Soxtalk's Music Piracy Thread

[AddisonStSox]

Though there is much debate surrounding the mere term or usage of the term, "music piracy," that is the term in this thread used to describe the unlawful, unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a way that violates the exclusive rights of the aforementioned copyrighted material's owner.

 

Disclaimer: As I'm sure those who have been a part of Soxtalk much longer than I can attest to, threads of this nature, and in this very forum, have a history of being derailed fairly quickly (present company included). So, just a humble request to stay on task as I've seen some absolutely amazing threads on this board where some very productive and good-natured debate takes place.

 

I know we've talked about making this thread for awhile, so, here it is. There are a bunch of folks from a bunch of different music entertainment arenas on this very board--including the owner of a label--and this oughta be a fun one.

 

So, who wants to start us off? Thoughts? Rants? Raves? Complaints?

 

Touch gloves.

[Heads22]

I want to say, you've gone about being against it in a very respectable way.

[Texsox]

Traditional entertainment companies have never been able to keep up with technology and have lost their legal battles at every turn. I track this back to audio recorders. The music industry thought no one would buy albums when they could tape off the air via their radios. Then the industry fought video recorders because no one would watch commercials. And there have been many battles in between and before and after.

 

Strip away what we know and look how simple this should be. You have an artist who is making music you have customers who want to listen to it. In the simplest form it would be

 

artist -----> consumer

 

But there are now billion dollar companies in the middle trying to protect their piece of the pie.

 

artist ---> companies $$$$$ ----> consumer

 

IMHO, nature always favors the simplest solution to a problem. Technology will drive a distribution system that will directly connect the artist, producing work with great results from home, with their audience, who will pay a small fee for each download or a smaller fee, for a per listen license.

 

We will have music stations that do little more than search and download from various artists' web sites and play songs. Highly customizable.

[3E8]

I brought this up in the music thread, but I'll restate it here. No one remembers that a few years ago the five major recording companies violated antitrust laws and illegally colluded, resulting in a half billion dollar loss shared by conusmers who paid artificially high prices.

[Kid Gleason]

Simple way of fixning many of the problems is lower the price, and put out a better product. I bought the Jet release "Get Born", dumped about $16 of the thing, and open it to find no real insert, just a crappy picture. Where are the lyrics? That happened about 4 times in a row. I will buy a band I am familiar with and that I know I will be happy with. But days of "taking chances" are gone now.

 

When I find a band I really like, I support them the best way I can, I buy merch from them. If I go see a band, I buy a shirt and other items there. I know they get that money, and not the company.

 

I try to support the Indie labels, and I detest buying from the majors.

 

I have had my material bootlegged and sold without my knowledge, but I still prefer to give my stuff away. I'll never get rich on it, I'll never be able to pay any bills with it, so if giving it away means getting it to more people, then I am 100% cool with that.

[Texsox]

I think there has to be a better, more tailored, distribution. When the record companies are cut out, and the band distributes to the consumer, $.25 becomes a reality per song. And they make more, and have more control.

[RockRaines]

Pirated music has helped the emergence of many new and not previously well known artist, not to mention boosting the actual awareness of the quality of upcoming albums. I along with the greatful dead am very in favor of it.

[AddisonStSox]

I think there has to be a better, more tailored, distribution. When the record companies are cut out, and the band distributes to the consumer, $.25 becomes a reality per song. And they make more, and have more control.

 

Attempt to find a bank willing to give a loan to musicians to fund the recording, promotion, and distribution of a full-length...it doesn't exist.

 

As long as music is being created and distributed on a national, or international basis, labels will be present.

 

Gone are the days of the wandering minstrel. Many musicians create music to make a profit and earn a living--whether this makes for a better product or not is up for a different debate. Music labels are a means to an end. As long as musicians seek to earn a living--or, if they are the sentimental type and simply desire to distribute their work as some piece of communal art, belonging to the "people"--the role the label plays will be a crucial one.

[AddisonStSox]

Simple way of fixning many of the problems is lower the price, and put out a better product. I bought the Jet release "Get Born", dumped about $16 of the thing, and open it to find no real insert, just a crappy picture. Where are the lyrics? That happened about 4 times in a row. I will buy a band I am familiar with and that I know I will be happy with. But days of "taking chances" are gone now.

 

When I find a band I really like, I support them the best way I can, I buy merch from them. If I go see a band, I buy a shirt and other items there. I know they get that money, and not the company.

 

I try to support the Indie labels, and I detest buying from the majors.

 

I have had my material bootlegged and sold without my knowledge, but I still prefer to give my stuff away. I'll never get rich on it, I'll never be able to pay any bills with it, so if giving it away means getting it to more people, then I am 100% cool with that.

 

The thought was, by making one or two songs of an album available on the internet, customers/music fans would be more inclined to buy the cd found in stores. However, recent findings have shown this is not the case. The new generation of music fans no longer care to have an actual jewel case complete with artwork, lyrics, the whole bit...let alone pay upwards of $10 for it!?

 

So, a logical solution, make the songs this new breed of music enthusiast desire available via download at a set price per song. That still wasn't good enough. Not only do we want our music, we want it for free.

 

Where do we go from here? How can I "support" my favorite artist, while illegally downloading his or her music, giving absolutely nothing?

 

EDIT: I do like Trent Reznor's recent take on this. "With Teeth" is an absolutely empty jewel case--well, actually it's on cardboard. It's only content? The cd. He says, why go ahead and produce colorful artwork, lyrics, etc. when this cd is going to get put on a computer, tossed on a playlist, or downloaded via the internet?

Edited November 4, 2005 by AddisonStSox

[Balta1701]

Here's my basic problem with the way recording industry pricing works.

 

Let's say I want to go buy a DVD of a movie that came out like 10 years ago. Name the movie title, I don't care what it is. Or even a recently released film.

 

Now, when that DVD is first released, if I've been desperate to buy it for a long time, I'm going to go buy it immediately for whatever price it costs...probably something like $20.

 

Now, let's say I don't think it's worth $20. Do I just never buy it in my lifetime? No, I don't have to do that. Why? Because if I wait 2 years, I'll see the price on that DVD drop from like $20 to $10 to $5 to maybe even the $2 bin that they have in the middle aisle of my local department store.

 

This is how DVD's are priced, and studios make quite a bit by making sure they sell things to everyone who is willing to buy. And if I don't think a DVD is worth 1 price, I have no reason to pay that price - I just need to wait.

 

I'm doing this with a ton of DVD's right now...my Simpsons collection is gradually growing as I occasionally see them marked down below $20, as is my collection on a few more TV shows.

 

Now, what happens with music? When a music CD comes out, it costs something like $12-$18, depending on how many disks it is, where you buy it, etc. Now, let's say I listen to it, but I decide it's just not worth $15. What do I do? If I come back a year later, what does that disk cost? $15. 2 years later? $16. 3 years later? On sale for $14.

 

I think this is a disasterous plan on the part of the music industry. The movie industry has proven that time-based-pricing can give you a dramatic increase in sales. But the music industry has never adopted that tactic. I would spend far more on CD's if the price varied with time, so that by waiting I could get more for my dollar.

[greasywheels121]

EDIT: I do like Trent Reznor's recent take on this.  "With Teeth" is an absolutely empty jewel case--well, actually it's on cardboard.  It's only content?  The cd.  He says, why go ahead and produce colorful artwork, lyrics, etc. when this cd is going to get put on a computer, tossed on a playlist, or downloaded via the internet?

 

Holy f***. This better be a typo, or he STILL is charging $40 for this CD.

 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?sk...ab=4&id=1445019

[AddisonStSox]

Holy f***.  This better be a typo, or he STILL is charging $40 for this CD.

 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?sk...ab=4&id=1445019

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...0033109-7968643

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...0033109-7968643

Edited November 4, 2005 by AddisonStSox

[greasywheels121]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...0033109-7968643

 

Broken link.

[The Critic]

Here's my basic problem with the way recording industry pricing works.

 

Let's say I want to go buy a DVD of a movie that came out like 10 years ago.  Name the movie title, I don't care what it is.  Or even a recently released film.

 

Now, when that DVD is first released, if I've been desperate to buy it for a long time, I'm going to go buy it immediately for whatever price it costs...probably something like $20.

 

Now, let's say I don't think it's worth $20.  Do I just never buy it in my lifetime?  No, I don't have to do that.  Why?  Because if I wait 2 years, I'll see the price on that DVD drop from like $20 to $10 to $5 to maybe even the $2 bin that they have in the middle aisle of my local department store.

 

This is how DVD's are priced, and studios make quite a bit by making sure they sell things to everyone who is willing to buy.  And if I don't think a DVD is worth 1 price, I have no reason to pay that price - I just need to wait.

 

I'm doing this with a ton of DVD's right now...my Simpsons collection is gradually growing as I occasionally see them marked down below $20, as is my collection on a few more TV shows.

 

Now, what happens with music?  When a music CD comes out, it costs something like $12-$18, depending on how many disks it is, where you buy it, etc.  Now, let's say I listen to it, but I decide it's just not worth $15.  What do I do?  If I come back a year later, what does that disk cost?  $15.  2 years later?  $16.  3 years later?  On sale for $14.

 

I think this is a disasterous plan on the part of the music industry.  The movie industry has proven that time-based-pricing can give you a dramatic increase in sales.  But the music industry has never adopted that tactic.  I would spend far more on CD's if the price varied with time, so that by waiting I could get more for my dollar.

Well, some labels have "Value Pricing" on their back catalogs. I see many many titles available for $7.99 or so. I also see a lot of those cheesy "Best Of" collections for like $5.99 at Best Buy - "WOW, the BEST of Gino Vanelli???? AWESOME!!!!"

But by and large I see your point on that - older titles really should drop in price as time ( and initial interest ) passes.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

As previously posted, the major labels colluded to artificially inflfate prices to make themselves more money -- and with little money actually going to the artist themselves. That, my friends is bulls*** and illegal.

 

For example, Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is still expensive as when my brother got it for Christmas years ago. Have the record companies not recooped their money from PF?

 

Major labels are f***ing artists in the ass. While these labels discuss how the artists are being screwed by P2P file sharing, I'd contend that the much bigger screw job comes from the major labels that take most of the money for every album sold.

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/179304_cdupdate24.html -- Sad story about the record industry whining about the anti-trust lawsuit against them.

 

From Fark.com:

The RIAA is paying their own fines by dumping s***loads of unsold and overstocked/overprinted CDs from their inventory and calling it a "payout."

 

Ahem. "We told you so."

 

This is unwanted garbage. And the RIAA has the nerve to charge FULL RETAIL for each one of these CDs that goes towards their payoff, despite the fact that these CDs cost them absolutely nothing and have just been collecting dust in the first place.

 

The fact they sent old Promo CDs is even more amusing.

 

--

The RIAA gets off with a slap on the wrist for being a monopoly & even then they cut corners when they actually have to pay what minimal punishment they got.

[False Alarm]

maybe relevant:

 

The Problem with Music

Edited November 4, 2005 by False Alarm

[Flash Tizzle]

I don't understand how you (Addy) can possibly empathize with multi-millionaire artists. Until the moment arrives when live shows--which compile a large percentage of an artists revenues--are no longer sold out, I won't give a second thought to the illegal distribution of music. And many will agree with me--artists complaining about losing several million, whereas still earning a sizable paycheck, is similiar to Sprewell claiming 10+ million can barely provide for his family.

[The Critic]

Another problem with the record industry is the way they rip off young artists on the way up ( sometimes paying them less than a penny per CD sold, portraying advances as "bonuses" when they are in fact loans against future sales ) and then turn around and give balloon contracts to some artists after they're successful for a long time ( Janet Jackson, Aerosmith ). Add to that the "prefential treatment" as far as advertising budget and approach goes, and the playing field is not really level. You see one band like the Strokes become popular and then all of the sudden there are 17,000 Stroke-alikes out there. It's not an accident.

The record industry is its own worst enemy most of the time, so for them to claim that "pirates" are the main/sole/ultimate reason why sales are down is naive at best and delusional at worst.

[Texsox]

Attempt to find a bank willing to give a loan to musicians to fund the recording, promotion, and distribution of a full-length...it doesn't exist.

 

As long as music is being created and distributed on a national, or international basis, labels will be present. 

 

Gone are the days of the wandering minstrel.  Many musicians create music to make a profit and earn a living--whether this makes for a better product or not is up for a different debate.  Music labels are a means to an end.  As long as musicians seek to earn a living--or, if they are the sentimental type and simply desire to distribute their work as some piece of communal art, belonging to the "people"--the role the label plays will be a crucial one.

 

My point is with better and better technolgy it will not be nearly as expensive to produce the album. Instead of expensive recording sessions, technology will put a recording studio in a garage and it will be equal to the major studios of yesterday, just like a desktop calculator kicks butt over what sent Apollo to the moon.

 

You will not have huge publicity costs of hitting every radio station, most consumers will have radio bots that will stream music to their desktop via a search type function from the artists server.

 

There will be some artists that continue the traditional route, just like the networks compete for TV shows over cable stations. But the record labels will become less and less important to the process.

 

The consolidation the record industry saw in the 80s will reverse and smaller, faster, niche companies will grab a huge market share.

[Spiff]

Where do we go from here?  How can I "support" my favorite artist, while illegally downloading his or her music, giving absolutely nothing?

 

Oh, I don't know, stupid s*** like concerts and t-shirts.

 

I buy a ton of cd's because I want to support the artists I love but the great thing that mp3's and P2P has accomplished is to bring out the underground stuff and show music beyond the clear channel garbage.

[Kid Gleason]

I don't understand how you (Addy) can possibly empathize with multi-millionaire artists. Until the moment arrives when live shows--which compile a large percentage of an artists revenues--are no longer sold out, I won't give a second thought to the illegal distribution of music. And many will agree with me--artists complaining about losing several million, whereas still earning a sizable paycheck, is similiar to Sprewell claiming 10+ million can barely provide for his family.

 

But you're dealing with the minority when you talk about the artists making it big, the vast minority. Would you believe that the last I knew of Slayer was still working day jobs? This may have changed in the mid 90's, but at the time that they did South Of Heaven and Seasons In The Abyss they were still taking leaves of absense to hit the road. It took GnR a few years before they saw a penny from Appetite, and they talked quite often about how rough it was to get off the road, after being wined and dined and given the royalty treatment everywhere while on the road, to suddenly be finding themselves going back to their dingy apartments and bugging the manager and roadies for money for food, since they had all been paid, but GnR had yet to see a dime of the riches they had earned for everybody else.

 

Just because a band sells millions does NOT mean that they are rolling in the money. EVERYBODY else has to get paid before the band will. Springsteen has years upon years of album and merch sales to live off of. Bowling For Soup has only one really successful album, and I lay money on it I make more in a year than they do, and I am NOT a rich guy.

 

I'm torn on where I stand. I try and buy when I can, but that isn't the only way I get my music. But I also get promos due to my connections, I also get stuff just sent to me due to those connections. There are not as many as there used to be, but oh well.

 

I also don't get the comparison thing either. How on earth can Star Wars III get released, a double disc set with fancy extras such as coins and lithographs, and be sold for $15. Look at the list of contributors to that dang film. HUNDREDS of people worked on that damn thing.

 

A new album by, lets say Velvet Revolver, will probably also cost $15. You have what, 5 guys in the band, a manager, a producer (unless the band does that), an engineer (unless the producer does that), and then whoever does the mastering. Plus maybe a photographer and cover artist. You end up with MAYBE 15 people at the most actually being hands on with that product. But the cost is the same? The argument can't be used that the movie will make more money on it's theatrical run, because I have picked up numerous cult films for $9.99, and I am SURE that they didn't sell more tickets than VR will sell albums.

 

The music industry is full of crooks and victims, and the bands are the victims.

[kapkomet]

But Star Wars III is giong to get sold to 100,000,000 more people then anything else, ever, that's going to come up in this thread.

 

At least that's the justification of it.

 

/carry on - good thread

[hi8is]

Gone are the days of the wandering minstrel.

ummmm, i beg to differ... me and my old homeless buddies in santa cruz, santa barbara, and s***.. even here in hollywood also would likely beg to differ as well.

 

there are tons of amazing musicians out there who have nothing but their art... and in some cases, believe me first hand expereience here amigo, they would rather be on the streets playing their souls then get a "real job"..... call it what you want but there are some people out there who just would rather sit on a street corner playing music because that is who they are deep inside.

 

[bmags]

First - this is for kid gleason - I also try to support the indie labels but i have to be careful because i realize now how many of those indie labels are branches of huge record labels. But record companies like Asthmatic Kitty, Saddle Creek, and Arts and Crafts are all labels i try to support around every corner...but labels like matador and such, i won't look into every artist when i know who they are apart of...

 

Alright, first off, I love buying cds, i love the art, i love having the cd in my hand, nothing is like going to the store and buying that album, the experience is part of the listen. The last CD i bought was Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - B.R.M.C. and that cd really holds a special place in my heart on my ipod. I will be going to buy Radiohead's LP7 when it is released in 2006. BUT, i am a very poor college student and i cannot afford 15 bucks for a cd! That is absolutely ridiculous. I go to shows and buy the same ones for 7 or 10 that i can buy at a store for 15! Where does that extra price come from?

 

Also, like everyone has said, you want to support your artist? Merch and Live shows. They make the most direct money out of both of those.

 

And, many of the albums i download are hard to find in the record stores around me, they aren't widely distributed and the artist wants people to hear it. Case in Point, The Go! Team found a huge following in America when they came here (well, HE, but i guess with his hired cohorts they) despite not having released their album in America and the imports being a huge like 25-30 dollars, people downloaded it, and when he came here he was playing sold out shows...

 

Whats sad is awful bands are getting coddled by the industry while a man like leonard cohen can't even tour due to lack of money...

 

I will eventually buy most of the cds i have, i want a back catalogue, when i have the MONEY, but for now i will download and discover artists that the record labels put on the back shelf because they think their sound isn't broad enough. I hate. record. labels.

[maggliopipe]

I recently legitimately bought the new Coral album. Much to my surprise, I was forced to agree to some ridiculous terms of service deal where they installed some software on my computer (DRM) before I could even listen to the music. I then come to find out that this software is impossible to uninstall and leaves my computer subject to easy exploitation by hackers. Furthermore, I'm not even able to put these protected songs on my iPod, which is just about the only way I listen to music these days.

 

This is not the way to get people to buy music legally.