. I don't have an answer, but the fact remains, download is hurting the music artist and those associated with the industry - you as a listener will suffer ultimately as a result.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

What about the existence of used cds for 2 decades now? Nobody was claiming that "hurt" the industry like they are with downloading.

Actually there was an attempt by some of the bigger labels and artists to try to squelch the second-hand CD market (or at least try to make the seller pay a percentage of the sale to them).

In fact, I just found this little gem on the Ars Technica site talking about where some states are trying to pass legislation controlling the sale of used CDs.

Back in the mid 90's there was a big brua-ha-ha between the used CD retail industry and the recording industry (most notably, the much loathed RIAA).

Here is an article I managed to dig up dated in 2002 about how the RIAA wants to slap royalties on the sale of used CDs.

Unfortunately, it seems even used CDs has not entirely escaped the scrutiny of the record industry. It seems some of those folks are not happy unless they have their hands in every single pocket when it involves the sale of a piece of music.

 

[MEGALOUD]

Can someone tell me this. Why does a CD get recorded, mixed, and mastered and then a label sits on it for months? I know the actual production takes a while, but this is very bad practice these days. Also, why are there different release dates around the world anymore? As soon as it's released ANYWHERE, it's all over the net. What the hell is the point of it. All the limited editions, special editions, tour editions, bonus tracks for different countries, or even stores is getting annoying as well. Just some things that I think are contributing to the situation.

The music made is becoming advertising for your live show these days. Good news for bands that can play, not so good for ones that can't. This genre(and music in general) is hurting, but will survive. The labels unfortunately will probably be phased out more and more. You can record a decent CD with your computer these days. All you need is the distribution. With MP3's and the web, that isn't all that hard anymore either.

Well for my personal paradigm, I need to schedule with a major distributor now, before when I was the main distributor of Nightmare releases, I could do it as soon as I had the discs in hand. However with a major distributor into the main chain store system, you have a new issue, about a 3 month waiting period for a street date from the time you put your release into the system. Now labels hate to screw up street dates, I know, I've had the issue way more than I'd like to admit. So now I can't and won't even schedule a release until I have the masters in my hands (album art and music) Finished
then I know things like Artist delays (a common one) aren't going to hold up a release and piss my distributor off, jeopardizing my grown position as a label/ Distro. But yes this is a big problem if bands give a few friends a copy of the album. Amazingly we held on to the LEGEND OF THE BONE CARVER for 6 months after it was finished because we had to find a new deal in Japan. It didn't leak until the first promotional copies were sent out to the press for reviews a month before street date.

Regarding bonus material and variable street dates around the globe the bonus material was supposed to help labels secure sales in their "Territory"
and possibly ad value to their disc for import collectors at a much higher price so that it wouldn't compete directly
with the territory labels release... so it was meant to be a win for everyone. Different release dates is a label trying to support and artist they love
usually to a very poor return, I've made this mistake too many times, releasing a band after it's been released somewhere else.
I won't do it again, but I've certainly learned that the hard way.

 

[MEGALOUD]

What you are forgetting is that music is ART. Anything that can be creatively expressed, can be publicly be admired for free whether or not you want to slap a fee on it. You can choose to sell a painting for $150, but that won't stop people from going on Google and saving the image of the painting onto their desktop. Sure, they won't own the physical thing, but they can still admire the artistic value of it. Some people want to own the physical thing AND admire the art, whereas others just want the art. That latter group wouldn't want the physical package and therefore wouldn't have purchased the album in the first place- thus you are not losing any sales.

LOL, your just quoting another example of digital piracy and calling it right because you can do it, totally the same thing. Same for movie downloads.
CD's are art, totally but they're mainstream and product marketed at very competitive pricing so everyone can afford to have them. Think about how much enjoyment you get from some of the music you have and how long that lasts for $15, I think you'll find it very hard to tell me of another entertainment source that is that inexpensive for the return.

 

[MEGALOUD]

I admit to downloading but I also always make sure to at least eventually purchase what I like. I think the issue lies in people that complain about the cost of a CD but have no problem throwing down $200-300 for an MP3 player.

I love this one....

I own one too, but I burn my cd's into itunes and put them on the ipod,
I also download, BUT FROM ITUNES, why because it's so damn easy with the program and the ipod, I freaking love it, not to mention how darn cool
and convenient it is for an artist studying music. I like the fact that you guys are checking out bands, I like the fact that you are buying what you like, that is great, but you can do all of that on myspace without downloading anything for the most part, granted your not going to get a whole album there, but hey, everyband in the universe is there and has 2-5 songs there to hear, seems like a good place to do that. That is why I spend tons of money making FREE sampler CD's, ( 1000 were given away to
Prog-power goers)...speaking of which no one seemed to really comment on those, did anyone even listen to them????

 

[MEGALOUD]

By the way, I heard a lot of comments on Lion Music's quality of releases being the issue or the amount of releases that they have, but not one person commented
on MTM closing their doors and going out of business, these guys always had GREAT quality product, and my sources say it was directly because of the shift in the market that
killed the label.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

LOL, your just quoting another example of digital piracy and calling it right because you can do it, totally the same thing. Same for movie downloads.
CD's are art, totally but they're mainstream and product marketed at very competitive pricing so everyone can afford to have them. Think about how much enjoyment you get from some of the music you have and how long that lasts for $15, I think you'll find it very hard to tell me of another entertainment source that is that inexpensive for the return.

That wasn't my point. No matter how much you want to slap a price tag on art, people are going to find a way to enjoy it for free since of course our ability to enjoy art stems 100% from our minds. I'm not even making any justifications, that's just the way it is. If you want to make your creative outputs available to public, expect some portion of the public to find a way to enjoy that output without having to pay whatever you charge for it.

I could sell a sculpture for $500 but there will be plenty of people who won't buy it and will instead snapshot a picture of it so they can have something to admire. Now- are they getting the full product? Nope. Do they necessarily want the full product though? Nope. I'm not saying this is what everyone does, but it is indeed what many do for various reasons and there are arguments for and against this practice. Either way, it's an inevitability.