Copyrights and downloading etc

[RF Scott]

I wasn't being completely serious, I'm not fighting for jack really, but I guess, for music to be free . . .

I was being tongue-in-cheek, or something like that, taking the mick out of the people who act all righteous about downloading, 'fuck the labels' and that. Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. I do realise that what I do may have a negative effect on the music industry. But the fact that I am introduced to a lot more music, and through me other people are introduced to music is positive.

I'm this way as well. But the reason I started downloading was that I couldn't find most of what I wanted to hear in the shops, and I don't like ordering things in.

Recently; Andy C, Sunny day real estate, Boxcutter, Frog Pocket, Fabriclive, John Martyn

Surely that 'not finding things in shops' argument is a bit silly, given that they're probably cheaper online? A lot less hassle, too.

[la mula]

Surely that 'not finding things in shops' argument is a bit silly, given that they're probably cheaper online? A lot less hassle, too.

No, not silly. I said I didn't like ordering things in, that includes online.

Also, when I buy cds (about 2 per month) I don't care about the price, I'm more about hearing what I want when I want.

[RF Scott]

No, not silly. I said I didn't like ordering things in, that includes online.

Also, when I buy cds (about 2 per month) I don't care about the price, I'm more about hearing what I want when I want.

Sorry I didn't get that, it was the 'in' that made me think you were talking about shops, not online. Nor did I get the tongue in cheek, but that's the internet ruining any notion of sarcasm for you.

[Stripey]

This is just one of these situations where the reality defeats entrenched attitudes. The fact is, p2p and piracy is here to stay. It's no good whining because people won't play along with your own idea (as a label/artist whatever) of how business should be done.

That thing with radiohead offering their album for free but with the option to pay was interesting. The thing is, it's available for free anyway and always would have been wether they had done it willingly or not. The fact they still made a shitload of money from their "honest" fans undermines the whole anti-piracy argument that most people are making here.

[RF Scott]

This is just one of these situations where the reality defeats entrenched attitudes. The fact is, p2p and piracy is here to stay. It's no good whining because people won't play along with your own idea (as a label/artist whatever) of how business should be done.

That thing with radiohead offering their album for free but with the option to pay was interesting. The thing is, it's available for free anyway and always would have been wether they had done it willingly or not. The fact they still made a shitload of money from their "honest" fans undermines the whole anti-piracy argument that most people are making here.

It's not really (at least for me) an entrenched attitude, given the amount of music I've downloaded in the past - it's just something I've felt increasingly uneasy about, to the point where I just don't do it anymore, unless I'm looking for a digital copy to go along with the lp, like I've mentioned before.

The Radiohead thing is interesting yeah, but it'd be good to see how the same situation would work with a small scale artist, to see whether they could make a living/cover their costs going down the same route.

If people want to download music, that's their choice. It's just frustrating when they throw about reasons like "record labels are evil!" "musicians are rich!" etc, instead of just being plain and simple about it.

[ZeromiserY]

it's just something I've felt increasingly uneasy about, to the point where I just don't do it anymore,

you need Phoenix Labs PeerGuardian 2

that'll sort you right out.

take two and come back and see me in ten days

[Jim Stax]

This is just one of these situations where the reality defeats entrenched attitudes. The fact is, p2p and piracy is here to stay. It's no good whining because people won't play along with your own idea (as a label/artist whatever) of how business should be done.

That thing with radiohead offering their album for free but with the option to pay was interesting. The thing is, it's available for free anyway and always would have been wether they had done it willingly or not. The fact they still made a shitload of money from their "honest" fans undermines the whole anti-piracy argument that most people are making here.

That is just one example. But a great example of what I was suggesting 'in a non to clear manner': the very tool that is being used to download music for free by us public is also giving bands and artists the ability to take control of their available music and empower them in many ways. It is this that has the majors looking over their shoulders and/or playing catch up.

I am not taking a righteous stance and have downloaded in the past, not a great deal due to crap internet speed. I chose to stop doing so a while back because of my points made. Not that one man in the north east of Scotland is going to make whole heap of difference to an artists income but they are at least getting, their due and annoyingly disproportionate, share of the income from the sale.

[RF Scott]

you need Phoenix Labs PeerGuardian 2

that'll sort you right out.

take two and come back and see me in ten days

What is that? I had a look at it but due to my computer non-knowledge, I got confused, scared, and angry, like an OAP trying to vote in the Scottish elections.

[ZeromiserY]

it stops certain groups who frown on such activities nosing around in yo bid'ness.

see PeerGuardian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

be sure to scan it with antivirus before install. read that guide and you'll see why, be careful where you get it from. google yields fine results for PG.

ps, if you really get stuck and google/wikipedia are of little help then PM me and i'll get you sorted oot ; )

pps, thats how anxiety disorder can start out! you need to chilax!

ppps, heres the FAQ. that is the OFFICIAL site so get it from there if you want it.

same goes for all you other downloading scallywags. (shit that word is probably rascist these days)

.....w...t...f , turns out it kind of is, unless your white. scallywag - definition of scallywag by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[RF Scott]

it stops certain groups who frown on such activities nosing around in yo bid'ness.

see PeerGuardian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

be sure to scan it with antivirus before install. read that guide and you'll see why, be careful where you get it from. google yields fine results for PG.

ps, if you really get stuck and google/wikipedia are of little help then PM me and i'll get you sorted oot ; )

pps, thats how anxiety disorder can start out! you need to chilax!

ppps, heres the FAQ. that is the OFFICIAL site so get it from there if you want it.

same goes for all you other downloading scallywags. (shit that word is probably rascist these days)

Ah, my problem wasn't with that aspect of downloading, but I'll forward this to some friends, thanks!

[Larsen B]

The Radiohead thing is interesting yeah, but it'd be good to see how the same situation would work with a small scale artist, to see whether they could make a living/cover their costs going down the same route.

I'm not sure how small a scale you're talking about, but Saul William's new album is downloadable from his website from Thursday for free or for $5. I would have paid, but the site wouldn't accept my card so i took it for free instead.

[RF Scott]

I'm not sure how small a scale you're talking about, but Saul William's new album is downloadable from his website from Thursday for free or for $5. I would have paid, but the site wouldn't accept my card so i took it for free instead.

haha. Well, I guess i'm meaning a bands first album, for example. You'd need to do a lot of promotion (which nearly always equates to big 's) in order for it to be any sort of success. It's the sort of activity which only already established artists can greatly benefit from as far as I can see - sure, it'd work on a small scale, but not to the point of replacing income from recordings, for a lot of people.

It also seems more of a publicity stunt than anything remakably revolutionary, when both Radiohead and Saul Williams will be releasing CD versions through the normal cogs of the record industry wheel, anyway.

[Larsen B]

haha. Well, I guess i'm meaning a bands first album, for example. You'd need to do a lot of promotion (which nearly always equates to big 's) in order for it to be any sort of success. It's the sort of activity which only already established artists can greatly benefit from as far as I can see - sure, it'd work on a small scale, but not to the point of replacing income from recordings, for a lot of people.

It also seems more of a publicity stunt than anything remakably revolutionary, when both Radiohead and Saul Williams will be releasing CD versions through the normal cogs of the record industry wheel, anyway.

I have to agree with that latter statement.

[Stripey]

If you disagree with piracy, what do you suggest should be done about it?

Do you support the infiltration of p2p networks by record labels/3rd party companies to gather information about people using them and then bring lawsuits against users? Some of these so far have included 12 year old girls, pensioners, and completely innocent people. Are you ok with intimidation tactics by what is essentially a cartel?

If you feel guilty about dowloading music and film, that's ok, good for you. Preaching your morality to the rest of us however is overstepping the mark.

Small artists and labels are not the ones who suffer here. These small niche labels and artists which have a small but dedicated customer base do not lose out because of piracy. I would argue that it helps give them exposure and gain new "honest" customers who will buy into their product. The only people losing out here are the major labels, and the major film distributors, and I think that is a good thing and don't give a fuck about what happens to them.

[RF Scott]

If you disagree with piracy, what do you suggest should be done about it?

Do you support the infiltration of p2p networks by record labels/3rd party companies to gather information about people using them and then bring lawsuits against users? Some of these so far have included 12 year old girls, pensioners, and completely innocent people. Are you ok with intimidation tactics by what is essentially a cartel?

If you feel guilty about dowloading music and film, that's ok, good for you. Preaching your morality to the rest of us however is overstepping the mark.

Small artists and labels are not the ones who suffer here. These small niche labels and artists which have a small but dedicated customer base do not lose out because of piracy. I would argue that it helps give them exposure and gain new "honest" customers who will buy into their product. The only people losing out here are the major labels, and the major film distributors, and I think that is a good thing and don't give a fuck about what happens to them.

Hahahahahahaha, nice one with the putting words in my mouth - if you read through my posts, I think the only mention I've made of big labels et al and their reaction to downloaders is that they have the stupid notion that one download is the same as one stolen physical copy.

I don't download film (not for any reason, I just don't watch a great deal of films), and am not looking to get a medal for not downloading a lot of music (again, read back - I download things I have on vinyl, or things that are unavailable - for example, a lot of 'noise' music is released in such small editions that it's hard to get a copy unless you're quick off the mark).

I'd also like to see some fact based evidence to support the notion that small labels do not suffer, but in fact gain. To think of personal examples - say a friend has downloaded an album, and has told another friend - all they'll do, 9 times out of 10, is then download that album too, or get a cd-r off them. Sure, now and again they might go out and buy the CD or whatever, but not to the extent where exposure through downloading leads to much higher sales.

You talk about a 'small but dedicated' customer base - if a band gets 'exposure' through lots of people downloading their album, with the 'small but dedicated' customer base being the ones buying the album, how is a band not losing out?! 'exposure' doesn't pay for studio time, or touring and equipment costs, let alone money to survive on.

A pretty good example was pointed out to me today - where there's a hypothetical murder outside a block of flats, but no one does anything even though they heard the whole thing, because they assumed someone else would phone the police and delegated the responsibility. I don't agree with the idea that it's right to download something because someone else will be paying for it. If everyone chose to download music for free, labels, no matter what the size, would be fucked to the max.

Again, to reiterate, I'm aware that downloading is here to stay. I'm not going to label anyone who does a criminal or advocate bringing about lawsuits. But to suggest that downloading music is a positive thing for bands, labels, etc, to me seems a little ill thought out. Surely the fact that bands are making less and less money off of music sales while downloads rise is big enough evidence for this?

[Stripey]

Surely the fact that bands are making less and less money off of music sales while downloads rise is big enough evidence for this?

Is there evidence for this? Because radiohead just made millions off that "free" album.

[Stripey]

Surely the fact that bands are making less and less money off of music sales while downloads rise is big enough evidence for this?

How do they know they are "losing" money because of illegal downloading? Perhaps the band is shit and nobody is buying their records anymore?

Someone who downloads a record is not necessarily someone who would have paid for it in the first place.

DONT BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY LIES!

[RF Scott]

Is there evidence for this? Because radiohead just made millions off that "free" album.

Ah back to Radiohead again. Well, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Radiohead are pretty popular, an exception to the rule. Also, they've not actually released official sales figures, to my knowledge. The sales figures were undoubtedly a product of the huge press - PRESS - hype around the album - people were downloading it and choosing what to pay as a novelty in a lot of cases. Again, exception to the rule.

Global CD sales diminished in 2006 = less revenue (revenue from legal download sales is next to nothing, thanks for nothing iTunes!). It takes less sales for a single/album to chart. Both very big indicators of fewer sales, and as such, lesser revenue.

If I could just add one point to the issue of small labels - they're dealing with much smaller margins. An extra, say 50 sales of a record can be the difference between a record breaking even and being able to do another record or them losing money and having to re-arrange their schedule.

[RF Scott]

How do they know they are "losing" money because of illegal downloading? Perhaps the band is shit and nobody is buying their records anymore?

Someone who downloads a record is not necessarily someone who would have paid for it in the first place.

DONT BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY LIES!

Yeah, fuck the man! Ahem. Anyway, if you read back (can't believe I'm having to say this again), you'll see that I'm perfectly aware that one downloaded album isn't the same as one sale. That said, there ARE people who are actively downloading because they're lazy, or just don't want to pay, and if they couldn't download it, would buy a copy. And again, if everyone chose to do this, the people making and manufacturing the music would be fucked.

[lepeep]

I only download to sample an LP...if I like it, I buy it for real, if it's crap, I'll delete it.

[Jim Stax]

How do they know they are "losing" money because of illegal downloading? Perhaps the band is shit and nobody is buying their records anymore?

Someone who downloads a record is not necessarily someone who would have paid for it in the first place.

DONT BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY LIES!

Maybe they are not 'making as much' due to piracy. I haven't followed the Radiohead story but would there have been a large marketing campaign on this? If so then millions isn't that difficult to imagine.

Bands et al surely have to start adapting to Piracy and downloading and conjur new methods of promoting and earning from their output. I hope that there are many savvy young people out there that are willing to exploit technology and not give a crap about seeking a glorious grand record deal.

Also, it isn't difficult to imagine that less money entering an industry through sales in turn means less money to invest in that industry? I appreciate that redirecting amounts of cash into investing rather then those giant media egos would be a good way to go and maybe that will come.

Now to play havoc with my standpoint.

If a band is becoming successfull and getting more airplay, playing more gigs then the majority of their income will eventually come from royalties, providing they are hooked up with a royalty collector. So, if a band becomes recognised via 'downloads' but starts to get media attention and lots of airplay they will do rather well, or at least the songwriter will. So, hmmmmmmmm. Not condoning piracy and not changing my view by the way... More than one way to skin a cat.

How many points of view did I cover in this posto_O

[Stripey]

Maybe they are not 'making as much' due to piracy.

This is an absurd argument, nobody has a right to make x amount of money from their product just because they assume market/technological/business model conditions will be in their favour. I'd also argue that anyone who has projected sales figures is big enough and cynical enough in their approach that they ought to be able to take it on the chin.

Bands et al surely have to start adapting to Piracy and downloading and conjur new methods of promoting and earning from their output.

This is essentially my position - instead of clinging to an old business model, artists/labels need to adapt and deal with it, because digital piracy and p2p is now a fact of life.

[Jim Stax]

This is an absurd argument, nobody has a right to make x amount of money from their product just because they assume market/technological/business model conditions will be in their favour. I'd also argue that anyone who has projected sales figures is big enough and cynical enough in their approach that they ought to be able to take it on the chin.

This is essentially my position - instead of clinging to an old business model, artists/labels need to adapt and deal with it, because digital piracy and p2p is now a fact of life.

Not that such an absurd statement if you consider that those that 'may' have bought are now downloading then the artists obviously aren't earning as much as they could. No projected sales figures or business models involved. Of course there is no way to prove this point unless we had a poll done but it's an educated guess to say that this is the case.

I also believe that those getting involved in the music industry at one level or another will now, as you say, be able to take it on the chin or will have to learn to. This doesn't mean that helping yourself to someones hard graft is okay just because everyone else does it.

It's 'a fact of life' but not a hugely helpful one. That said if everyone learns and adapts who knows what's round the corner for the music industry. I for one hope that independent labels and artists start calling more of the shots. There are signs. Piracy isn't a great idea but it isn't career ending either...

[Stripey]

AIDS is a fact of life and not a hugely pleasant one, but moaning about it and wishing it would stop existing is not a solution. Nuclear weapons present a similar problem. These things exist and will not stop existing - people have to adapt to and manage the existence and associated risks of these things, or die. I'm not the only one that won't shed a tear at the eventual death of the major labels and distributors.

There are things to be optimistic about however. Piracy is performing an important role in changing the way things work and forcing people to think creatively. I think whining about it instead of embracing it and looking forward to new ways to distribute music is pathetic.

Also, no musician is in it for the money are they? ARE THEY?

[lepeep]

I think it's a good thing for live music...

and quality music.

make something that someone wants to "own" (not "just" the music).

Tool made a great effort to make their last CD desirable...and I think people ended up buying it for the artwork, rather than the tunes.

underground bands that work hard at keep and making fans will more than likely have fans that want to buy into their scene / system.

Radiohead are OK, their tours and prs / MCPS payments will make them money.

but all in all, live music will be the outlet for these releases, where the bands ultimately get more money per unit, than any record company will give...but it is a case of "how much is that" (and how sustainable it is for a band to earn a living from it).

if downloading kills the likes of Boyzone or whatever pish corporate parp is being fed to the young, I say its a good thing they don't make anymoney, I'd call that a revolution.