The Internet: All the music in the world that nobody's buying…

[KVRdataminer]

I think this article, about how major labels approached the internet ten years ago, is germane to this discussion:

http://www.mosesavalon.com/mosesblog/?p=481

+1

[synthgeek]

And when you read my statement with some patience, you'll find in the last paragraph:

Instead of piracy (alone), changed customer behaviour should be taken into account for decreasing CD sales.

That means, the focus is to small, if you only take piracy into account.

Piracy may not be the only reason for decreased sales, but I'm sure it doesn't help.

D'accord.

Sorry if I seemed over-argumentative.

Discussions on P2P and copyright infringement tend to become about morals or the lack thereof. I just wish to add this to that debate; People made up their own rules about fair use long before P2P. We didn't call it piracy back then, but lending/borrowing vinyl and taping stuff was commonplace when I grew up. It was how you made new friends and found out about music you had not previously heard. Sure, this is all based on personal experience, but that has a lot more weight than numbers given by IFPI anyway.

There's a big difference between taping an album for a friend or two & p2p file sharing. I'm sure the RIAA would still frown on it, but it's not like most people were distributing said tapes to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

[deaf dunderkwac]

I think this article, about how major labels approached the internet ten years ago, is germane to this discussion:

http://www.mosesavalon.com/mosesblog/?p=481

+1

while browsing that site you might also read this one:
http://www.mosesavalon.com/mosesblog/?p=498
the worst group of thieves and thugs have always been the ones who yell the loudest about piracy...imo

[Goratrix]

There's a big difference between taping an album for a friend or two & p2p file sharing. I'm sure the RIAA would still frown on it, but it's not like most people were distributing said tapes to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

I suppose you're not familiar with this, then?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Tapin ... ling_Music

the reaction of the recording industry to cassette tapes was just as hysterical as the reaction to P2P, the limited scope didn't matter at all.

[deaf dunderkwac]

... then there was the dat tape fiasco.

[ckatrun411]

I've got a copy of that, "confessions of a record producer," book is so true. Did anybody look at a few images from the latest MTV, "whateva," awards........

Artists? Pfft.... Corporate prostitutes. Products. Not musicians.

[dbrane]

Discussions on P2P and copyright infringement tend to become about morals or the lack thereof. I just wish to add this to that debate; People made up their own rules about fair use long before P2P. We didn't call it piracy back then, but lending/borrowing vinyl and taping stuff was commonplace when I grew up. It was how you made new friends and found out about music you had not previously heard. Sure, this is all based on personal experience, but that has a lot more weight than numbers given by IFPI anyway.

There's a big difference between taping an album for a friend or two & p2p file sharing. I'm sure the RIAA would still frown on it, but it's not like most people were distributing said tapes to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

I see your point even if it seems you exaggerate the numbers to make it. My intention was just to point out that music has been spread illegally for decades. The OP touched on things that transcend piracy, yet this thread is now regurgitating the napster debate. There was, IMHO, nothing inherently wrong with the old system. In fact, I think it was great , but what I grew up doing, what got me into a lot of different artists and made me lots of friends who could recommend me even more music would nowadays make me a "thieving" and "immoral" pirate. Again, I'm limiting this to personal experience, but I'm sure I would have spent a lot less on music and music related products without the sharing/infringement/stealing of my youth. Just throwing it in there

[DeepFiber]

... then there was the dat tape fiasco.

Dont forget classics such as laserdisc, betamax, sacd, that dvd audio crap, minidisc, dab-radio

[synthgeek]

I suppose you're not familiar with this, then?

Actually I am- but my point wasn't arguing on the side of the RIAA- rather the rational view that home taping didn't have the impact file sharing has.

I don't think anyone here really gives a damn about the RIAA. However, piracy has an effect on the smaller labels/artists as well.

related post on Caustic's blog (lots of other good posts there too)

I see your point even if it seems you exaggerate the numbers to make it. My intention was just to point out that music has been spread illegally for decades. The OP touched on things that transcend piracy, yet this thread is now regurgitating the napster debate. There was, IMHO, nothing inherently wrong with the old system. In fact, I think it was great , but what I grew up doing, what got me into a lot of different artists and made me lots of friends who could recommend me even more music would nowadays make me a "thieving" and "immoral" pirate. Again, I'm limiting this to personal experience, but I'm sure I would have spent a lot less on music and music related products without the sharing/infringement/stealing of my youth. Just throwing it in there

I'm not saying everything that's out there gets downloaded to that extent, but I don't think that's an exaggerated view of the amount of people out there downloading stuff illegally. If anything, I'd say it's a conservative estimate.

The point I'm trying to make all around, as it pertains to the OP, is that I think some people (the author of the blog post the OP posted included) underestimate the impact of piracy. The article seems to say the reason people aren't making more money from music is because there's so much out there. I agree to a point, but I think it has more to do with the fact that piracy via file sharing has become the norm.

I think this even hurts the little guy giving their stuff away for free on purpose. It seems to me the most popular stuff on file sharing sites & networks is still the same pop crap the media shoves down people's throats. People might come across the occasional unknown and check it out, but I don't think the majority of people are going any further from the mainstream than they otherwise would.

[deaf dunderkwac]

...
I think this even hurts the little guy giving their stuff away for free on purpose. It seems to me the most popular stuff on file sharing sites & networks is still the same pop crap the media shoves down people's throats. People might come across the occasional unknown and check it out, but I don't think the majority of people are going any further from the mainstream than they otherwise would.

Go to any of the (increasing numbers of) music communities.
My experience was I only saw a downturn in 'interest' (bw, slurping to other sites etc.) with increasing numbers of other 'free' artists and has had little, if anything to do with p2p piracy.

There's also a wealth of knowledge available to novice composers that wasn't
easily accessible before the internet.
There really is a glut of music, most of it really well made.

[jonnyG]

I seem to remember the start of the decline in interest in actually buying music started well before everybody had broadband. It seemed to coincide with the explosion in popularity of game consoles and all the other doo-dahs that leached away young people's attention and disposable income.

There's so much more important tat for kids to spend their money on these days that music barely gets a look-in. I'm not joking. What's left of the music industry will have to pull their fingers out soon - there's only so many times that they can remaster and repackage their Duran Duran back-catalogues to middle-aged farts.

[AndreasKrebs]

Ah, we are still discussing piracy. Maybe a dongle would help?

No, seriously, it gets really boring now. We could continue forever to whine about piracy, and threads tend to do this. However, this will not change piracy. Quite probably nothing will change piracy, because it is a global and quite technical thing in a world that is not yet ready for that kind of things.

Maybe the result will be that living from music (as a product, such as a cd) will become increasingly difficult or even impossible. Still, whining will not change this.

Maybe we will have generations of "hobby"-musicians (I don't like that term, I'd like to regard music as my complimentary second profession). This will change music, of course. Bad thing? I don't think so. (But I'm sure I will not like every result, but that's the same with any musical decade.)

Let's try some forward thinking.

Cheers,
Andreas

[A.M. Gold]

i am sceptical about this. while its true punishment will have some effects, its not the key. why:
- there were many tries before. yet in a democracy the gov cant prosecute a majority.

- strict prohibition never was an effective way to stop unwanted activities. criminalizing users even lowers the credibility of the state if its about something that is not socially endorsed. punished users rather look like martyrs then.

I don't agree that there have been that many attempts at slowing down illegal P2P. They shut down Napster, but that was only one point source. The problem with huge lawsuits against a few individuals is that it is like someone getting hit by lightning: it can easily kill the victim, but it is still so rare that few people will avoid going outside during a rainstorm.

To me, a solution more like speeding tickets is a better approach. Speeding tickets are nowhere near as costly as huge lawsuits, but they are far more common. This doesn't keep people from speeding, but it does tend to curb the habit so it doesn't go totally out of control.

What the music industry needs is not to stop file sharing, just as they didn't need to absolutely halt tape swapping. They just need to reverse this trend of it becoming stupid simple and incredibly commonplace to just log onto some torrent network and get whatever you want. They have to throw a wrench into the works so it doesn't just seem like a casual everyday thing to do that (i.e. make it so that there is a stigma and people feel there's always a chance they might get penalized, like for speeding when they drive).

I think this will have a mass effect and tend to cut down on file sharing, and make people look at the simple fact that it isn't really that big of a deal to just pay for the songs you like, or listen to some other alternative source, like legal streaming. People didn't go broke paying for music before Napster, and they won't now.

[DeepFiber]

i am sceptical about this. while its true punishment will have some effects, its not the key. why:
- there were many tries before. yet in a democracy the gov cant prosecute a majority.

- strict prohibition never was an effective way to stop unwanted activities. criminalizing users even lowers the credibility of the state if its about something that is not socially endorsed. punished users rather look like martyrs then.

I don't agree that there have been that many attempts at slowing down illegal P2P. They shut down Napster, but that was only one point source. The problem with huge lawsuits against a few individuals is that it is like someone getting hit by lightning: it can easily kill the victim, but it is still so rare that few people will avoid going outside during a rainstorm.

To me, a solution more like speeding tickets is a better approach. Speeding tickets are nowhere near as costly as huge lawsuits, but they are far more common. This doesn't keep people from speeding, but it does tend to curb the habit so it doesn't go totally out of control.


What the music industry needs is not to stop file sharing, just as they didn't need to absolutely halt tape swapping. They just need to reverse this trend of it becoming stupid simple and incredibly commonplace to just log onto some torrent network and get whatever you want. They have to throw a wrench into the works so it doesn't just seem like a casual everyday thing to do that (i.e. make it so that there is a stigma and people feel there's always a chance they might get penalized, like for speeding when they drive).

You need to think again, its not file sharing thats the problem is other things, like xbox and playstations and low quality of the music. What this will do is accellerate encrypted services like vpn tunnels and things not even known yet, you only push things further underground, and remember the "law" is always 10 steps behind the perpetrators, this is just stupid, all you will do with this is forcing newer and more powerful encryption services on people, people that dont feel "safe" the people that feel they need the added security. The truth is this: some people dont want to pay, and you cant stop them, and it would be unwise to try to since this is not the cause for loss of sales! They wouldnt have bought shit anyway! You just cant get to these people, get it! The harder you try the harder it gets and its not a symmetrical battle. You lose. Thats how it works.

I think this will have a mass effect and tend to cut down on file sharing, and make people look at the simple fact that it isn't really that big of a deal to just pay for the songs you like, or listen to some other alternative source, like legal streaming. People didn't go broke paying for music before Napster, and they won't now.

This wont do anything to sales! If it does something it will lower sales figures cause of enhanced "security" on the net, so more people actually download shit because they know theyre safe doing so..

one step forward=3 steps back, when the f**k will people understand?
Its not a minority youre dealing with its the f**king majority, like 85-90% of all internet users. Are you crazy?

[A.M. Gold]

The crackdown is already underway.