Music Piracy War: A waste of time?
 

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...328-1ccrl.html

Interesting article on new research which suggests music piracy alone is not to blame for a decline in recorded music sales.

I've always subscribed to the theory that people who access pirated material are not potential customers anyway and would be unwilling to buy the content regardless of the cost.

The question I have is whether increasing availability of pirated music means a growth in people wanting their music for nothing. Certainly it mus degrade the prices paid for the content.

What say you?

IMHO the people who pirate the music only do so because a, it is free and b, they have no intention of paying and wouldn't anyway if that was their sole option.

What is interesting in the research is that live music spending has grown to be a larger market than recorded music spending. Maybe people would rather see their favourite band than just hear them?

Also what do you think of the "License to download" idea? Would that work?

Why would people who purchase music legally agree to paying an additional levy on their connection? Could work, but would be a PR nightmare.

I also agree with your understanding of Piracy = Lost Sale. How can the music industry quantify lost revenue when someone who downloads a track would never have bought it in the first place. 'Piracy' is a usable buzz word to explain their own shortcomings in their business practices.

I lost any/all sympathy (If I ever had any) with the Music Industry the moment they introduced Broadcast Licensing and Copyright Licensing to all audible devices (office radios, on hold music etc....). For my office, my employers would need an annual license just to play a local Radio Station that would total approx £3500 because it can be 'possibly' heard by more than 5 people.

So, personally I think they could look a little closer to home for a solution to their dwindling sales.

Canada has(had?) a similar with recordable media like blank cassette tapes where a premium was attached to the sticker price (sort of a hidden tax) that was then distributed to the music companies. As a result here it is perfectly legal to copy your friend's music cds and the like. However I am not sure that the law has kept up, as I am not aware of any premiums on mp3 players, or devices that hold data (hard drives, usb keys etc).


Anyhow I am not overly convinced that piracy of anything = lost sales most of the time (definitely not the absurd 1-1 ratio the industrys likes to tout). For one thing, pirates pirate way more then they could ever possibly afford. Some pirates do the try before you buy thing, or buy what they liked best. Also in the article I think they are right, people have far less disposable income now, what with all the crap everyone thinks they need (Iphones, Ipods, multiple computers, plasma TVs, console systems, etc). So its not surprising that sales for music (and games) would be down. Plus the added cost of all this DRM which in the end does almost nothing to stop or slow down rates of piracy.

The industries would be better off focusing on areas that are difficult to pirate, like live music venues, and for games online/bonus content.

I agree they have been sticking their heads in the sand for years trying to prop up model that has very little relevance in this day and age.

I think that the idea of free music on the internet is so powerful not because it’s free, but because it allows us to minimize the risk of being cheated. Free is so enticing because it eliminates the risk of buyer’s remorse. Nobody wants to buy something and then discover that it’s not what they expected. Even if the price of that thing is just a few cents, the psychological aversion still exists. When something is free, that risk is eliminated entirely. It may still not be what you expected, but at least you didn’t lose anything by paying for it.

There’s an entire group of people under the age of about 30 who believe that music should be free because that’s the world they’ve grown up in. So that’s where the future lies. The reason Steve Jobs and Apple have been so spectacularly successful at reinventing the music business is because they’re the only ones who’ve managed to invent a hardware and software platform that mitigates the risk factors involved in owning music and appeals to younger people. And they made it sexy and stylish. Apple didn’t win on technology. Nobody does, ultimately. They won on business smarts.

The record industry itself has a long history of cheating the performers and creators out of their just due, from Alan Lomax, a producer, putting his own copywright on unclaimed songs to collect royalties to Fantasy Records tricking John Fogerty into a contract that forced him to pay royalties to the record company every time he performed his own songs.

In this case they really are reaping what they've sown. No sympathy from this corner at all.

Which is precisely what the rapacious and exploitative music industry is busily raping music downloaders in order to compensate for. Business smarts kept Apple together - and totally in the game to boot - while every household in America was busily scarfing up PCs after Al Gore invented the Internet. Now they're defining industry standards far beyond the scope of a simple desktop computer.

What did it for me was the early days of Napster - when Lars Ulrich came forward and condemned people for downloading music off of that service, when for many years, Metallica had been winking and nodding at live performance recordings, since those would serve to gather more fans for them.

So. Don't Download This Song.

A bit like Steve above said, the recording industry has for many years "tricked" people to buy music on CD as an example, they add a great song and the rest are crap, and also high prices, what confidence inspires it?, so these companies have in often obstructed at themselves

First of all, the forum rules on piracy specifically mentions software and game piracy, nothing about other forms of piracy (like music piracy). So I assume we can safely discuss this topic and also admit anything we want without getting infractions, which would make things a lot easier. Could a mod please confirm this?
I don't think so. I think people who would not buy the album anyway would not listen to it as you only listen to music you like.

I don't know about other cultures, but amongst metalheads it's pretty much an obligation to buy albums of bands you like. Not for the music, you can get that everywhere across the interwebz, but to support those bands. In the same way that you buy band merchandise (shirts and stuff) from their official retailers. You can print your own shirt for half the price, but you don't support the bands by it so it's considered really cheap to do so.

A positive thing about piracy is that it brings music to a much greater audience. Without piracy loads of good bands would have never become known. Bands that are already famous will probably not gain much from this, but I think for smaller unknown bands piracy is actually a real blessing.

Do you also subscribe to a theory that people who rob banks are probably not the bank's potential customer and are unwilling to save their money?

never heard of this example before - paying to play your own songs :o - insane!


Same in Punk/HC - no I'm not talking about Blink 182 ;), not so much in terms of merch however, more regarding the music. I think this is one of the last music genres where 7 inches are still common.
I might add that most independent bands play their arses off in live performances and sell their stuff at concerts. So every cent goes directly to the band.

This is the way it should be: work for your money ya lazy bastards and perform on a stage!

Yes I do. It doesn't make either action right. Do you know somewhere you can download free money?

Qualify for EITC or other welfare.

:D