Digital pirates getting pinched

[LouisEly]

Thought this article was interesting because people on this board have posted about channelsurfing.net, which was one of the websites that was seized:

 

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/27/6732624-us-goes-on-offense-against-digital-piracy

 

While browsing the reader comments, I couldn't help but laugh at this one as I think it is dead-on:

 

"While yes, I would download a car if that were possible, the presence of

something on the internet does not make it yours. Where would we be if

in the early 70s the internet was where it was today. What if because of

it, there were no Led Zeppelin, No Black Sabbath, no Grateful Dead or

Eric Clapton, because the record companies couldn't profit from them.

You guys who steal music today get what you deserve - Justin Bieber and

Rebecca Black. Talentless teenage girls who deserve no respect nor the

time to listen."

[Baldkin]

No, it's absolutely not dead on.

The Record companies are what happened. They decided what they can make money off of (attractive people and auto-tuned cheaply made quickly produced albums), and that's what gets pushed onto the public via the vast majority of radio stations.

The switch was made way before the internet and downloading became popular (late 90's).

 

There's just more music produced now than ever before, and it's more easily available, so there are not 3 bands that people would argue are the current "greatest rock band" or whatever, like there were in the 60's and 70's. Radiohead seems to be plugging along just fine, even though they offered an album for COMPLETELY FREE download to anyone who wanted it.

[nate82]

Yeah that quote is not spot on at all. The trend was made by the music industry itself when the industry sees a hot thing it jumps on it and you get copies of the same music all over the place. If anything the internet has helped more bands and people become recognized more so than anything else. Even with the internet downloading plenty of bands are still popular and there are still a whole lot of music being sold. I would say the illegal downloading has actually helped the increase of sales of concerts and merchandise for bands/artists. I don't think the music or entertainment industry have really been hit all that hard with the internet and all of the downloading that happens. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, etc.. would probably be more popular if the internet was around then and the downloading wouldn't have had any real big negative effect on those bands at all.

[GAME05]

record companies thought music sales were going to die with the advent of radio--sales increased. then they thought it was going to die when the cassette recorder came out--sales increased. now, pirating music is common, and we're supposed to believe that we're hurting music sales??

 

pirating is something that's not going to go away. ban channelsurfing or napster or whatever, and another site will show up just as quickly. but instead of just living with it and strategizing for it, record companies are insisting that people basically don't use the internet anymore.

 

it wasn't all that long ago that an album was $10/12. often i would buy one from a band i'd never heard of--the price was cheap enough to fail on a few purchases. there's no way i'm spending $20+ for a band's album when i don't already know that i'll like it. i've discovered a ton of new bands through pirating that i otherwise wouldn't know existed.

 

the best strategy i can think of for dealing with the horrible horrible internet is to accept that sales are going to fall, but use free downloads as a way to advertise. maybe fewer people will buy albums (through the company's own sharing site), but a heck of a lot more people will discover a new band and then will pay to go to a show. plus, the record companies controlling their own sharing site will make a ton through advertising and email advertising to members. i wouldn't drive two hours to go to a show of an unknown band, but i probably would if i could hear their music and could be emailed when they're coming to town.

 

pirating is the 500-lb gorilla that record companies are still just yelling at to make it go away. the morality of illegal downloading is irrelevant because it's going to keep happening. companies should find a way to work with it instead of just whining.

[bani1717]

I don't think that pirating music helps music producers as much as legal download sites like itunes. In places like that, you can sample a large part of the song for free, and then buy/not buy individual songs. That gives artists the same exposure they get through illegal file-sharing.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Poor justifications for theft.

 

1.) "It's crappy music anyways. All the record companies push garbage on us these days".

 

So why are you downloading it and listening to it? Just because something sucks, doesn't make it not theft if you take it without paying for it. The Bok choi in the produce section at the grocery store I go to has been nasty and rubbery for like 6 months now. Just because it's of poor quality doesn't mean I have the right to just take it.

 

2.) "It's how I discover unknown bands"

 

That's all fine and well (while still being theft), but I highly doubt 'unknown bands' are comprising the vast majority of illegal downloads.

 

Now, a few comments here. Obviously, if an individual or group *wants* to give away music (Radiohead, for example), that's awesome. If an unknown group is happy with just being heard, that's awesome. I was in a band in the mid 90's, and again in the mid 2000's, and both times we spent a lot of money on tapes (and then later cd's) that we'd self produce and just give out, and tell people to copy them and give to their friends. Getting heard at the early stages is far more important than making money.

 

I just think that the justifications, no matter how noble, are still poor excuses for theft. If a person's not morally bothered by that, great.

 

(And for the record, yes, I've downloaded music that I didn't pay for)

[LouisEly]

I have a good friend who is in a somewhat successful band that will be playing the Miller Lite Oasis stage at Summerfest. The "pirating" of music has had a much greater effect on artists than you can imagine. While the internet has made it a lot easier to get exposure, the significant drop in sales has a domino effect. First, if you aren't selling as many records/music you have to make up for it by doing a lot more shows. That means a lot more time on the road away from home. There's a cost to promoting the shows in terms of advertising. Also, unless you are U2 or some other band that can charge hundreds of dollars for tickets in a 20,000 seat arena, you don't make that much on shows. The venue needs to estimate how much revenue they can make on a show and that determines how much the band gets paid. For example, if a venue holds 500 people and they sell tickets for $20 each, that's $10,000 in revenue that the venue takes in if they sell out. If they don't, that's less money for everyone. So the band gets a portion of that, and they have to pay crew ("roadies", bus drivers, etc.), cover travel costs (bus/van/trailer rental, lodging, etc.), equipment, etc. Look at how much it costs to rent a bus with a driver for a weekend and you'll see they don't make that much on shows. They have to make up for it by selling merchandise (CDs, DVDs, t-shirts, other stuff) at the shows.

 

Now, obviously the cost of bringing product to market has gone down with the digitizing of music. But there's still a cost, and if you aren't selling anything you aren't making money no matter how little your costs are. And... if revenue from music sales are down, that means the record companies are making less money. If they are making less money, they make up for it by taking a greater cut and less goes to the artists. We all know that radio/music TV is almost exclusively corporate and the record companies are calling the shots on what gets played. Yes, it's been that way for over 20 years. But that's not the artist's fault. So if the artist wants to get that national exposure and "play ball", they have to give up a greater % to the record companies now. So less money goes to the artist.

 

Certainly if you're an up and coming band you need to put in some "sweat equity" and sacrifice some revenue to get exposure and invest in your business. But if people aren't willing to pay $1.29 for a song on-line, they aren't going to pay much for a ticket to see them live. Like RoCo said, the vast majority of illegal downloads aren't unknown bands, so if someone isn't willing to buy a song they aren't going to pay $75 for a ticket to see them live. Yes, Radiohead can give away an album for free. They can also charge $100 for tickets at a several-thousand seat arena. And they made it big long before downloading music became mainstream.

 

The reality is that if an artist wants to make it they have to make music a full time job and music is their only source of revenue. And it's harder to make a living now in music because the dynamics have changed. 10% of artists are getting 90% of a smaller revenue pie.

 

Now, have I ever downloaded music illegally? Yes, I have. But I've also purchased more than my fair share of $12.99 CDs and $7.99 cassettes in the 90's and 80's (often for just one song), and unless there is a rare remix that I can't find on Amazon/iTunes/etc. I purchase all of my music on-line now.

[stoops17]

I don't seek out illegal music anymore unless I really can't find it on itunes or amazon. I just got tired of bad files, crappy quality, etc. plus with an iphone, itunes is pretty convenient.

 

I do download some tv shows and stream sporting events though. I don't have cable, I think it's too expensive, I can't justify it for the few shows I don't have access too. For the sporting events I stream, I would have to pay more than the standard cable charge, Premier League Soccer, MLS, and Chicago Blackhawks games. I use hulu for the shows I can.

 

The problem I have is, my antenna facing south in Kenosha, picks up all the networks out of Chicago, except CBS, which it should, it's in the range and in the same direction as the other stations. So I don't have access to shows I should for free, so I download the shows on cbs that I should have access, that's pretty much my tv show downloading.

[PKBadger]

Oh no! Not the government!

 

Guess I'll just have to use one of the other hundred or so websites that exist for steaming sports, buying knockoff jerseys, gambling, etc.

 

The hackers are always one step ahead.

[mothershipconnection]

Agreed that this will do little more than prevent somebody's dad from watching out of market football without paying. Those who are really into file sharing, that guy everyone knew in college who had every album or movie for free the day it came out, won't even notice that this happened. I don't see a realistic way to shut down piracy - you'll likely just catch small-time offenders who aren't smart and experienced enough to get away with it.