Filesharing does not kill the music industry

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
As many of you, I've been following the case in Sweden involving The Pirate Bay. I recently came over an article which argues the industry's main point in that filesharing technology has been killing the industry off. Jens Roland argues in this article that it simply isn't the case and I think his points are very well laid out.


  1. First, the explosive rise of computer and console gaming. This competitive ‘third element’ has appeared in the entertainment landscape, beaten both music and movies to the curb and taken a huge cut out of the music industry’s revenues. Consumers don’t have infinitely-deep pockets, and billions of ‘recreation dollars’ that used to go almost exclusively to music, are now going into gaming.
  2. International trade agreements have allowed consumers to buy their music across borders, rather than accepting local prices on music based on the ‘relative wealth’ of nations, rather than the actual value of the product.
  3. New forms of distributable media, most notably MP3s but also CDs, have become mainstream. These new media don’t degrade over time and rarely break at all, making music rebuys a thing of the past, and allowing the second-hand market for music to thrive and expand - both of which take a cut out of the music industry’s former revenues.
  4. Radical technological innovation has taken place in the field of music creation, processing, mixing, and mastering. Recording hardware, CD burners, music software, and media encoders have evolved to the point where most artists can actually afford decent-quality equipment to do their own recording and producing. Furthermore, this has fostered literally thousands of smaller, specialized studios that are challenging the ‘Big 4′ with lower prices, better terms for artists, genre-specific expertise, etc. Successful artists can now leave the big labels and start their own recording outfits on relatively modest budgets. Naturally, super stars like The Beatles or Frank Sinatra have always had this option, but the recent technological advances have lowered the bar drastically. This development is depriving the ‘Big 4′ of many of their former cash cows, who now use the major labels for their advertising and distribution infrastructure alone.
  5. The World Wide Web has become an omnipresent force in the world, allowing cheap, end-to-end distribution of digital music, increasingly cutting out the corporate music distributors, who deal in trucks and CD covers, rather than bytes and bandwidth. With iTunes leading the way (very successfully ‘competing with free’, I might add), billions of songs are now purchased digitally rather than physically, no longer necessitating the big labels’ distribution networks.
  6. The total number of radio stations, music television networks and other ’streaming’ sources of music has grown exponentially, giving music fans a huge selection of free (and legal) music options. Satellite radio, DAB, and internet radio broadcasts have made it trivial for consumers to simply tune into a channel broadcasting the exact sub-genre of music that they feel like listening to (they can even have a stream created for them dynamically, e.g. on Pandora), making the *purchase* of music entirely optional for the casual listener.
  7. A massive selection of entertainment alternatives (home computing, console gaming, mobile devices, etc.) have appeared in the home, effectively marginalizing music as an activity. 15-20 years ago, youths would regularly visit each other just to listen to music together; today, that is virtually unthinkable without some form of activity involved, such as playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band, or dancing at a concert.
  8. And finally, the music industry itself has embraced the opportunities of digital media, at last letting consumers buy *single* tracks at a time rather than forcing entire albums full of ‘fillers’ on them. Looking at the RIAA’s own sales figures for the past 10 years, there is a *direct* correlation between the break-off in album sales and the introduction and increase in single track digital sales. Looking at the actual numbers, it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of consumers never wanted to buy full albums in the first place, but were merely forced to by the lack of affordable single-track media. Now that the digital revolution has arrived, countless millions of 16-track album sales are being turned into 1- or 2-track sales, *decimating* the former revenues on music. THIS is the real reason why the music industry is hurting.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
It has killed the industry because no one is making money so the artist and the distributors are taking legal action and suing people that own web sites that file share.

If you read the copyright that is printed on all music for sale it says that the purchase is for personal use once you share it with other people then you are obligated to pay a royalty fee to the artist.

So pirate bay should pay a million US dollars as a fine or go to jail for these crimes.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
>> So pirate bay should pay a million US dollars as a fine or go to jail for these crimes.

What are you talking about Liberalman? The Pirate Bay doesn't distribute anybody's music.

They should pay $1million just because you said so? The currency in Sweden is the Krona.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
file sharing is distribution there was no money made but the artists lost money because file sharing saved a person from paying for that music so the artist lost the royalty.

When a person gives away music for free that person under the copyright laws must a royalty fee per song. The fine should be equivelent to one million dollars US or the person should go to jail. This would be a good fine and make a person think twice before they consider making songs available to file share
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I have to go with Andem on this one. And not.

Providing a venue for illicit purposes is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. So I can see the leap from criminal to civil being quite easy to make.

But as a user of Limewire, a file sharing portal. I must say that the industry bares some responsibility here as well. They've been greedy and we the consumer, have ways of punishing those that take advantage of us. To top that off, we share. We do not charge or make a profit from any sharing. That said, I find the laws that pertain to this particular habit, a tad unreasonable.
 

miniboss

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2007
108
1
18
First lets get things clear. Stealing is stealing and piracy is piracy, but piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking object x, from point A and moving it to point B. So Point A gets the shaft. Piracy, is distributing object X to points B, C, D, E, and so on, while Point A still retains object X. With piracy, someone still had to buy it, so it's not that artists are losing money, it's just they're not making as much as they would like. Back in the good old days, when I was a kid, we pirated music also, it was called sharing records and tapes, and copying them for ourselves. Technology has made the "neighbourhood" broader, has brought our "friends" closer. It's the same thing we used to do, just on a wider scale. The great thing with digital, copy # 200 can be the same quality as the original. At least artists get royalties every time their song hits the air. So that's why I'll hear the same song 3 or 4 times in one day, daddy needs a new Ferrari :). The way I see it, if they really want to earn their money, they wouldn't rest on their laurels, and they would go out on tour, that's where the real money is.

The major pi$$off with the new proposed amendment to the copywrite act, is it will eliminate the "fair use clause", so now they get to nickle and dime you to death. I think, but not sure, making backups of your own cd collection for protection purposes, will also be technically illegal. Now under the new act, even if you own the CD, it would be technically illegal for you to rip it to your mp3 player, or make mix cd's. Legally, if you would want to hear the music in 3 different locations, you would buy 3 copies. I think that's crap. But realistcally, who will enforce this, the police have better things to do, like handle REAL crime, they're stretched pretty thin as is. I don't think joe average, who just downloads for him/herself, and doesn't distribute for a profit, without paying taxes, has too much to worry about.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
I must say that the industry bares some responsibility here as well. They've been greedy and we the consumer, have ways of punishing those that take advantage of us



It’s all about supply and demand.

Everybody knows that when you buy a recording of a musical group it’s for your use only not to be loaned out to people so they can copy it.

People complain that the industry is greedy but they still buy the product.

The only way to bring down prices is not to buy the products which decreases profits to the point where the industry drops prices.

People download from file sharing sites are breaking the law and they know it and they should be charged at least $10.00 a song and since they have done this hundreds of times they got to pay big or go to jail.

This is why we have copyright laws and it should be used to the fullest.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Sharing may have a limited effect, but the demographics and new competition for entertainment dollars is likely the bigger factors. The boomers aren't buying music anymore, at least nowhere near what they once did, and the smaller younger generations have other choices and other demands on their budgets. When boomers were kids you could buy a decent stereo and it would last a few decades. Today the younger generation probably buys 3 or 4 computers in a decade, and it isn't like discretionary spending dollars have risen. It costs more to buy Photoshop alone than anyone usually spent in a lifetime on stereos. Then you have cellphones, gaming, etc. The younger generation is making artists like Miley Cirus rich. Never before have independent artists been confronted with an entertainment competitor like they have in today's Disney. Look at radio. It's hard to find any station that plays music. Most that do are small market niche styles or they're playing to the same old classic rock crowd that won't be buying music anyway.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The commercial music industry should be killed anyway. Industrial music is like industrial food, synthetic,overpriced boreing crap thats all been done before over and over. It's like potatoe crisps boiled in a hundred different chemflavs and stuffed into puffy pretty bags to suck you into paying a hundred times the value of the otherwise unmarketable reject spuds. The Greeks warned us not to play with music too much.
 

DichotoMe

Nominee Member
Jan 6, 2009
70
1
8
CBI
The underground media market will always be ahead of the game when it comes to the law and corporate america. Whatever laws are passed will be worked around by the net-guerillas. New technologies are the key to keeping this black market running and government is much too bureaucratic to keep up with the changing trends of new media. The government could not keep up with it twenty years ago, look at cassette tapes, and they won't be able to stop it in the future.

Artists are forced to make their money from non music based merchandise and live gigs. Selling a license for their music in advertising is another way artists will make money, this is already a growing trend that will become more popular very soon. There are many small advertising companies that specialize in licensing indie music to advertising firms for use in tv ads. I have a few friends who have had some success with this. The upside of this is that at least commercials will have access to more indie music that won't cost as much as say a Stones tune would in a tv ad. Download donations are becoming quite popular as a method of payment as well.

All of this leads to the demise of the major record label. I say, that's great, they were crooks anyway. Now the power is shifting to the artists and they get more of cash. As long as the artist is not a complete moron then they will be able to make more money than ever before. That said, it is A LOT of work and dedication before it will pay off. They still have to climb the ladder so to speak.

Now, I also think that pop music will take a hit as well. Those radio friendly pre-fab boy and girl bands will also die off. Albeit not son enough. With record labels going down they won't have the sway or money to push this POS garbage anymore. Might open some airspace for local acts but it might also mean a drastic change in radio formats. Not too sure what will happen here. Less and less people are listening to traditional radio broadcasts and turning to podcasts or online radio. With WiFI, digital or satellite radio people are presented with many more options other than their local stations. Ratings have been dropping in Canada and internet use is consistently rising according to Stats Canada. If this plays out right it could mean more new local music on local radio stations. This digital brave new world might also mean the end of traditional local radio. How many rock stations are people really going to listen to if they all go online. Many of them are just members of larger broadcasting companies. Why would the parent company keep ten rock stations open nationally if they are online and programmed from the central office anyway? Local advertising usually doesn't do well in a global online market.
 

DichotoMe

Nominee Member
Jan 6, 2009
70
1
8
CBI
By your logic Libman I would have to take a collection for royalties at any party I bring my music to. According to SOCAN any business or person using music to liven an atmosphere must then pay royalties to the artist. It is a form of sharing after all.

I know many many artists and they are not too concerned with music downloads as they see it as free promotion. Not like they can get much radio play. Some are big name artists some are smaller indie acts but they all say the same thing "Very few musicians in the future will make money from selling music. Especially cds."
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka

People download from file sharing sites are breaking the law and they know it and they should be charged at least $10.00 a song and since they have done this hundreds of times they got to pay big or go to jail.

This is why we have copyright laws and it should be used to the fullest.

Right. Like always, we should just charge people an arbitrary number Liberalman came up with. You're wrong at any rate, because Filesharing is not illegal in Canada so it is impossible for somebody to know what you suggest.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
... all say the same thing "Very few musicians in the future will make money from selling music. Especially cds."

That's the thing. Like it or not, times they are a changin'. LM and the large recording companies believe fighting is better than adapting. They are wrong as has been proven so many times before. Recording and distributing music is so ridiculously cheap to do now that artists don't need the big corporations anymore. The music industry will not die. The large corporations will die off and the artists will be better off.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
That's the thing. Like it or not, times they are a changin'. LM and the large recording companies believe fighting is better than adapting. They are wrong as has been proven so many times before. Recording and distributing music is so ridiculously cheap to do now that artists don't need the big corporations anymore. The music industry will not die. The large corporations will die off and the artists will be better off.
That's pretty much the gist of it.
 

Tresson

Nominee Member
Apr 22, 2005
81
1
8
Here's a link to a article from Michael Carrier, Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden that has some thing to say about this topic.

BitTorrent: Attacked by Copyright Holders, Crushed by Courts, but Needed for Innovation.

The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites continually find themselves on the defensive. Copyright holders repeatedly threaten and sue them. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P’s vital role in fostering innovation. I would like to change that.
In my book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, I examine (1) why copyright holders continually seek to quash new technologies, (2) why courts fail to appreciate P2P, and (3) why we should lament these developments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niflmir

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
.
I know many many artists and they are not too concerned with music downloads as they see it as free promotion


Do you know any big time artists or are they all garage bands because they don’t mind the free promotion but when you get to the big time and are making big bucks then all of a sudden it is a big issue.

It is all about nickles and dimes because they add up.

File sharing is the same as when you are working at a good paying job and you are living a good lifestyle paying for a nice home and sending your kids to a nice school and you being able to have a good social life then one day a person just wonders off the street and starts to do part of your job and the boss comes to you and tells you that he will be paying you a lot less then you were making and you have no say in it and your whole life starts to fall apart and the only way to stop this is taking it to court.

As they say in business it’s all about residual or repeat business.

Royalyies is why musicians get into business and write good music.

Downloader of music they don’t pay for or do not have the permission of the artist’s company are thugs or shoplifters and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There is a lot of money involved and to give you an example the late Michael Jackson according to his televised bio was making in the Thriller days $250,000 dollars an hour so artists can afford to hire big time lawyers and go after the down loaders as they should.

 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
It used to be said by the music industry that FM radio would kill the industry because "at the time" that was high quality reproduction......it did the opposite.....they prospered...

I tried Napster for a while when I was on dial up .....and then Limewire.... but quit it all for security reason...;-)

Now, every month or so I leave my PC on all night on my favorite high bit rate internet station....record it to mp3's with an application that tags all the songs individually with song name, artist name, and sometimes album name in a folder of my choice....
In the morning I compare all the names against my music library and delete all the ones I already have, trim and level the volume of the ones I keep...
When I get to keep less than 9 or 10 out of a hundred I drop the project for a month or two...

My purchases in the last ten years have been from the artists themselves at festivals or from their web site........I transfer them all to high bit rate mp3s then give the cds that aren't autographed by the artist to friends at home that enjoy the same music I do but can't go on the road like I do every year...