your thoughts on piracy and p2p

[plasson]

hey J,

I was wondering what was your opinion on the topic.
not because of your experience with TR (whose position is well known), but just to get a pro point of view.

I hope the topic doesn't fill with flames and arguments.

cheers!

[jmjbassplayer]

I don't have a very cohesive point of view about it, I shift a bit from time to time. Safe to say:

- The old model is broken
- Artists are losing a lot via p2p, piracy, etc. Ima Robot for instance lost a ton of sales to piracy and file sharing, and that was back in 2003-2005. That directly cuts into my income, which (trust me) isn't the difference between whether or not I get to buy a Porsche 911 this year or not. It really does affect me, and others, in a basic way.
- Making something fair and equitable to the consumer IS important. $15.99 CD's at Best Buy are ludicrous.

There's a middle ground somewhere, and more involvement and access for the end consumer that will satisfy in the long run. Subscription models, value added features, all have potential, and have been working for years now.

One big thing for me, as a consumer, was back when people just started pressing more vinyl, but including an MP3 download coupon as well. That's how I like to buy a lot of my music these days.

Best,
JMJ

[JimmyM]

you know, there really isn't any easy answers to pinpoint what exactly caused the breakdown of the industry, except for one thing...greed. greed on the part of the record companies who charged way too much for cd's for way too long, greed on the part of bands who saw scalpers profiting at their shows and just decided to skip the middleman and scalp the fans directly, greed on the part of bands and record companies who made albums with one fantastic single and 12 crap songs and preferred it that way so they could spread out the kill over a series of albums, and greed on the part of the consumers who saw a way to screw the greed barons who screwed them and get free quality sounding music without realizing the implications that it had for smaller bands. and now it's only the top of the top echelon who makes any money with it and everyone else is screwed.

but i'll tell you this...it will never change unles EVERYBODY changes their current ways. it starts at the top, though...the top acts and record companies need to realize that they're killing it for everyone else. don't charge so much for a cd and make ALL the songs as good as possible, not just one or two good songs and the rest crap...don't charge $2000 a ticket just because you can...and don't blame the downloaders for ruining the business when it's painfully obvious that the business was on its way to being ruined long before downloading.

i'd say the golden era for making money in the music business was the mid-70's. rock stars were dripping with money, sales were never better, new acts were developed over time rather than given one chance to sink or swim, and everyone seemed very happy. at that time, albums were $5-6 and the highest priced concerts out there were $10. maybe you can't get prices that low anymore, but they certainly don't need to be what they are now. as long as everyone's out to make every last dime they can on the backs of the people who support them, the music business is going to be f'd from here on out.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Food for thought, Jimmy:

What cost $5 in 1975 would cost $19.72 in 2009.
What cost $10 in 1975 would cost $39.43 in 2009.

Source:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[somegeezer]

I'm all good for it. ;]

[totallyfrozen]

I pay for all my music. I have many CDs that I bought that I've ripped, but nowadays, I buy my music from iTunes. To be honest, one of the biggest reasons that I buy my music in iTunes is because iTunes has made it convenient and safe. Anytime you pirate music, you have to scan each file for viruses before you open it, move it, etc. Otherwise, you set yourself up for trouble. Often p2p sharing (e.g. Limewire, etc.) opens you up to getting viruses or misnamed files or even incomplete files (e.g. 1 minute of a 4 minute song). Now it's easier to PAY for the music than it used to be and getting pirated music is more of a hassel than doing it the fair way.

As far as musicians making a living, I think they are getting ripped off by record companies (not the fans) and that is something the musician's unions need to fight with the labels. That's not something that I have any control over. I could pay full price for every note of music that I have and the musicians can still be starving to death. Not my fault; not my responsibility. So--and I know I risk flames but I'm trying to be 100% honest here--I don't make my decision on how I get music based on how it affects the artists. I make that decision on how it affects ME. I do what's safe and convenient for ME. The artists are responsible for themselves and their own livlihoods.

I know that no one likes to feel "ripped offed". That's why we put locks on our doors. In other words, protect YOURSELF and your product like everyone else has to. Don't rely on the kindness or integrity of others to sustain you. Artists should expect that people will always try to get their music FREE of charge--no matter how it affects the artist or whether it's "right" or not. I don't trust my neighbors; I lock my doors.

...and +1 to Jimmy's post.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Food for thought, Jimmy:

What cost $5 in 1975 would cost $19.72 in 2009.
What cost $10 in 1975 would cost $39.43 in 2009.

Source:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

deluge, do i believe that to be an across-the-board accurate representation of inflation? no i do not. nor does it take into account that it's gotten way cheaper to record and press a quality sounding album now than it was 35 years ago. however, $40 to get to stand in front of the stage and see kiss like i did in 1976 would be a lot better than the $100-200 it costs now. and it certainly beats the 4 figures bands like bon jovi charge for the same privilege.

[jazzblade]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Food for thought, Jimmy:

What cost $5 in 1975 would cost $19.72 in 2009.
What cost $10 in 1975 would cost $39.43 in 2009.

Source:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

I agree except for the manufacturing of Cd's.
At first when the yields were low, and there were only a few pressing plants, the cost was higher. Now there is no reason for a Cd to be priced at 15.00 and doubles at 23.00. If you can lower the cost of the goods AND give the consumer more than ONE good song on a CD, I for one would rather have the hard product rather than a download.

Unfortunately, with technology the way it is now, it seems people are happy with lower resolution audio, and file downloads. The future will be without CD's and I fear the costs for a much inferior product will be the same as they are today.Look at I-tunes. .99 a cut?, so what is that for the Beatles Love album? like 28 bucks?? (I have never and will never put one penny into Apple's hands)

[djaydjay]

^ same, online buy is overpriced. You pay more (or about as much) as a physical cd, but:
-you don't have the booklet, case, etc...
-the audio quality is inferior
-chances of them getting lost/altered are quite high (a pc only last so much time => I have to copy/cut them every few months, and each time a few files are damaged. A good part of my 1st mp3's are damaged)
-if you want to play it on your stereo, you'll have to buy and burn the cd

[berzerker92]

i'll be honest here and say I like most everyone else has downloaded music off the internet, usually i download one CD or a few songs to see if I like the band.. So much music is difficult to get ahold of nowadays without using Itunes or the like. For my favorite bands I actually buy the CDs and other things. (e.g. I own 6 offspring cds and 3 cold cds).

I have no problem paying 9.99 for a cd or even 12.99 but 17.99 19.99 24.99 for cds is outrageous especially for mostly filler. I'd rather give the band money for concert tickets and a t-shirt then a record company $18 for 3 good tracks im just going to burn to a mix cd...

[greggster59]

P2P users are also among the largest purchasing group of music collectors. Ironic in some ways but it adds up if prices are high and people have their eye on a lot of music.

[4StringTheorist]

I haven't acquired any music illegally since I was young and stupid years ago.

Interestingly enough, making this conscientious stand has led to me listening to more and more work by small artists releasing their music for modest prices in easily downloaded open digital formats. The $0.99-only-opens-in-Apple-iTunes stuff is so far away from appealing that it's almost silly.

Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig is an excellent historical/legal look at the history of copyright and the legal issues that have come up each time that technology has bumped up on copyright. The invention of music recording and player pianos were big problems for the printed music industry. Our legal system adapted. The VCR was decried by the head of the MPAA as the direst threat to the livelihood of the creative people in the movie industry ever. I think that Hollywood thrived with the VHS cassette! All of that and more is detailed in the book. And it's a free (yes, legally free!) download from that link I gave.

The bottom line is that digital technology has made the marginal cost of reproduction of a song very very close to $0.00. In terms of bandwidth costs, it's far less than a penny to make a copy of a song from Apple's iTunes server to my hard drive. Cost to create the intellectual "material" is much the same (studio, musicians, engineers, producer, etc.), but digital technology has rendered the manufacturing part of the process nearly moot. I think that what caused a good chunk of consumer revolt is how slow the music industry was to adapt pricing and ease-of-availability to the realities of the new technology.

Now, an indie artist can distribute digitally every bit as effectively as a big label. The label is reduced to offering marketing and logisitics services. "We know people" The value-add from a label from both the fan's perspective AND the artist's perspective has retreated into fewer and fewer corners. This will not sustain their business in the fashion to which they've become accustomed.

"When the car was invented, the guy who invented the horse and buggy was probably pretty mad." -Victor Wooten, Bass Day 1998

[Classickbass]

"As far as musicians making a living, I think they are getting ripped off by record companies (not the fans) and that is something the musician's unions need to fight with the labels."

This is why The Eagles, Trent Reznor, and many others are not signing contracts with record companies anymore and, instead, opting to release their own material. I read that the Eagles were getting $2 from the sale of a $15 CD. I feel that the record companies have made their bed and now need to lie in it.

As with most things, a common middle ground needs to be found but probably won't. The vultures at the top will not budge. Folks at the bottom will keep pirating. And we will be having this conversation again in the years to come.

[kuys]

Originally Posted by greggster59

P2P users are also among the largest purchasing group of music collectors. Ironic in some ways but it adds up if prices are high and people have their eye on a lot of music.

An ignored point in most conversations on this issue.

I download music illegally quite regularly but I have also spent $859 on cds/vinyl and $300 on live shows this year alone.

[4StringTheorist]

Originally Posted by Classickbass

... I feel that the record companies have made their bed and now need to lie in it. As with most things, a common middle ground needs to be found but probably won't. ...

Too true. The sad (for some people in this whole mess, not for others) fact is that one doesn't have a fundamental right for one's business model to stay profitable indefinitely. Business is "adapt or die". The problem comes when a business chooses "screw adapting, I'll use the legislative and judicial systems to enshrine my business model legally".

[Xocolatl]

As someone who ends up on the pirate side, I'd say that it's a fair deal--only because I wouldn't even be able to get my paws on the stuff otherwise.
I'm a firm believer of rewarding the artists for their works. I will always donate for/buy things that I like. But sometimes, that's not even an option. See, when you're in the middle of nowhere, and the only way to enjoy that little game/song is to fly to a different continent..well.. I am NOT going to fly somewhere for a few thousand dollars just to get a CD or a game. And I just don't want to wait 3 months for it to arrive (if it ever does).
Most of the time though, I'd just end up downloading something, and if I like it, I'll buy it online, and then put it on a pedestal (where it truly belongs).

[4StringTheorist]

Originally Posted by kuys

I download music illegally quite regularly but I have also spent $859 on cds/vinyl and $300 on live shows this year alone.

And I avoid illegal music downloading entirely and have spent only approx. $20 this year to date on one album from a brilliant street musician who does his thing entirely live and a cappella with a bass multi-effect and a looping pedal. (website) (a perfect YouTube intro to the guy)

The thing is, that both my situation and yours should be instructive to the music biz. You and I are two examples from opposite ends of the spectrum of response to the situation that for-profit music making in the U.S. is in at present.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by kuys

An ignored point in most conversations on this issue.

I download music illegally quite regularly but I have also spent $859 on cds/vinyl and $300 on live shows this year alone.

i would love to see research on this. i don't believe it for a second. i know downloaders love to say this, but i've yet to see any substantial proof from an independent verifier.

[wheelyjoe]

I'm 17, so needless to say I've downloaded things illegally before. But, living in England, there are some bands who's material is IMPOSSIBLE to get hold of! Dave Matthews Band, for example, are one of my all time favourite bands, but, I have never ONCE seen a DMB CD for sale in England. Never. I've downloaded alot of their material, but only so I have it to listen to at all, if I were to come across a copy in HMV or Virgin, or w.e., I'd buy it immediately. The same goes for SMV, Marcus Miller, Jaco Pastorius. I just can't HAVE any of this great music without downloads. I do refuse to use itunes etc too.

It doesn't help that I live in a remote area. But I do go to major cities a fair bit, and even there this stuff's as rare as Hens Teeth. And new music doesn't have high enough appeal for me to spend £15 on a CD. ($25+)


/rant.

[ugly_bassplayer]

I'll keep this short, the records companies & the distributors dug their own graves.