Piracy, RIAA, Lawsuits

[Saw31]

How many bands have failed to pay back a record label's initial investment because of piracy? Common sense tells be that bands that don't sell enough probably aren't being pirated all that much - or at least enough to make a difference anyway.

Secondly, why is the standard for a successful musician "making a killing" or getting rich? Why not just making a living? There are plenty of artists out there who are not rich but are successful - they're 10+ years and 5 or 6 albums into their careers. They may not often play venues larger than a theater as a headliner, but they do well enough to not need a day job and still pay the bills. If those people aren't making money off of touring, how are they doing it? I can't imagine that guys like Jeff Tweedy, Colin Meloy and Ryan Adams are living just off of royalties. Oh, and many of those artists give away some of their music and/or permit taping at their shows.

Sure, you can make a living doing that. But I would guess that all these people you are talking about are just as good at being a "business" as they are at being a musician. That's the exception, not the rule. At least in the rock and pop world. Plus, the costs associated with the actual production of the music can vary greatly depending on who you use or if you can do it yourself. Obviously there are up front costs for establishing your own studio. To do it right, probably a couple hundred grand, but again that can vary depending on what you're doing. If the musician is a singer and playing acoustic guitar/piano, and that's it, you're not gonna need the gear that you need for a fully produced rock or pop album.

The labels have DRASTICALLY cut back on signings per year. So not only are you stealing from the band whose song you downloaded, you are stealing opportunities from bands still out there. It is a business. If the business is bleeding money because of theft that they haven't found a good way to stop, there are repercussions. No amount of justification changes any of the facts. If every other car coming off the assembly line at Ford was taken be somebody w/o paying for it, what would happen at Ford? It's no different...

 

[Saw31]

How many bands have failed to pay back a record label's initial investment because of piracy? Common sense tells be that bands that don't sell enough probably aren't being pirated all that much - or at least enough to make a difference anyway.

Secondly, why is the standard for a successful musician "making a killing" or getting rich? Why not just making a living? There are plenty of artists out there who are not rich but are successful - they're 10+ years and 5 or 6 albums into their careers. They may not often play venues larger than a theater as a headliner, but they do well enough to not need a day job and still pay the bills. If those people aren't making money off of touring, how are they doing it? I can't imagine that guys like Jeff Tweedy, Colin Meloy and Ryan Adams are living just off of royalties. Oh, and many of those artists give away some of their music and/or permit taping at their shows.

There is a certain amount of marketing that is required. This is one way of doing it. If that particular band/musician wants to do that, that is their choice. But they are giving permission in this case...

 

[jimotis4heisman]

How many bands have failed to pay back a record label's initial investment because of piracy? Common sense tells be that bands that don't sell enough probably aren't being pirated all that much - or at least enough to make a difference anyway.

Secondly, why is the standard for a successful musician "making a killing" or getting rich? Why not just making a living? There are plenty of artists out there who are not rich but are successful - they're 10+ years and 5 or 6 albums into their careers. They may not often play venues larger than a theater as a headliner, but they do well enough to not need a day job and still pay the bills. If those people aren't making money off of touring, how are they doing it? I can't imagine that guys like Jeff Tweedy, Colin Meloy and Ryan Adams are living just off of royalties. Oh, and many of those artists give away some of their music and/or permit taping at their shows.

1-probably a lot. think about it like this, have you ever shopped for a loan? who did you go with? the one who charged a lot of crappy interest who had marginal financials, or lower interest rate and reputable company? its not exactly rocket science, if you dont provide a good product/service people are not going to do business with you be it loans, cars, services etc. if someone had a deal that was astronomically expensive someone would undercut them, thats the nature of the economic system we live in.

2-it is the same way in many industries, why do i not pay $75 a ticket to watch the annual bp basketball game yet ill throw down that much in a heartbeat to watch the lakers vs celtics? easy choice, imo. its the same with music, much like on computers, a couple of guys on this site build them and work hard doing so, theyve been doing it for years, well then their is michael dell the billionaire, whats the difference? quality, service, marketing, economies of scale, luck, management, other factor, who knows but one guy cant pay the bills and the other is a billionaire.

when it all comes down to it is property. its the erosion of property rights in this country, be it telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land, misappropriating intellectual property or not allowing people to take actions on their secured transactions, it is all the same, erosion of individual rights and liberties. its all the same be it someone trespassing, using your land, or stealing your music in my book. beyond that its violation of a federal law. if you choose to run that risk, its your to take. all that being said i really could care less.

 

[Saw31]

This will give you a little idea what the effect of illegal downloads have done to the industry. Last summer I was talking with a guy from Nashville (big name in the business). One of the giant albums from last year sold 3 million copies. Through their research, they figure 10 years ago, it would have sold 10 million copies. Those copies that were not sold, but stolen, is what finances the new music. I'm just sayin...

I am not posting here to try and change the world. I know, just as they do, that they will never get the genie back in the bottle. They just haven't figured out anything they can do about it yet. And there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that a few companies have displayed that has come home to roost...

 

[jlb1705]

Sure, you can make a living doing that. But I would guess that all these people you are talking about are just as good at being a "business" as they are at being a musician. That's the exception, not the rule. At least in the rock and pop world. Plus, the costs associated with the actual production of the music can vary greatly depending on who you use or if you can do it yourself. Obviously there are up front costs for establishing your own studio. To do it right, probably a couple hundred grand, but again that can vary depending on what you're doing. If the musician is a singer and playing acoustic guitar/piano, and that's it, you're not gonna need the gear that you need for a fully produced rock or pop album.

The labels have DRASTICALLY cut back on signings per year. So not only are you stealing from the band whose song you downloaded, you are stealing opportunities from bands still out there. It is a business. If the business is bleeding money because of theft that they haven't found a good way to stop, there are repercussions. No amount of justification changes any of the facts. If every other car coming off the assembly line at Ford was taken be somebody w/o paying for it, what would happen at Ford? It's no different...

I guess the disconnect for me is that most of the music I consume is indie or major label acts with indie sounds or ethos. My impression as a consumer is that the industry works much differently for those acts than the ones you're talking about.

Also, the decreased number of bands that get signed, promoted, played, etc. directly contributes to my impulse to download. It decreases my opportunities to make informed buying decisions through above-the-table methods.

2-it is the same way in many industries, why do i not pay $75 a ticket to watch the annual bp basketball game yet ill throw down that much in a heartbeat to watch the lakers vs celtics? easy choice, imo.

99% of the time you're not getting Lakers-Celtics though. The collection of songs on any given pop/modern rock CD is more akin to Ray Allen on a team full of D-Leaguers. They want to charge you the same price as Lakers-Celtics though. They only tell you that Ray Allen is playing in the game and you don't find out that the rest of the players are scrubs until after you've paid for the ticket (which is non-refundable)

when it all comes down to it is property. its the erosion of property rights in this country, be it telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land, misappropriating intellectual property or not allowing people to take actions on their secured transactions, it is all the same, erosion of individual rights and liberties. its all the same be it someone trespassing, using your land, or stealing your music in my book. beyond that its violation of a federal law. if you choose to run that risk, its your to take. all that being said i really could care less.

I know about the law but my conscience is clean. I spend far more on music because I have the ability to download than I would if I didn't have that ability. If I like something, I buy the physical copy. If I don't like it, I delete it. To me it's not too dissimilar to renting/buying movies or checking out books from a library/buying the book. If the record industry wanted to come after me for that I guess I might be screwed, but I'm a young person and I don't think they want to think about the amount of music I'd not buy (or ever hear) over the rest of my lifetime.

This will give you a little idea what the effect of illegal downloads have done to the industry. Last summer I was talking with a guy from Nashville (big name in the business). One of the giant albums from last year sold 3 million copies. Through their research, they figure 10 years ago, it would have sold 10 million copies. Those copies that were not sold, but stolen, is what finances the new music. I'm just sayin...

I am not posting here to try and change the world. I know, just as they do, that they will never get the genie back in the bottle. They just haven't figured out anything they can do about it yet. And there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that a few companies have displayed that has come home to roost...

I guess the other part of the disconnect for me is that I tend to think about this issue strictly in the context of my own habits. I imagine there are plenty of people out there who downloaded a poor-quality mp3 copy of a Lady Gaga song or album and intend to keep it forever and not part with a cent over it. It's not what I do, but I imagine those people are out there.

On the other hand though, how much of those lost sales are the result of theft, and how many of those lost sales are a result of people actually getting a chance to preview the product and deciding they don't like it enough to buy it? I mean, Spacehog had a gold album back in the day, but just because it wouldn't go gold these days doesn't mean everybody would have pirated it. It might just mean that people have the means to decide whether something sucks or not.

 

[DubCoffman62]

1-probably a lot. think about it like this, have you ever shopped for a loan? who did you go with? the one who charged a lot of crappy interest who had marginal financials, or lower interest rate and reputable company? its not exactly rocket science, if you dont provide a good product/service people are not going to do business with you be it loans, cars, services etc. if someone had a deal that was astronomically expensive someone would undercut them, thats the nature of the economic system we live in.

2-it is the same way in many industries, why do i not pay $75 a ticket to watch the annual bp basketball game yet ill throw down that much in a heartbeat to watch the lakers vs celtics? easy choice, imo. its the same with music, much like on computers, a couple of guys on this site build them and work hard doing so, theyve been doing it for years, well then their is michael dell the billionaire, whats the difference? quality, service, marketing, economies of scale, luck, management, other factor, who knows but one guy cant pay the bills and the other is a billionaire.

when it all comes down to it is property. its the erosion of property rights in this country, be it telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land, misappropriating intellectual property or not allowing people to take actions on their secured transactions, it is all the same, erosion of individual rights and liberties. its all the same be it someone trespassing, using your land, or stealing your music in my book. beyond that its violation of a federal law. if you choose to run that risk, its your to take. all that being said i really could care less.

Which is why I stopped years ago. I can afford to buy what I want, it's just not worth the trouble if you happen to be the one that gets nailed.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

I guess the disconnect for me is that most of the music I consume is indie or major label acts with indie sounds or ethos. My impression as a consumer is that the industry works much differently for those acts than the ones you're talking about.

Also, the decreased number of bands that get signed, promoted, played, etc. directly contributes to my impulse to download. It decreases my opportunities to make informed buying decisions through above-the-table methods.



99% of the time you're not getting Lakers-Celtics though. The collection of songs on any given pop/modern rock CD is more akin to Ray Allen on a team full of D-Leaguers. They want to charge you the same price as Lakers-Celtics though. They only tell you that Ray Allen is playing in the game and you don't find out that the rest of the players are scrubs until after you've paid for the ticket (which is non-refundable)



I know about the law but my conscience is clean. I spend far more on music because I have the ability to download than I would if I didn't have that ability. If I like something, I buy the physical copy. If I don't like it, I delete it. To me it's not too dissimilar to renting/buying movies or checking out books from a library/buying the book. If the record industry wanted to come after me for that I guess I might be screwed, but I'm a young person and I don't think they want to think about the amount of music I'd not buy (or ever hear) over the rest of my lifetime.



I guess the other part of the disconnect for me is that I tend to think about this issue strictly in the context of my own habits. I imagine there are plenty of people out there who downloaded a poor-quality mp3 copy of a Lady Gaga song or album and intend to keep it forever and not part with a cent over it. It's not what I do, but I imagine those people are out there.

On the other hand though, how much of those lost sales are the result of theft, and how many of those lost sales are a result of people actually getting a chance to preview the product and deciding they don't like it enough to buy it? I mean, Spacehog had a gold album back in the day, but just because it wouldn't go gold these days doesn't mean everybody would have pirated it. It might just mean that people have the means to decide whether something sucks or not.

so basically for you its a substitute for listening to the radio and hearing alt/indie bands etc like you would have ten years ago on a college radio station, cd101, etc? in which case they got some royalty cut for airplay.

 

[jlb1705]

so basically for you its a substitute for listening to the radio and hearing alt/indie bands etc like you would have ten years ago on a college radio station, cd101, etc? in which case they got some royalty cut for airplay.

Basically, yes. I do subscribe to Sirius and it has a decent indie station, though over the last couple years their programming has shifted somewhat away from my tastes.

I don't listen to terrestrial radio at all for music.

Here's how I get most of my music nowadays. I read a review on Pitchfork. If I'm intrigued, I download it. Then, if it's good I buy it. If not, I delete it. There are a handful of acts (about 20 or so) that I'll buy without hearing much first - those are my favorites and I pretty much already own their entire catalog. For everything else (of if a favorite put out a real stinker last time) I want information so I can make an informed buying decision.

 

[jlb1705]

Here's Billy Joel's Greatest Hits for free... simultaneously.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcvVPuJVKcs"]YouTube - All Of Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Played At Once[/ame]

 

[Muck]

This will give you a little idea what the effect of illegal downloads have done to the industry. Last summer I was talking with a guy from Nashville (big name in the business). One of the giant albums from last year sold 3 million copies. Through their research, they figure 10 years ago, it would have sold 10 million copies. Those copies that were not sold, but stolen, is what finances the new music. I'm just sayin...

Yet it's kinda of interesting that the independent studies generally suggest that musicians are actually making more post file sharing than previously & that the industry as a whole is growing.

Focusing on individual album sales number as prime metric is just one of the many ways that the 'industry' research is flawed.

Study after study in (western industrialized) country after country all tend to come up with the same conclusion...currently more musicians are making original compositions than ever before, currently individuals musicians are making more money off of their work than ever before.

Yes the 'big name in the business' guys are getting squeezed out but so what? Their place is returning to what it was prior to the explosion of the recording industry in the 50's & onward...that of being superfluous. I see that as a feature rather than a bug.

 

[buxfan4life]

Tell me, how many Justin Beiber songs do I have to download to bankrupt that little bitch and make him quit and run home crying to mommy? I'll buy a whole new computer system just for that purpose.

 

[Saw31]

Yet it's kinda of interesting that the independent studies generally suggest that musicians are actually making more post file sharing than previously & that the industry as a whole is growing.

Focusing on individual album sales number as prime metric is just one of the many ways that the 'industry' research is flawed.

Study after study in (western industrialized) country after country all tend to come up with the same conclusion...currently more musicians are making original compositions than ever before, currently individuals musicians are making more money off of their work than ever before.

Yes the 'big name in the business' guys are getting squeezed out but so what? Their place is returning to what it was prior to the explosion of the recording industry in the 50's & onward...that of being superfluous. I see that as a feature rather than a bug.

Never said it was a prime metric. It was anecdotal and the point remains. The labels need to hit some home runs in order to all the other stuff.

If a musician can do it on their own, more power to them. From my experience, they almost always need the help though. Very few people have the talent or inclination to be musicians, business men, attorneys, booking agents, engineers, producers, travel agents etc., etc. The "big business guys" have the contacts and the resources in place to do this stuff. They also have the experience of having done it. As I said earlier, most of these guys came up through the business the same way that the musicians are doing it. Former professional musicians, radio people, engineers, and so on.

My posts were in response to illegally downloading content and it's repercussions to the recording industry, and the musicians who have taken that route. Justifying the theft does not make it any more legal. And it certainly doesn't help that incredible musician that couldn't balance a check book if his life depended on it, let alone set up a business entity to produce and distribute and be compensated fairly for his work. And I would challenge any of you to find more than a token few musicians out there that enjoy having their songs stolen. You think your favorite band wants their song to be the next advertising campaign for Taco Bell, and not receive a dime for it? You think your favorite band wants to learn that they've sold 100k copies of their album, but it was downloaded illegally 200k times? (yes this can be tracked) It's a ridiculous notion. I will grant you there is a genre or two, that make most of their living touring and won't complain as loudly. In those cases, it will be considered a cost of marketing their shows. But it amazes me how many people want to justify theft. This shouldn't even be a conversation. They are still having their property stolen, if they are doing better now or not. They would be doing even better if not for the illegal downloads. It's still theft. Period.

 

[scott91575]

This will give you a little idea what the effect of illegal downloads have done to the industry. Last summer I was talking with a guy from Nashville (big name in the business). One of the giant albums from last year sold 3 million copies. Through their research, they figure 10 years ago, it would have sold 10 million copies. Those copies that were not sold, but stolen, is what finances the new music. I'm just sayin...

I am not posting here to try and change the world. I know, just as they do, that they will never get the genie back in the bottle. They just haven't figured out anything they can do about it yet. And there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that a few companies have displayed that has come home to roost...

This is where I have a huge problem with those "numbers." Just look at tv ratings, down across the board. There is some piracy there, but for the most part that is not to blame. It's the sheer amount of content that actually reaches the consumer now. It's not all piracy, but it's the quickest easiest thing a record label can blame.

Plus, how do they figure "10 years ago?" Piracy was just about as rampant for music then. If that is the case, their argument has nothing to do with piracy.

Anyway, I will try and give an example of those fake numbers about piracy industries love to throw out. In video games, they estimate they lose 90% of sales due to piracy. Which is laughable.

Recently, a game developer released a game that required internet hookup. The name of the game was Assassin's Creed 2. It required internet hookup because while playing the game, the game would randomly require downloads from a server, and the game would need to be authenticated. If it wasn't authentic (a pirated version), then the game could not download the required data therefore making it unplayable. Well, it took pirates about 2 months to figure out all the missing data, but in the mean time the only thing available to the consumer was legit copies (plus no one knew if it would ever be cracked, so unlikely people were waiting around for a cracked version). The sales were really good, but not a 90% jump. Also, it sold slightly better than the original game, which was a good game. Therefore you would expect sales of the sequel to be slightly better. In the end, the sequel was out for 2 months without a pirated copy to be had, and while sales were good it was not some huge number. In fact, it doesn't look like piracy had much of an effect at all on sales. Yet you will continually hear industry leaders scream about "90%" piracy. It's a joke.

Anyway, back to the music industry, it's very similar there. Instead of looking at the fact there is now a huge array of content out there, and it's readily available to the consumer, the industry just screams "It's all those damn pirates!" While piracy is an issue, it is never anywhere near what the industry wants you to believe. It's an easy scapegoat.

Sure, music is easier to download than games (no DRM to get around), but never believe what anyone in the industry says about lost sales. Some are lost to piracy, but no where near what they like to quote.

 

[Saw31]

This is where I have a huge problem with those "numbers." Just look at tv ratings, down across the board. There is some piracy there, but for the most part that is not to blame. It's the sheer amount of content that actually reaches the consumer now. It's not all piracy, but it's the quickest easiest thing a record label can blame.

Plus, how do they figure "10 years ago?" Piracy was just about as rampant for music then. If that is the case, their argument has nothing to do with piracy.

Anyway, I will try and give an example of those fake numbers about piracy industries love to throw out. In video games, they estimate they lose 90% of sales due to piracy. Which is laughable.

Recently, a game developer released a game that required internet hookup. The name of the game was Assassin's Creed 2. It required internet hookup because while playing the game, the game would randomly require downloads from a server, and the game would need to be authenticated. If it wasn't authentic (a pirated version), then the game could not download the required data therefore making it unplayable. Well, it took pirates about 2 months to figure out all the missing data, but in the mean time the only thing available to the consumer was legit copies (plus no one knew if it would ever be cracked, so unlikely people were waiting around for a cracked version). The sales were really good, but not a 90% jump. Also, it sold slightly better than the original game, which was a good game. Therefore you would expect sales of the sequel to be slightly better. In the end, the sequel was out for 2 months without a pirated copy to be had, and while sales were good it was not some huge number. In fact, it doesn't look like piracy had much of an effect at all on sales. Yet you will continually hear industry leaders scream about "90%" piracy. It's a joke.

Anyway, back to the music industry, it's very similar there. Instead of looking at the fact there is now a huge array of content out there, and it's readily available to the consumer, the industry just screams "It's all those damn pirates!" While piracy is an issue, it is never anywhere near what the industry wants you to believe. It's an easy scapegoat.

Sure, music is easier to download than games (no DRM to get around), but never believe what anyone in the industry says about lost sales. Some are lost to piracy, but no where near what they like to quote.

Ok, who cares what the numbers are. I am not a "label", so whatever. If you've pirated a game, song, movie, etc...YOU'VE STOLEN IT. Period, end of conversation. No different then going to the store and hiding it under your jacket. I know for a fact that it's happening enough to change how they have to do business, however much you want to argue about the numbers.

 

[powerlifter]

You can buy a ddl account. Download Jdownloader(a download organizer,that helps a lot imo). Go to warezbb and have an entire library faster then any other way imaginable. It's much safer then torrents btw. The download speeds are extremely fast in comparison to torrents. Before that I used IRC mostly.