Music Piracy

[Von Schloopen]

A long and well thought out post by David Lowery (Camper Van Beethoven & Cracker.)

Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered. | The Trichordist

 

[u2popmofo]

 

[LemonMelon]

Really well said.

Now that I have a degree of disposable income, I find I am contributing more to the music industry than I was before (I'm spending something like $800-900 on concerts through October), but I still have my limitations on purchasing music. For instance, I can't remember the last time I bought an album without hearing it first. Thanks to Rhapsody, Spotify, Grooveshark, NPR streams, etc. there's absolutely no reason to buy an album blind anymore, and amazon mp3 offers really decent deals so you can buy an album here or there and not feel like a total thief.

 

[u2popmofo]

 

[iron yuppie]

I fully believe in supporting artists financially. Lord knows I've put enough of my money into music over the years. But I also think that the big record companies need to accept some degree of culpability in the decline of music sales and the rise in "piracy" over the last decade or so. Their intimidation policy of aggressive litigation toward individuals was about as short-sighted a move as they could possibly have made and only served to reinforce the idea of the evil, avaricious suits looking to protect sales at any cost.

 

[Von Schloopen]

From the sound of it, kids don't care how big the label is they're stealing from.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I read that yesterday and was going to post it but was too lazy. The person who sent me the link (an avid vinyl collector who doesn't steal music) thought the writer beat up on this 21 year old, but I thought he made some points that are pretty tough to argue with.

 

[u2popmofo]

After this article, I may have to re-think my feelings towards Spotify.

 

[LemonMelon]

The people who argue that they're entitled to free music because it's a free country and creativity has no overhead blah blah make me laugh. I stole (and still steal) a great deal of music, but I would never make the argument that I'm owed free shit.

What artists need to make sure occurs in order to maximize profit and fan rapport is 1) make sure their albums are fairly priced, whether that means selling through their website or whatever other channel necessary and 2) allow their fans to hear the album in some capacity before purchase. Shoddy work shouldn't be rewarded, and that's ultimately the fan's decision. This should be respected. Beyond that, I see no reason not to buy an album if you like it.

 

[Danny Boy]

I read Emily's article on NPR a few days ago. It sounds like she worked in a college radio station and basically ripped every CD the station had into her personal collection. I thought it was really odd when she implied that ripping the station's CDs or having her friends put music on her iPod was somehow morally superior to using a file sharing site.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading this rebuttal.

 

[corianderstem]

After this article, I may have to re-think my feelings towards Spotify.

Yeah, that was disappointing to read. I was feeling pretty good about my switch to Spotify as a way to sample music before buying.

But honestly, this part was the big eye-opener. I'd never thought of it this way before, and it's spot-on.

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world [for internet, phone service, phones, computers, in order to get the "free" music] but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it’s as if:

Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!

Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!

 

[Von Schloopen]

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world [for internet, phone service, phones, computers, in order to get the "free" music] but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

To be fair, we can, so we do. If we could steal broadband access and MacBooks as easy as we can steal music we'd be stealing a whole lot of broadband access and MacBooks.

 

[iron yuppie]

From the sound of it, kids don't care how big the label is they're stealing from.

That's certainly true. I would say, though, that in the early days of file-sharing, the RIAA's (or whatever the acronym is) aggression likely caused innovation and greater efficiency in file-sharing methods, the very thing that they were fighting against. The tactics of the major labels ended up hurting everyone in the business, I think.

 

[Danny Boy]

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world [for internet, phone service, phones, computers, in order to get the "free" music] but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

I see his point, but I'm pretty sure I would have a computer, a smart phone, and a high speed internet connection even if I never listened to music.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, I mean it didn't make me open my eyes to my own hypocrisy, but if I were reading that through the eyes of someone who downloads without really caring, because they feel entitled to free music, or who does it out of convenience while ignoring the bigger picture.

I think that's who might read that and be all "Whoa," like Joey Lawrence.

 

[bollox]

As an artist who has seen their revenue stream dry up, Lowry is certainly entitled to take issue with how Emily and others her age and younger view music. However, I don't feel the original NPR post really claimed any entitlement, it just stated the way things are. What it did was endorse a Spotify-like service that fairly compensates the artists. While there will always be the allure of "free" music, I think what Emily and other music fans most want is convenience, and would be willing for it.

Lowry makes a number of good points, but (partially) attributing the suicides of Chestnutt & Linkous to illegal downloads is really low and in poor taste.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, that was too sensationalist.

Blame the shitty health care system in America, don't try to pin it very loosely on illegal downloading, even if you add "now, I'm not saying you killed them,but ..."

And yet it worked, because I was thinking about the two of them after I read it, recalling hearing about their deaths and thinking of their music.

 

[Von Schloopen]

On one hand, I agree with the idealism of Lowery. Artists should get paid, or at least have some control. But, on the other hand, he's fighting free. Free is gonna win every time. Maybe he should just accept that it's all over and be glad he got while the getting was good.

It's sad, I found that article through Aimee Mann, she posted it on her facebook page. She wants to tour with a full band, but doesn't
think she can cause of the cost. In her mind, the little she made from record sales helped her pay the band a fair wage. So, now I don't get to see Aimee Man play with drums, bass, electric guitar, and piano. I get an acoustic tour. Which is nice, but...

 

[monkeyskin]

The people who argue that they're entitled to free music because it's a free country and creativity has no overhead blah blah make me laugh. I stole (and still steal) a great deal of music, but I would never make the argument that I'm owed free shit.

What artists need to make sure occurs in order to maximize profit and fan rapport is 1) make sure their albums are fairly priced, whether that means selling through their website or whatever other channel necessary and 2) allow their fans to hear the album in some capacity before purchase. Shoddy work shouldn't be rewarded, and that's ultimately the fan's decision. This should be respected. Beyond that, I see no reason not to buy an album if you like it.

My sentiments exactly.

I'm not sure how much power artists have over their physical unit prices though, would this still come down to the labels? It would have to a blanket price restructure to make any impact.

 

[djparky]

will have a read- I tend to use you tube or some such to listen before I buy. if I like what i hear then I'll buy it

I tend to draw the line between what I can buy and what is unavailable commercially when it comes to d/ling- which I think is better than actually paying for some dodgy cd-r

It always suprises me that more bands don't do the official bootleg thing like Dep Mode, Pearl Jam (?) and others do.

It would have been expensive for 360 tour but it would have been great to have official s/boards of the shows I went to

 

[LemonMelon]

Yeah, that was disappointing to read. I was feeling pretty good about my switch to Spotify as a way to sample music before buying.

But honestly, this part was the big eye-opener. I'd never thought of it this way before, and it's spot-on.

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world [for internet, phone service, phones, computers, in order to get the "free" music] but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

Depending on the quantity of music you partake of each month, services like Spotify are considerably cheaper and always more convenient than buying from the source. I don't buy the arguments presented against these services; they offer a pittance to the artist (better than nothing) and allow listeners to sample the albums with the potential that they may later purchase them. Spotify is limited to areas with 4G/wifi, meaning you can't take the music with you, really. If you wish to do so, you must purchase it outright.

As far as I'm concerned, all artists should put their albums up for a week before release in a non-downloadable form, so the fact that services exist that allow artists to get PAID for this is, to me, quite fair. Nobody should earn a living simply BECAUSE they work; I'm not under contract with the artist, so I should have an opportunity to experience the work before purchasing it. Whether that should entail 1 minute samples or the full album is a different debate entirely.

 

[iron yuppie]

Most new albums do stream somewhere near or immediately after release nowadays, don't they? I think that the savvier artists will start to take an increasing amount of control over their own work, perhaps ditching labels entirely in the near future. Self-promotion will become increasingly popular - we already see plenty of artists making names for themselves without label support. The hip-hop mixtape sticks out to me in this regard.

 

[LemonMelon]

I think "most" is an exaggeration, but it's a trend that I like a great deal.

It takes a lot of guts to put your time into an album and release it for free, and I don't expect mixtapes to be the future, but I do think that releases of that nature foster a relationship with fans. It's an intimate "hey, this is what I've been up to, tell me what you think" attitude that makes you want to buy the finished product (re: label-supported album). We don't see that with U2, certainly.

 

[mobvok]

I read Emily's article on NPR a few days ago. It sounds like she worked in a college radio station and basically ripped every CD the station had into her personal collection. I thought it was really odd when she implied that ripping the station's CDs or having her friends put music on her iPod was somehow morally superior to using a file sharing site.

Well, as long as you also equate it to ripping from public libraries or your friends, too, I guess that's morally consistent.

Yeah, that was disappointing to read. I was feeling pretty good about my switch to Spotify as a way to sample music before buying.

But honestly, this part was the big eye-opener. I'd never thought of it this way before, and it's spot-on.

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world [for internet, phone service, phones, computers, in order to get the "free" music] but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it’s as if:

Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!

Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!

The short answer is that the giant mega corporations are providing a physical service, while the artists are creating a digital product with a marginal cost of $0. And the problem is not that artists AREN'T getting money, the problem is that artists want MORE money.

Which is useful, I think, because it purges some of the romanticism from the whole creative endeavour. Everyone would like more money! But it always gets tricky when juggling the consequential costs: $1 higher teacher salary often means $1 less for roads.

The more elegant point is how quickly this moral comparison implodes into horseshit. Pray tell, how these "giant mega corporations" became "giant mega corporations" when we're supposed to be the first generation in history to NOT be making financial decisions based on sticking it to the man? Either everyone born in the last couple decades is uniquely sociopathic, or the mp3 exposed the fact that our collective purchasing decisions weren't ever as morally based as he'd like to imagine.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Just read the original NPR article. I admittedly illegally download albums (and then buy the ones I like. Is that a good way to do it? I don't know), but you'd think someone who wants to work in the music industry would not not want to act like such a parasite. I find it hard to believe how nonchalantly she spoke about stealing music.
I think Lemel brought up the 'no overhead because there isn't a physical item' argument (he wasn't supporting it) and I can't stand that shit. It's never been about the medium. If that were true, you could buy a book for $4, since that's what a stack of paper costs. You're paying for the creativity, time, unique skill, etc (not to mention massive recording costs). People who make those arguments have no idea what they're talking about

 

[iron yuppie]

Either everyone born in the last couple decades is uniquely sociopathic, or the mp3 exposed the fact that our collective purchasing decisions weren't ever as morally based as he'd like to imagine.

I think you're right in the sense that consumer habits are not usually based on ethical positions - morals, I think, come as window-dressing after the fact as a means of justifying whatever one happens to be doing. Capitalism in my mind is almost always about risk/reward. The thing about an mp3 album is that the downloader has immediate reward with very little risk, whereas someone who tries to steal a stack of iPads will have potential reward financially but also a super-high percentage of being caught and punished.

 

[iron yuppie]

It's never been about the medium. If that were true, you could buy a book for $4, since that's what a stack of paper costs. You're paying for the creativity, time, unique skill, etc (not to mention massive recording costs). People who make those arguments have no idea what they're talking about

Agreed. By that logic the service industry could not exist.

 

[LemonMelon]

I think Lemel brought up the 'no overhead because there isn't a physical item' argument (he wasn't supporting it) and I can't stand that shit. It's never been about the medium. If that were true, you could buy a book for $4, since that's what a stack of paper costs. You're paying for the creativity, time, unique skill, etc (not to mention massive recording costs). People who make those arguments have no idea what they're talking about

Yeah, I would like to see someone apply that logic to torrenting Avatar.

I think it's common sense that people are most likely to attempt something they would be likely to get away with, and justify something with few apparent victims. The music industry must be the only one that has begun to concede defeat with regards to piracy, so it's not surprising at all to see letters like the one provoking Lowry. People pound their chests as if they have true justification for their actions, but the more honorable thing is to just go about your business and contribute in whatever way you can. Stealing music is easy, fun, and often ignored, and it can introduce you to a lot of great bands that you can buy concert tickets or albums from. This is why I'm such a huge advocate of streams; it opens the same door, but the material doesn't proliferate as quickly.

 

[iron yuppie]

Stealing music is easy, fun, and often ignored, and it can introduce you to a lot of great bands that you can buy concert tickets or albums from. This is why I'm such a huge advocate of streams; it opens the same door, but the material doesn't proliferate as quickly.

I'm a bit skeptical of this argument in the sense that I doubt how many music downloaders actually proceed to buy anything from the artist in question. This is a forum of music enthusiasts, so people here are likely to do so. But among the general population, I would think that the vast majority never repays the initial "cost," whatever that may be, of the music they have downloaded, or otherwise contributes to that artist financially in any way.

 

[Danny Boy]

Spotify is limited to areas with 4G/wifi, meaning you can't take the music with you, really.

With Spotify Premium, playlists can be locally cached to your phone or iPad, so you can still listen to tracks even when you're off network. You just have to plan ahead.

I had a Spotify Premium account for a few months, but I barely have enough time to listen to the new albums in my iTunes library, so I ended up dropping it.