Punch: Piracy on the High Cs is music’s greatest enemy

Jacob says:

07:18am | 22/02/12

Hear hear!

And to Mr. Canavan; when you say “we”, do you include you and I? If so, please cut me out, I don’t do “we”. Frankly I am sick of the term “we” which implies that I should feel guity for something I do not do; “we are (all) racists”, “we destroy the planet”, “we eat too much sugar”, “we are bad parents” etc, etc, etc.

fml says:

07:46am | 22/02/12

Jacob,

You take things too seriously,

We: “Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together”

Unless you consider yourself part of the group, in the context being discussed you are not implied to be part of the “We”.

Maybe you have a guilty conscious?.

AdamC says:

10:31am | 22/02/12

Piracy is vastly more widespread that race-based bigotry.

David says:

10:47am | 22/02/12

Music piracy is not theft. The definition of theft requires you to take something from someone so that someone doesn’t have it any more. Piracy doesn’t take the recording away from someone, it makes a copy of it. That doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, I just get annoyed when people misuse words.

n_dude says:

11:37am | 22/02/12

Agree. The author seems to liken piracy to serious crimes. It is more like fraud but the consequences are nowhere near as serious as race based bigotry or any other serious crime.

Tracker says:

06:49am | 22/02/12

Stealing is not the same as copyright infringement but no doubt you believe you know everything so you will argue with me. This time I won’t bother responding

Tubesteak says:

07:26am | 22/02/12

Totally wrong

Firstly, a Harvard Business School study has already proven that music “piracy” does not harm sales: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html

Secondly, “piracy” is not stealing. Stealing deprives other people of the use of the good (typically the rightful owner). Copyright infringement doesn’t deprive anyone of the use of the good. Therefore, it isn’t stealing.

Thirdly, the reason for declining music sales is more to do with more competition for the entertainment dollar. Think of the massive growth of online and console gaming. The people that would have traditionally spent their nights listening to music are now immersed in gaming. Also, we have the internet and more TV channels.

Fourthly, the more the music industry is hurt the better it is for artists. The music industry is a bunch of extortionist racketeers who conspire to inflate the cost, restrict supply of all forms of music (they dictate who gets record deals and what music radio stations play by buying air time) and inflate the cost of recording music because they own the overpriced recording studios.

The more the industry is reduced the better it is for everyone. The more we have the artist being able to just play their songs, upload them and get to a market that wants to listen to them without the involvement of the music industry the better off we all are.

As Kurt Cobain said, they are old-world dinosaurs that will hopefully die out. Their business model is dying. They need to adapt.

iansand says:

07:49am | 22/02/12

“It’s not stealing.  It’s some other crime, which makes it OK” is not really a convincing argument.

Michael says:

08:12am | 22/02/12

Let’s be clear..

Copyright infringement is a crime. Theft is a crime. Notice, they are seperate crimes for seperate actions.

Copyright infringement is not theft. If it was, there would not be a crime known as copyright infringment.

The obvious difference between the two crimes, is that someone who is the victim of theft no longer has possession of the stolen item. Whereas someone who is the victim of copyright infringement still has possession of the infringed item, and can continue to license it as they did before the crime was committed.

SimpleSimon says:

08:19am | 22/02/12

@Tubesteak - good link, a very interesting article.

Smidgeling says:

08:41am | 22/02/12

Everyone who calls thief fails to acknowledge the fundamental point the record labels also miss:

If the availability to pirate material was completely wiped out magically, would this person buy everything they are pirating OR would they simply go without?

I think you’ll find most people simply wouldn’t buy the material and then wouldn’t even be likely to buy it, future material or even go to a concert. If there was never going to be a sale either way, you haven’t lost ANYTHING.

Markus says:

09:01am | 22/02/12

@iansand, I don’t recall anyone saying “and therefore it’s okay”, but stating that the issue at hand is not piracy or theft, as per their real legal definitions, is at least an honest statement.

How seriously would you take someone’s argument against murder rates in modern society, when every one of the examples provided to make their point are actually just cases of assault?

Bertrand says:

09:11am | 22/02/12

@Tubesteak:
“Firstly, a Harvard Business School study has already proven that music “piracy” does not harm sales:

That’s not the issue. The issue is someone who illegally downloads something is consuming a product they didn’t pay for. It doesn’t matter that they weren’t going to buy the product in the first place, the fact remains the consumption has occurred without a benefit being transferred to the producer of the product.

If I go to a supermarket and flog an energy drink that I would have otherwise not bought, it doesn’t changed the fact I have consumed a product I didn’t pay for.

“Secondly, “piracy” is not stealing. Stealing deprives other people of the use of the good (typically the rightful owner). Copyright infringement doesn’t deprive anyone of the use of the good. Therefore, it isn’t stealing.”

No, copyright infringement denies the seller the profit that should be made when someone consumes the good they produced. It’s a form of theft, and you attempting to narrow the definition of theft in an attempt to justify your consumption of a product you haven’t paid for doesn’t change that fact.

If I were to access your home PC, copy a photograph you took and sell that photograph, I physically haven’t ‘stolen’ the original photograph, but I have stolen the profits you deserve to make from it.

“Thirdly, the reason for declining music sales is more to do with more competition for the entertainment dollar. Think of the massive growth of online and console gaming. The people that would have traditionally spent their nights listening to music are now immersed in gaming. Also, we have the internet and more TV channels.”

Again, you are confusing the argument. I’m not trying to explain the decline in music or film industry profits as stemming from piracy. All I am saying is that taking and consuming a product that is for sale and you haven’t paid for is morally and legally wrong.

“Fourthly, the more the music industry is hurt the better it is for artists. The music industry is a bunch of extortionist racketeers who conspire to inflate the cost, restrict supply of all forms of music (they dictate who gets record deals and what music radio stations play by buying air time) and inflate the cost of recording music because they own the overpriced recording studios.”

You have no arguments from me about the extortionate and outdated business model that is used by the film and music industries. However, again, that doesn’t justify simply consuming their product for free. You don’t just decide that an industry overcharges or exploits its workers/talent, and therefore you have the right to consume their product for free.

What you do is you legally consume the same products that are put forward by other companies or individuals under a fairer business model. You can choose to not consume CDs bought in stores and instead purchase music from the myriad of independent artists who self produce their music, make some of it available free through their websites and self promote through touring and social networking.

You don’t simply decide that record companies are exploitive, therefore its ok not to pay for the product they produce. I have the same feelings about Harvey Norman, but I don’t steal from Gerry Harvey’s stores, I take my business elsewhere.

“The more the industry is reduced the better it is for everyone. The more we have the artist being able to just play their songs, upload them and get to a market that wants to listen to them without the involvement of the music industry the better off we all are.”

You are right. So support that business model by paying for your music through artists who operate under it. The music industry should fall through legal market forces, not through people continuing to consume the industry’s product by accessing them on the black market.

iansand says:

09:27am | 22/02/12

Markus - I would roll around on the ground, laughing hysterically, at anyone who said that assault was OK because it’s not murder.  Which seems to be the argument justifying piracy of music.

Halidom says:

09:47am | 22/02/12

This whole thing came up years ago when cassettes came out and people could tape songs from the radio. The whole doom & gloom feeling that the music industry was going to suffer. At least the better songs were played on the radio.  The music industry did not suffer. If I liked the music I would buy the record (that shows my age) Torrents are file sharing if I bought a CD and lent it to a friend is that illegal? If I made copies and sold them that’s another story, that is illegal. The cost of making a CD I mean the physical item is extremely low. I know the production side can be expensive. We need to find a middle ground. I don’t want to pay over $25 for an item that cost $0.50 I know every one In the production side needs to get paid but the mark up is excessive. I think Katy perry’s CD was the last one to have more than 1 number 1 song on a CD. I think it was 6.

PsychoHyena says:

10:25am | 22/02/12

@Bertrand your argument re the energy drink is flawed. If you perhaps meant that a friend gave you a poorer quality copy of said energy drink that you then consumed, you would have a point.

What you were talking about is theft, that item is removed from the market and so the company loses money. Copyright infringement is tricky, because there is no real loss, in fact many authors, musicians, etc who operate independently have found that copyright infringement has increased their actual sales.

There’s even an author who goes on talks around the world discussing how copyright infringement of his works has increased his profile and sales.

In regards to your comment about on-selling IP that you have made a copy of, this is classed as piracy because you are making a profit, most of what people class as piracy these days, however is just the copying and sharing without the transfer of money.

I don’t see copyright infringement being right, however I am more likely to download and view a copy of a movie/game/album whatever that I am uncertain about before I make the decision to purchase it. I have spent too much money on products that were either incompatible with my PC setup (and yes the PC met the minimum and recommended) or were absolute rubbish, to not protect my money from shoddy investment.

If I like the product I then buy it, if I don’t like it then I don’t buy it and I delete the copy that I downloaded.

Markus says:

10:51am | 22/02/12

Good thing that’s not what I said then, eh iansand? Feel free to answer the question I actually asked at any time.

iansand says:

11:06am | 22/02/12

Markus - You have all the debating skills of TimmyB.  Are you trying to supplant him for 4th speaker this year?  Whatever you said was completely irrelevant.  Murder, assault, theft and breach of copyright are all unlawful, so whatever label you apply to the illegal act matters not a jot, or even a tittle.  They all remain unlawful.

PW says:

11:07am | 22/02/12

Bertrand: “The issue is someone who illegally downloads something is consuming a product they didn’t pay for.”

Not necessarily true. Back in 1972 I bought Led Zeppelin (the one with Black Dog on it) on a 12” vinyl disc which I still have. It cost $6.95 as I recall. Some years later in the mid 80’s I bought the same recording on Compact Disc at $30. Added together, thats the best part of 200 bucks in today’s money. Both these media have pretty much gone belly up as far as practical usefulness in 2012, and not only that the CD after 25 odd years is showing serious signs of degradation and skips on several tracks (remember the record companies telling us we could use CD’s as frisbees and they would still last a lifetime?), although the vinyl is still perfectly good. Are you going to tell me I have not paid for Black Dog and the other 7 songs and have to pay AGAIN to listen to them on my i-pod? If so, I think you should get a life.

I suppose I could transfer the song from the still functioning vinyl, as I do have a turntable. It’s a cumbersome procedure though, and it is still illegal to transfer from one media to another, as I understand it, and then there is surface noise which is unavoidable in vinyl.

Pickles... The Drummer says:

11:37am | 22/02/12

@Smidgeling - Well said! I will state three cases in personal support. A mate gave me a mixed cd of songs from another mate in mp3 format. I liked the sound of one band, found some more of their songs online for free, then bought their latest CD. I’ve since bought all of their CD’s, seen them live etc. That file sharing resulted in them making money they otherwise would not have made.

2) My bro in law illegally downloaded two albums for me (which he owned legally) so I could listen to them. Why? Because we had bought tickets to go see the band and he wanted me to know the songs. The tickets (4 all up) cost way more than those albums and had a greater revenue component for the band.

3) Gave a mate a tape (yeah old school now!) of a band I liked. He has since bought everyone of their albums and seen them live every year.

Whilst anecdotal, all examples of bands making money from initial piracy. I know their are douche bags out there who will never give a band money, but they would probably have never bought a CD or seen the band live either way. At least there are people who will then buy albums and see shows if they have a chance to hear the band through piracy.

Bertrand says:

12:07pm | 22/02/12

@PW - “Are you going to tell me I have not paid for Black Dog and the other 7 songs and have to pay AGAIN to listen to them on my i-pod?”

No. As I said in a comment on the other article, to me, if you purchase music you are purchasing the data. If you paid for the music you own it.

I have transferred all my CDs onto my computer, and onto MP3 Cds for my car.

If record companies are going to argue that transferring data like that is theft, I am going to disagree.

One of the great things about buying digital music online should be that it will never scratch itself to death like a CD will, and that it should be convertible to whatever format the purchaser wishes to use.

The fact that it often isn’t is a serious, yet separate issue to simply acquiring content and not paying for it at all.

Bertrand says:

12:45pm | 22/02/12

@PW - just reread your post. If you are talking about a scratched CD that no longer works, yes you should pay to replace it. In the days before digital you would have had to buy a new CD, just as if you would have had to replace a favourite book that has fallen apart. Nothing has changed since then, other than you now have the option to repurchase the album as either a CD or a digital music file.

My comment was more about if you purchased the CD now should you have to pay extra to listen to it on your iPod.

marley says:

12:54pm | 22/02/12

@PW and Bertrand - as I’ve just found out from the Copyright Council, it is entirely legal to copy a record or CD or a bought-and-paid-for download which you own (and which is not itself a bootleg) to a CD, MP3 or computer, providing it is for your personal use.  So there’s no violation and Bertrand will not be dragged away in ‘cuffs.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:04pm | 22/02/12

Stealing shmealing, I don’t think it matters what they call it because as long as it’s easy, free and quick to attain, people will continue doing it and there isn’t a lot anyone can do about it. If unsuccesful artists are having a hard time making money then maybe they’re just not that good, and should find a real job. There are heaps of real musicians who aren’t bothered by this and remain successful despite (or in some cases because) of music piracy.

Tubesteak says:

01:40pm | 22/02/12

Bertrand
So if you go around to your friend’s place and you watch one of his DVDs and you consume a product you didn’t pay for it’s somehow wrong?
It’s the same thing but I doubt you’d say it’s wrong.
Your energy drink analogy is totally wrong because you deprive someone else of the benefit of consuming it. You don’t do that with piracy.
The music companies (and movie companies) are merely interested in protecting their bottom line. They can’t police people that allow their friends to borrow their CDs/DVDs but they think they can police copyright infringement. Hence they start a campaign to crack down on it. It’s ineffectual (I can use a VPN to disguise who I am) and a waste of money. They’re not interested in the artist or creator and only interested in their own bottom line.
Theft is theft and hence defined as larceny in the Crimes Act. Copyright infringement is not theft.
I don’t make profits from my photographs. Nor could I.
The only reason we are having this conversation is because music companies believe the reason for their declining sales is because of piracy. It isn’t but they refuse to accept that.
Actually, I can decide, as a consumer, that an industry exploits it’s workers and overcharges. I can act as a consumer and refuse to support them by not purchasing their product. Now that I can consume without purchase that gives me an even greater power to hurt the evil empire. Something I am keen to do. That’s how markets work. Where once we were captive consumers forced to operate the way they wanted, now we are free to set the pace.
However, occasionally I do pay for product that I like and feel worthy of my money.

Cynicised says:

02:09pm | 22/02/12

Tubesteak, I don’t like that Chinese garment workers are forced to work in sweatshops for a pittance, therefore I choose not to buy clothes manufactured by them. I choose to use my purchasing power to buy from their competitors in the hope that the plummeting sales from my boycott (and others like me) will force the sweatshops to rethink. However, whom am I actually hurting here? The workers who will find themselves unemployed from even their meagre paying jobs, that’s who.(read musos)..and you aren’t even paying the competitor, you’re just waltzing into the factory and swiping the goods!

Justify all you like, theft is theft. 

Gomez12 says:

02:20pm | 22/02/12

@iansand
“Murder, assault, theft and breach of copyright are all unlawful, so whatever label you apply to the illegal act matters not a jot, or even a tittle”

Actually it matters a huge amount. You can pretend it doesn’t, but that just makes you ignorant.

If I kill you for being so damn ignorant for example, and am charged with raping you - I will walk free, as despite your assertions, the charge must match the act.

You might also want to check the difference between “illegal” and “unlawful” as you use them interchangably, when they aren’t interchangable.

marley says:

02:47pm | 22/02/12

@Gomez12 - Copyright infringement involving illicit downloads for your own use is a civil offence;  however, when you infringe on bigger scale,  whether you do it for money or not, you are committing a criminal offence.  At the upper end, it’s an indictable offence punishable by five years.

iansand says:

03:05pm | 22/02/12

Gosh.  The competition for 4th speaker is really hot this year.

What does what someone is charged with have to do with anything?

Bertrand says:

03:55pm | 22/02/12

@Tubesteak - ok so the drink analogy wasn’t great.

Let’s try some others.

I decide that public transport in Brisbane is over-priced and not a product I would pay for, so I just start catching the trains for free. It hasn’t cost QR anything because the seat I am sitting on was already there and it was an empty train, so they didn’t lose a ticket sale from another customer who saw the train was full. The train was already going to be going along its route and no expense was incurred by them for me to sit on that seat.

A new movie comes out at the cinemas. It looks ok, but not great. Certainly not something I am going to spend $15 on. So I sneak in to the cinemas and watch it for free. It’s a day-time session so there are plenty of spare seats. The film was always going to be showing at that time, so I haven’t *really* stolen from them as they had no extra expenses incurred by my sneaking in to watch the movie.

I like the idea of getting Foxtel, but when I see the prices I decide against it. A few weeks later a mate offers to illegally install it and I now have access to Foxtel for free. I’m not taking anything away from Foxtel, not even using a seat that could be sold to someone else. I was never going to be paying for it, so Foxtel hasn’t lost the money I might have spent.

In all 3 examples I have consumed for free a product that I deemed not worth the price being charged. The sellers of those products never lost a sale because they weren’t going to make it in the first place. They haven’t lost a physical product and incurred no extra expense through my consumption.

Yet I still stole from them.

As soon as you make the decision to consume a product, you have to pay for that consumption. If the product isn’t worth paying the price being asked you don’t automatically acquire the right to take it for free.

With regards to your ‘watching it at my friend’s house’ argument…. I’m using the word consume in the sense of ‘acquire’. If I were to go to my friend’s house and watch the new movie he bought, I am operating within the private home use condition of that film’s sale. If I decide I like the movie so much I would like a copy myself, then I should pay for it. If I burn my friend’s movie onto my laptop so that I now also own a copy, I have stolen that film. I have acquired a copy without payment.

Gomez12 says:

04:07pm | 22/02/12

@Marley,

Totally agree. Usually a profit would be required for the DPP to move to the higher category as it’s the easiest way for them to prove the “seriousness” of the crime and it’s economic impact.

I don’t support piracy in any way to be clear - my own totality of the “piracy scourge” is the odd CD a mate gave me back in the day when it really didn’t occur to me we were doing anything wrong.

I more felt compelled to point out that iansand is being disingenous in his responses and that he is in fact incorrect, no matter how smugly he likes to pretend he meant the right thing in the first place.

@iansand,
Does saying “4th speaker” a lot make you feel smarter?

“What does what someone is charged with have to do with anything?”
Seriously? We’re discussing the legality and morality of music piracy and you don’t see what relevance the charges are to the matter? I think the rest of us did. Maybe you’ll spot the connection if I make the relevance more obvious for you:

If you pirate music and are charged with theft,  you will be free by the end of the day.

Copyright infringement is not theft. In fact, it is not under the majority of circumstances even a crime. This is the law.

Which is why this little gem of yours:
“so whatever label you apply to the illegal act matters not a jot, or even a tittle. They all remain unlawful.” - is so very wrong. Under law it matters a great deal. ESPECIALLY if one is unlawful, and the other illegal. (You did look up the difference right?)

iansand says:

04:59pm | 22/02/12

TimmyB12 - Whether someone is charged has no bearing on the legality of an activity.  My guess is this year you will end up timekeeper.  It must be galling to be demoted from 4th speaker.

marley says:

06:22am | 22/02/12

@mahrat - I’m not much into downloading of anything off the net (too busy converting my vinyl - which gives away my age), so I know very little about this subject.  I’m just curious as to what you see as a better business model.  I thought there was quite a lot of material out there legally downloadable cheaply.  Not so? or not enough material?

Mahhrat says:

07:03am | 22/02/12

@marley - two reasons: 

1) - Steam have no DRM.  If I download a game, I can then go download & play on my dad’s computer as well, the only restriction being I have to log into Steam (hence it is linked to me, not any device I’m using).

2) - Steam start heavily discounting titles, usually about six months in.  Skyrim - easily my game of 2011 - was on sale recently for $40.  It’s $90 in the shops.

I just searched online for “Buy Metallica Online” and got http://www.musicshop.com.au as the first hit.

St Anger (arguable Metallica’s worst album is STILL $24.99.  WHY WOULD I PAY THAT?!  It’s a crap album that’s over 10 years old!! Their entire back catalogue is much the same price. 

Certain art should appreciate in value because of its RARITY - Picasso, Monet, etc.  This business model continues to try and charge me $25 for a 12 year old piece of music!! Good lord, they’re not even actively promoting or touring that album - the band want it forgotten!!

How is that a good business model?  Books are cheaper after time, games are, cars are, technology itself is, but not music???  No, make it like Steam and I’ll buy more music.

meh says:

07:37am | 22/02/12

IView overtakes piracy - http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/iview-steals-a-march-on-rivals-20120219-1th84.html

Itunes, Hulu and Netflix also have shown a better model can be profitable.

fml says:

07:44am | 22/02/12

You are right Mahrat,

Cheap downloadable titles, easily available. Imagine if you bought a cd and could only play it on one stereo? what would be the point of that?

Also if you are looking for classics, you can go to abandonware. Same thing has been done for out of print books. Some musicians are giving away music for free to be known, others say you can download the album and pay what you think its worth, this has been successful for some groups and i think that is extremely fair.

Potato says:

07:57am | 22/02/12

Hear Hear Mahhrat…..

I entirely agree with your comments regarding Steam and the music industry.

I’ll add one thing - I still support local/smaller artists - there is nothing better than giving a $10 or $20 tip to a guy playing guitar in a pub, or buying a $10 CD from a busker who is obviously talented….

I hate how the music industry is dominated by a couple of big companies that essentially ‘create’ the popularity of their artists by pushing their songs into everything from radio station playlists to movie soundtracks to ad’s on TV…. 

If the music industry made it easy to acquire their stuff at a reasonable price then it would work…..just look at how many people are willing to pay for games through Steam….

Douglas says:

08:16am | 22/02/12

Somewhat off-topic, but another thing to add from the “games” comparison to music is that a lot of the time, people pirate because the game itself either is never released in their region (and people can’t just buy the overseas version as the majority of consoles are region locked) or isn’t released until months or in some cases even YEARS later. This was particularly the case with a lot of “cult” Japanese RPGs (IE: Many Atlus titles).

Sorry, but when you have a situation like that (and still continues today although not as bad) then piracy is inevitable and even encouraged. If a game I really want to play is not released in my country and region-locked when I try to import it, do the companies think that people are going to sit on their hands and accept they can’t play it because they happen to live in the wrong country? Yeah, right. The game gets pirated to hell and back and honestly, I don’t blame them.

Mahhrat says:

09:53am | 22/02/12

@Douglas - absolutely right, and what’s more I pay the $US price for games on Steam.  That means I’m paying what most of the world pays, not some artificially inflated price because we’re on the other side of the world (as I think others here allude to today).

Bengeck says:

10:26am | 22/02/12

@ Mahhrat on Steam prices. i love steam but they don’t set the prices, the company selling the game does. we pay in USD but we pay australian prices. look up steampowered.com and look at the US prices then start up your Steam app and be prepaired to scream at the screen when you see that the USA is getting it at half price or better. even our discounts aren’t as good. yes skyrim was $60 here but the US got it for $30.  skyrim lauch day was $59.95 in the US. /sadpanda

Simonious says:

11:12am | 22/02/12

Spot on Mahrat. They do it with DVDs. I mean who would pay 24.95 for a John Wayne western movie or a copy of Ben Hur. Old DVDs are that cheap you wonder how they even cover the manufacturing costs.

MarkS says:

02:57pm | 22/02/12

Perfer Gamersgate for downloading games then Steam but the same applies.

In both books & games they have gotten smart. Just before Sword of the Stars 2 came out, Sword of the Stars 1 was offered at 80% discount to the normal $10 price for old games, i.e. it cost about $2.

Smart Online book sellers do the same thing. Often you can get an authors early works for free. With discounts to the later ones when a new book is about to come out.

marley says:

06:19am | 22/02/12

Whether the stats are wrong, whether the publishers are ripping off the musos for more, whether the musos are “corporate serfs” or not, what you’re doing is still stealing.  You can wrap it up all you like as a protest against corporate greed, but theft is still theft.  Your whole argument demands integrity from the industry and the musicians, so show some integrity yourself and admit that what you are doing is stealing.

Bertrand says:

06:23am | 22/02/12

You can justify it all you want - the publishers make too much profit and are stealing from the artists, they charge too much, etc… it doesn’t mean taking something that you didn’t pay for is right.

I would like to drive a luxury car, but it is out of my price range. Also, the people who built the car are paid peanuts by the car manufacturing company. By your logic this means I am justified in stealing the car.

fml says:

07:48am | 22/02/12

Marley,

How is it any different from recording live t.v.? Or recording songs from the radio?

Josh says:

08:10am | 22/02/12

Taping it from the radio is different the radio stations pay royalties. the listener pays by hearing ads on the radio and having an announcer talk over the songs till the singing starts.

AdamC says:

08:47am | 22/02/12

Marley, your response to Craig’s hilariously desperate defence of something he clearly realises is wrong is almost word-perfectly what I would have hoped to have written. (Though may well not have, or not as well.)

Incidentally, was I the only one who thought Craig’s comment read like someone trying to argue that smoking isn’t that bad for you? Maybe it was just me…

Markus says:

08:50am | 22/02/12

Breaking in and forcefully taking a musician’s master copies is stealing.
Creating a digital copy of said masters is copyright infringement.

Piracy and theft are the all-encompassing ‘racism’ cry of the music industry. Emotionally-charged words used to muddy the waters and blind people to the real issue at hand.
That Josh Pyke himself even made a comparison between creating digital copies and racism just proves my point.

Samuel says:

09:12am | 22/02/12

The ‘stealing is still stealing’ is not an effective argument either.

For a start, as mentioned in some comments above, it’s not, by definition, stealing; it’s copyright infringement. Still illegal, still wrong, but an important distinction to make if the music industry are ever going to manage to effectively battle piracy.

It’s also failing to acknowledge that there are economic realities in an online world that the music and movie business have been slow to understand, if they do at all. An album on itunes costs between $17-$20, which is not really different to what it costs in a store. On the USA itunes, it costs $10, which is a little cheaper than what it is in stores. Now, the digital product in itunes is exactly the same and there are no shipping costs, no property rent, no physical media to produce, it’s all digital. Our dollar is 6 cents over the US$ at the moment and the music industry complains about piracy when they’re inflating prices about 80% on the one online store where most people gladly part with their money.

It’s still copyright infringement, but the music industry has been complicit in the rise of piracy by failing to adequately evolve their business model.

Economist says:

09:24am | 22/02/12

Marley I believe you’ll find copying your vinyls across to PC is breach of copyright.

While I’ve never downloaded music from a pirate site I’ve been ripped off by DRM. I purchased 10 albums from bigpond but didn’t copy over the key codes, they changed their arrangements, of which I wasn’t aware, and now I can’t access the key codes nor listen to the music on the device I downloaded it to.  So you could argue they stole around $200 from me.

At least itunes offers some flexibility, but they’re overpriced, particularly given the strength of the dollar. Itunes Austtralia is also limited as to what’s available, I can’t find that old E-street band Euphoria, song Love you right (Yes my taste in pop music is pathetic). You know the one with Simon Baker with his shirt of most of the time. While the video is on youtube it’s a rubbish version.

I have little sympathy for the music industry because the growth rates they experienced in the 80s and 90s was off the back of changes in mediums not the quality of music released, and the fact that people replaced their tape and vinyls with CD, becauyse it looked to be a more durable medium. Bands like the Beatles made a killing. But now we simply convert CDs to PC ourselves, this itself being I beleive a breach of copyright.

Bertrand says:

09:30am | 22/02/12

@Samuel - according to my dictionary, stealing is “to take without permission or legal right”

Copyright breach may not be the same type of stealing as actually taking a physical CD from a store, but it is still stealing in the sense that you are taking something without permission or legal right.

marley says:

10:05am | 22/02/12

@economist - you had me going for a minute there! 

Being from Canada, I’m familiar with their legislation -  and there, you are legally allowed to make a single, back-up copy of a recording for personal use only.  In addition, recordable media (CD-Rs, cassettes, minidiscs etc) carry a copyright levy. Not sure how the money gets back to the recording artist, but the levy does exist.

So, I was about to assuage my guilt by declaring my house to be Canadian territory, when I came across this on the Australian Copyright Council website:

“Since 11 December 2006, it has been legal to make copies of sound recordings you own for your own personal use, on a device that you own. The copy may, but need not be, in a different format.”

So, it’s legal to copy, for your own use, from CD or vinyl to computer, iPod or CD.  Whew.  That’s a relief.

Economist says:

10:06am | 22/02/12

Well here are my ideas on some solutions. We live in a globalised world. 

For music the only way to combat piracy is on price and gimmicks. How hard would it be for itunes to run and exchange rate mechanism so that if a song is 99c in the US it’s 93c in Australia. They need to add gimmicks like purchase the song for the chance to win tickets to the concerts etc.

The same goes for TV and movies. Personally piracy is killing TV importing of content. Imported shows should be fast tracked, but even then this isn’t a guarantee. Instead episodes should be available worldwide at no more than a $1 an episode that way a series will still bring in $24.00, or on a subscription basis as others have highlighted, though that would destroy Fox/Austar. If you want more that a $1 an episode, again gimmicks i.e. offer a $2 an episode where a DVD is sent to you HH at the end of the series with interviews and extras for fans. On the plus side piracy possibly means more local content to get viewing numbers up on free to air whether sport, news, reality rubbish, or better shows like Underbelly. 

Movies, again, Worldwide releases. As movies these days make 80% to 90% of there money in the first 6 weeks after this time offer them online again say at a price of $5, with an optional package of $30 for the extras and Blueray/DVD sent out, or a limited edition pack for $40.00 with a poster etc. While this may reduce the on sale to free to air TV overall it may be more profitable. The only problem with these solutions is that the retailers are gone and I love JB.

Bertrand says:

10:47am | 22/02/12

@Economist - those are some good ideas you are putting forward about how the industry needs to reform itself.

I’m against people acquiring content they haven’t paid for, but it doesn’t mean I support the film and music industry giants either. They have largely dug themselves into the hole they are in now through their refusal to update the way they distribute their product.

Again, the failures of the industry to adapt to new technologies and market practices still doesn’t make it right to illegally acquire and consume a product the companies in this industry have produced and are attempting to sell.

Economist says:

11:06am | 22/02/12

Marley, you’re right I’m wrong, me idiot.  I just recall the notices at the begiinning of fims with copying this is subject to $200000 fine 2 years jail stuff.

Craig says:

05:54am | 27/02/12

Marley & Bertrand, to counter your one-eyed comments, I have never pirated music.

I no longer buy music either - due to my disgust at the profiteering of. Music publishers.

I go to festivals and concerts, listen to the radio and my catalogue of music and buy from self-published artists, but I will not give any of my money to music publishers or retailers.

Too wrongs do not make a right - neither does one wrong - the initial wrong by the music publishers, which has put them in this position and that they ask music lovers to perpetuate with every purchase..

fox says:

07:05am | 22/02/12

Agreed.

“Do it the old way, buy records”.

No thanks. I can go on a torrent site and get it right away.

The law has to catch up and make file sharing of copyrighted material legal, like in Switzerland.

Most people pirate. We no longer live in 1993 where an album costs $29.95.

Tatty_Anne says:

07:56am | 22/02/12

M says: <The ship has sailed. >

Agreed. 

I’m not sure but I seem to recall hearing that the inventors of Napstar offered it to the record companies first and they declined (does anyone know?).  It was released on the net and we all got used to ‘pirating’ when the companies could have, if they had any foresight, set up their own file sharing sites way back then.  By now we’d all we used to fairly buying music and movies online.

M says:

09:22am | 22/02/12

@ Tatty anne, there’s literally tons of examples of companies doing stupid things and missing out on money.

The bloke who thought the beatles would never be big and Fox letting George Lucas having the merchandise rights to the starwars franchise to name two of the more famous examples.

The future of the industry as I see it is subscribing to a high quality torrents site for a nominal fee per month, with either the site owners passing on a buck to the companies or the companies running the torrent site themselves, and making all their catalouges available for unlimited download, with no extra cost bar the monthly fee. If you can’t beat em, join em.

They’d be stupid not to do this. Well, they are stupid, because they wont. Not for a few years yet anyway. They’ll just waste more millions of dollars chasing 1 or 2 downloaders and try to make an example out of them or trying to introuce copyright infringement laws through US congress.

FFS, I could run a business better than them.

Pickles... The Drummer says:

11:54am | 22/02/12

He notes Spotify as a good site to get music. I agree, only problem is we can’t get it here.

Once again another example of the retarded business model. So instead of paying for a service where they would get money, they restrict the service and get nothing as people then pirate. Idiots…

Trevor says:

09:00am | 22/02/12

The powerful are always the first to frame the debate with couched language.

SimpleSimon says:

08:31am | 22/02/12

It’s a flawed concept for several reasons. Prosecute your prospective customers? That will go down with the fans like a lead balloon. Remember when Metallica (specifically, Lars Ulrich) was campaigning against Napster? People were bruning Metallica albums and merch in the streets. As an artist, attempting to sue members of your target audience is a foolish thing to do. And prosecuting the websites won’t work either - the point of P2P is that the websites don’t host the content, and therefore can’t be held laible. It was the major flaw with Napster that led to them being shut down; they hosted their own content.

The music industry needs to change it’s business model, not take everybody to court.

Markus says:

09:08am | 22/02/12

The whole point of P2P file sharing programs is that it is not the program making the content available, it is the users.

Musicians and their record labels could go after individual users at any time, and win, but it is not in their best interest financially to do so.
So instead we are subject to public guilt campaigns, and lobby groups trying to change laws to turn something that is essentially a civil offense into a criminal one.

Al says:

10:32am | 22/02/12

I never said it would be easy, smart or even a viable alternative financialy, but that isn’t the point.
If the muscians prosecuted a few individuals for copyright breaches then it would generaly reduce the number willing to undergo the risks of facing prosecution.
As it is they don’t prosecute so nobody cares.
A bit like any other law that is never enforced, it soon gets ignored by everyone.

SimpleSimon says:

01:43pm | 22/02/12

Financial viability isn’t the point. Who wants to buy the music of someone who prosecutes their fans? Nobody.

Smidgeling says:

10:27am | 22/02/12

Word.

An album costs anywhere between $17 and $30. Quite often you’ll hear a single on the radio or at a bar/club and the rest of the album is rubbish in comparison. Sometimes it’ll be great. But that’s a risk you have to take if you do it legitimately.

Piracy is a try before you buy for anyone who has the money to pay for it anyway. Piracy is a way of getting people to go to shows, talk about and otherwise give some value for tose who never buy anyway.

Wynston Cruso says:

12:46pm | 22/02/12

Good point Tim. I do this quite a bit with music that I’m not particularly familiar with. Why would I go out and spend money on an album or dicography when I can get it for free almost instantly….

Plus calling it ‘Piracy’ and then expecting people not to do it is pretty stupid, because everyone knows that pirates are awesome. It’s not likely to stop, ever, for the simple fact that people will always choose to get something for free over paying for it.

Cynicised says:

05:13pm | 22/02/12

You are still justifying stealing. To get new music out, all it takes is for the band to give permission for one or two tracks to be downloaded. True, smart bands are self-promoting in the Internet and allowing this practice, at least with partial songs. I have no problem with it, because it’s sanctioned, it’s a gift from the performer. In fact any band that isn’t doing it in the current climate is a bit thick. Totally different.

Ace says:

08:24am | 22/02/12

That’s an astonishingly ignorant view. Sorry, but making music is a form of employment for MANY people, not just a side hobby. To say it isn’t a real job is ridiculous.

I suppose you think athletes playing in various leagues around the world or hoping to get drafted in a range of sports are just pursuing a hobby too?

Sean says:

08:41am | 22/02/12

This is a ridiculous argument. The term ‘professional musician’ is around for a reason. It’s ludicrous to attempt to narrow every single music-making venture into nothing more than a ‘hobby’. Being a musician IS a real job.

It’s like someone who enjoys building things. They might make tables, or cabinets, or something, just for fun. But would you say a carpenter was building the framework for a house as a ‘hobby’?

PsychoHyena says:

11:28am | 22/02/12

@Ace, in fact there are many Professional Rugby Union and League players who have jobs outside of the sport. Or do you think the money these athletes earn from events cover their expenses? Your view is the ignorant one. Gav is right though, for many musicians (including professionals) it’s about the music not the money.

jd says:

07:36am | 22/02/12

“Digital music revenue did increase last year, but by a comparatively meagre 8 per cent. “

I think Harvey would be happy with a meagre 8% today.
Poor music revenue receivers - so sad.

PW says:

11:34am | 22/02/12

Well spotted. Even China would be happy to report 8% growth.

Douglas says:

08:33am | 22/02/12

Agreed 100% with everything, especially with the region-free/DRM free business. Region locking is such a blatant, transparent method for companies to charge more in other areas than others that I’m glad when they lose money due to piracy.

The lame excuse for this that some people use are “They have to sell films/games in *insert region* at a lower price because they wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise and if those in more wealthy areas buy the cheaper version they cannot make money.”

My simple response to that is this: Would companies prefer a smaller profit margin (People buying the cheaper version overseas) or NONE AT ALL (piracy)?

SimpleSimon says:

08:37am | 22/02/12

That’s a great link, I lol’d.

Your points are good too - you’ve summed up exactly what consumers want. I’ve got nothing else to add really… Good post.

SimpleSimon says:

08:42am | 22/02/12

It’s a good point M, and that’s exactly what most independent muso’s do. It gets more difficult when acts sign record deals.

Record deals have the advantage of getting a good quality recording with no financial outlay on your part (this is over-simplified and not entirely accurate, but I won’t go in to that here) whereas making a good quality recording of an album-worth of tracks independently is really quite expensive. So, you can’t really blame an artist for taking that option if it becomes available. HOWEVER, when a record company signs you and records your album for you, they own the rights to the physical recording of the tracks. Yep, although the artist owns the IP, the record company owns the product. It is therefore, strictly speak, copyright infringement for the artist the make those recordings available online without the consent of the record companies.

So, artists do a deal with the devil to get a professional quality recording, and subsequently are at the mercy of the company as to how that recording can then be distributed.

Danny B says:

11:19am | 22/02/12

I agree completely.  To quote one of my favourite tracks:

“Today’s music ain’t got that same soul.  I like that old time rock’n'roll.”

Sums up my feelings completely. 

I mean, take Lady Gaga for example.  I’ll start by saying I like what she’s doing with her anti-bullying campaign in the USA.  But if you’ve been subjected to ‘Pokerface’ on the radio, you’ll see what I mean - repetitive lyrics, no real depth to the music itself (as in ‘loudness wars’) and no real meaning behind the lyrics.

Give me ‘Hotel California’ or ‘The Killing of Georgie (Parts 1 & 2)’ any day.  Something with meaning, something that needs to be interpreted - or that tells a story.

dw says:

01:11pm | 22/02/12

Hi Danny

I’m not a gaga fan either - but check out her solo piano version of ‘Edge of Glory’ on Howard Stern. Surprisingly good.

SimpleSimon says:

01:45pm | 22/02/12

I am not at all a Gaga fan, but have to agree with dw. I’d prefer her if she stuck to that sort of sound.

amy says:

04:42pm | 22/02/12

dont listen to pop charts or radio

why dont people get it?

Tom says:

08:03am | 22/02/12

Amen sir!

Redeker Plan says:

10:02am | 22/02/12

Yep, I’m with you TRBNGR.  I don’t download music unless that’s the only way I can access it, which a lot of smaller bands are doing now.  And if there’s an option to pay them I always do so.

When it comes to music, I hear something I like on my local community radio station. I then get online and find out a bit more about the artist, and go out and track down the CD if it’s at all available in Australia, which is a rare occurence.  I buy the CD online if it’s not available here, hell I’ve even imported CDs from Iceland of all places. I too want artwork and liner notes and a physical copy of the album.  Yes, I buy complete albums, not individual songs.

The other way I find new music?  I go to a LOT of gigs, some big concerts, some small pub bands.  I always make an effort to get there early enough check out the support acts, and in the last few years have discovered at least 15-20 awesome new bands/artists.  If I really enjoy their set I go out and buy their music as well, or preferably, buy it at the merch stand so the money goes straight into their pockets.

That said, I happily pirate TV and movies.  Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are a prime example - months or even years behind American release, no thank you.  Offer it to me for a reasonable fee when it’s brand-new, and I’ll pay it.  But if you’re going to make me wait an unreasonable time, then I’ll find it for free.

Grant says:

11:09am | 22/02/12

I get music because i like to listen to it…

Grant says:

11:09am | 22/02/12

I get music because i like to listen to it…

Ando says:

11:16am | 22/02/12

Downloading for me just castes a wider net when trawling for music I might like. If I like it I’ll then go and buy it.

Bertrand says:

09:17am | 22/02/12

@Nathan Explosion - it’s a bit of a chicken and egg question though isn’t it?

Are albums crap nowadays because consumption has shifted back to the single and therefore there is less focus on producing a good album or are people consuming singles because the albums are crap?

I would say it’s both.

David says:

01:55pm | 22/02/12

@Bertrand

Albums sales have always been driven by one or two strong singles. In the majority of cases the rest of the album is filler crap. This is not a new phenomenon.

marley says:

10:11am | 22/02/12

Didn’t your parents also beat you for taking something that wasn’t yours?  If not, maybe they should have.

subotic says:

11:25am | 22/02/12

My parents didn’t beat me half as much as the Catholic Brothers did.

And I wish to god I’d have taken something from them.

Oxygen for starters.

Smidgeling says:

10:31am | 22/02/12

Then add in those for whom pricing IS a problem. If you can give consumers a product efficiently and for a reasonable price you will capture way more sales.

Companies need to accept they cannot EVER destroy piracy, so why not make it easier for everyone else?

Marty says:

10:19am | 22/02/12

Yes but you can’t carry 20 milk crates full of lps everywhere yo go.

Ben C says:

11:10am | 22/02/12

@ Shane

“If it worked, well then why aren’t bands like The Rolling Stones, U2, Bon Jovi etc doing it?”

Most likely they tied themselves into contracts that stipulate the number of albums they need to record with the label, and are yet to completely fulfil those obligations.

Cynicised says:

01:14pm | 22/02/12

Your point about self-publishing market penetration is exactly the problem I see, Shane. There’s no way around the promotional abilities of record companies as yet, as far as I can tell and that IS exactly why artists still sign.

Markus says:

09:27am | 22/02/12

“They conveniently narrow the definition in an attempt at sounding modernised.”
If by narrowing the definition, you mean accurately stating the legal definition of the action taking place, then yes you are correct, that is exactly what they are doing.

“Saying that stealing is only stealing if the original person can no longer enjoy the use of the product discounts the existence of computers entirely.”
No idea what you are on about here. Are you suggesting that everything a computer does is theft?

M says:

10:33am | 22/02/12

There’s a bar where you can buy beer 5 minutes from your house. You have to drive there, pay money, drink there, and then drive home to enjoy the effects of alcohol. The beer can only be drunk in the bar, because the bar has the regional distribution rights to the beer. The beer may also be rubbish, or not, you don’t know.

Then there’s a guy who’ll come round to your place with a cold case of whatever you want, won’t charge you a cent, and you don’t have to get off the couch. The beer “fell off the back of a truck”, so it’s technically not legal for you to drink the beer.

Which method of drinking beer are you going to choose?

brad says:

11:21am | 22/02/12

I’d like to point out to you, Sean, that whilst stealing is stealing according to laws now, laws can change.

So for you to be a dinosaur and beat your outdated concepts over my head whilst I ignore the relatively mosquito-like battery and instead check my uTorrent download list is kind of silly.

The onus is on you (and the music executives) to prove that artists truely suffer from so called piracy. The only thing it’s hurting is their profit margins. Margins that the artist will never see benefit from.

Embrace change.

Sean says:

05:55pm | 22/02/12

I work in both music and law as a career. If someone were to take my legal advice for free, I’d be out of business. The partners who work above me would also be out of pocket.

So if you take an artist’s money for free without their permission, as a crusade against their fat cat label (or because it’s ‘convenient’, which in itself is a ridiculous reason), then aren’t you as bad as, or sorry, worse, than their label?

Sorry, but I don’t think my ideals about ripping others off are outdated. Yes, the law can change, but should it, is the ultimate question. In my opinion, no. Because where would it end? How would artists, be they musicians, visual artists, film directors, etc., make any money?

Cynicised says:

12:05pm | 22/02/12

Simon, I like your ideas re how independent musos can sell their music online, however, I have a couple of problems with it.

Firstly, how does the indie muso get his music heard, when there’s no label promoting it? Not all YouTube vida go viral, so the’s a helluva lot of music being produced that no-one is listening to. $10k is a big investment when you’re unlikely to recoup it though volume of sales.

Secondly, what happens to the radio industry without labels promoting singles? Not all statins can be Triple J. How do they attract sponsorship, if they are using something like Jelli interactive voting to set their playlists?

It’s not just musos who are involved here, their are lot of other industries involved with recording and distribution, including visual artists, and music retailers who are all destined for bankruptcy when the record companies fold. Adapt or die is pretty harsh. Any ideas?

Cynicised says:

10:13am | 22/02/12

What utter bollocks..try to live in the real world, Philosopher. Music is entertainment. There’s worthwhile and worthy as well as pure fun. There’s moving and just to make you move your booty. Your “starving in a garrett for my art” crap is nonsense. Of course it’s an industry! I love creatives, they are the soul of humanity and yes, it’s a cultural imperative to share but hey are also people who are trying to make a living out of bringing
people joy or enlightenment.. Let’s not forget the little tinny thing called taste as well.what you may consider worthwhile I may loathe, and vice versa.

Honestly, you sound jealous of the lifestyle you perceive musos living. Let me set you straight. Most successful musos I know work very hard indeed, writing, rehearsing, gigging, recording, promoting, more touring, etc.  Perhaps you need to listen to an old face song of mine by Dire Straits.it’s called “Money For Nothing” and it might teach you a thing or two.

Also, don’t blame the musos who manage to get recorded for the quality of some of their work. Blame the corporations who prefer quantity and don’t back originality and because the industry is in trouble don’t seek out new talent nor do they invest in artist development any more.  Josh Pyke makes some great music but he is subject to t

Direct says:

10:16am | 22/02/12

I thought Josh Pyke was crap before it was cool that think that Josh Pyke is crap.

Cynicised says:

10:34am | 22/02/12

Arrgh..here’s the rest of that post :

Josh Pyke makes some great music but he is subject to pressure from his label like any other artist. He is merely expressing his frustration at not getting the reward for the work he puts in. Wouldn’t you?

And hey, Look there’s that taste thing again. I’m obviously uncool. LOL!

SimpleSimon says:

11:40am | 22/02/12

@Philosopher - nice RAtM quote \m/

Al says:

12:00pm | 22/02/12

re “Copyright infringement is not a crime .. its a rort.”
You do understand what Copyright means?
The owner is able to stipulate who has the right to produce/distribute copies of their work.

BTW: some comments on here are realy ridiculous re: claiming piracy isn’t stealing as it doesn’t remove the original. If you get a book from the bookstore you are NOT getting the original, just a copy, but that doesn’t mean you can take one and it isn’t stealing!

kyzz says:

01:51pm | 22/02/12

Al, Debs said Tort, not rort meaning it belongs in Tort Law and not criminal law.

Gomez12 says:

02:01pm | 22/02/12

@Al,

Working out the difference between a Tort and a Rort might be a good place to start. Then you could take a good run-up at the difference between a Tort and a Crime.

Copyright infringement is a Tort, and not a Crime. This is why the Studio’s/Producers have resorted to taking ISP’s and individuals to court themselves and why the police have not and will not.

marley says:

02:12pm | 22/02/12

@Debs - sorry, but according to the Copyright Act 1968, copyright infringement at its lower scale is a civil offence but at the higher scale is a criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years.

SimpleSimon says:

11:49am | 22/02/12

MP3 is never good quality. It compresses, tops and tails in order to get file size down, at the expense of the quality. Anyone selling MP3 quality audio should be prosecuted for peddling garbage.

braunman says:

06:59pm | 22/02/12

@Simon

It really depends where you get the mp3s from. Most of the ones sold on itunes are really low bitrate, but make them yourself from cds and there is literally no difference in what the human ear can perceive.

AdamC says:

10:30am | 22/02/12

So, you are arguing Piracy is OK because the musicians are (allegedly) asking for it? You sound like a sex offender or wife-beater!

Also, so what if piracy isn’t stealing? It is still bad, still wrong. You are just engaging in a silly semantic argument.

I am not above doing a bit of illegal downloading in my weaker moments, but let’s not pretent it is OK.

marley says:

10:33am | 22/02/12

From the Oxford Concise English Dictionary: 

“Steal v, & n,  ...
1.(a) take (another person’s property) illegally.  (b) take(property, etc) without right or permission esp. in secret with no intention of returning it. “

Works for me.  Or haven’t you heard of intellectual property, or of copyright laws?

Anonymous says:

10:42am | 22/02/12

Adam… don’t you even dare have the cheek to compare file sharing to rape.

marley says:

11:10am | 22/02/12

@Anonymous - no, file sharing is more akin to what Bob Ellis would refer to as “non consensual groping.”

Anonymous says:

11:50am | 22/02/12

Are you kidding me? That comparison is also ridiculously hyperbolic and offensively stupid, Marley.

So… let me get this straight… I download a file for my personal use, and I’m no better than someone who sexually assaults someone? Where the hell do you get this kind of stupid logic? Please do humanity a favour and make a pledge to never breed.

marley says:

12:59pm | 22/02/12

@anonymous - perhaps you should read Ellis’ columns on the ADFA affair and on Dominique Strauss-Kahn.  Then you may see the relevance of the analogy.  He argued that “non-consensual groping” was just having a bit of a feel, not harming anyone, and the precursor to better things, like marriage.  A lot of the arguments here remind me of the same effort to rationalise what is basically wrong by arguing that it’s the only way to try out material, it doesn’t really hurt the artist, and it may lead to greater sales.

Anonymous says:

02:03pm | 22/02/12

Yeah, except here’s the thing. Ellis is an idiot. I’m not. You can’t lump one analogy with the other. One topic is music, digital mediums and consumers taking advantage of an industry’s outright failure to adapt. The other is physical assault and inter-personal relationships.

You’re free to have an opinion on something, no matter how ill-informed you may be. However, I’ll say it again. To suggest that groping someone without their consent is on par with digitally downloading a pirated copy of a file is unbelievably ridiculous.

I’d like to see how it’d go down if you relayed that comparison to a victim of indecent assault or rape. Good luck with that. If stupidity such as yours was more widespread, I’d probably kill myself.

marley says:

02:59pm | 22/02/12

@Anonymous - the offences aren’t equivalent.  Of course not.  But Stevo’s argument is along the lines of Ellis’s defence. - that deep down, real muso’s want their music to be heard, and we should ignore their protests because they don’t really mean it or aren’t “genuine.”  It’s all exploitation:  it’s only the degree of exploitation that differs.  But if it makes you feel better to think that ripping off an illicit copy is fine and noble and that the muso really wants you to do it, be my guest.

Anonymous says:

03:41pm | 22/02/12

Real Musos won’t care if their stuff is spread far and wide through various means. Believe it or not, but I actually had a commercial music release last year. Sure more people downloaded compared to those who bought it, but did I care? No. I cared more about the fact that my music was reaching their ears than filling my wallet.

Al says:

11:51am | 22/02/12

Technicly yes it is stealing. It is obtaining something without it being purchased, conciously given to you or already disposed of by the original owner.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to determine who that $2 coin lying in the street belongs too. Not so difficult to determine who owns the rights to the music you are downloading.

M says:

10:47am | 22/02/12

Excellent point about Channel 9 and adds Kate. I’d rather download The Big Bang series and watch in my leasure than be subjected to a commercial for fat people loosing weight every 5 minutes.

Al says:

11:25am | 22/02/12

But there is a difference between legaly downloading and downloading a pirated copy.

TV shows, Movies and Music are all available for download from legal sites.
Re: Movies, the other option to sitting in a cinema, ever heard of a DVD?

SimpleSimon says:

01:56pm | 22/02/12

As an aside - Paranoid by Black Sabbath was a filler track. They handed the album to the label, the label said “nup, it’s not long enough, go back and record 1 more song” so they went in to the studio and pumped out Paranoid in a few minutes. It’s now one of their most famous songs.

I like having albums and getting the filler. Filler tracks usually give you a better understanding of the band than does their 1 or 2 hits. For a lot of people this probably doesn’t tickle their fancy. As a musician, I love it.

David says:

11:07am | 22/02/12

The major labels are just churning out crap like you say and the kids lap it up because of the way its being marketed to them. I agree with that. But you can still find some good music being released today, chances are though that it will be an independent release and not have a major label attached to it.

amy says:

03:31pm | 22/02/12

uggghhhhh I feel a headache coming on

there was as much crap back then as there is now, also because of the internet you dont have to be exposed to crap on the radio, just find what you like

I’m 20 want to know what music I like?

daft punk
glitch mob
Nine inch nails
jhonny cash
massive attack
Disturbed
Eminem
Tech n9ne
Linkin Park
Knaye west

and a whole bunch of others songs/artists

seriously? no one cares what kind of music I like, no one cares what you like…as it should be

also you need to learn the words “subjective” “perspective” and “music elitist”

Mike says:

01:57pm | 22/02/12

In all seriousness, what is everybody’s objection to Pyke? He seems innocuous to me?!

marley says:

11:53am | 22/02/12

Or, do what Dickens did - publish your book in chapters and download it to the internet with the first chapter free.  If the reader likes it, he then pays a small weekly fee for the next chapter.

bella starkey says:

12:45pm | 22/02/12

This is pretty much complete bullshit.

Authors are paid an advance on what the estimation of their first print run royalty share, unless you are sharing the royalty with an illustrator, it is never below 10%.

The breakdown of where the cover price of a book goes like this:
50% retailer
10% Author
40% publisher
of that 40 percent generally half will be the production costs of the books. the other half is spent on regular general overheads, distro, etc, normal business costs.

The average profit margin, of a book that actually does make a profit, that the author earns out their advance, etc is 5%.
Bear also in mind that out of every 10 books published, 5 will make a loss, 3 will break even and two will turn a profit and become back list titles that help fund the next 5 loss making projects.

Marketing spends are usually set out in the contract, no publisher is going to blow 30 000 dollars on a new author and just hope someone reads it, for some new authors 10 percent of the print run goes to promotional copies to try and get someone to review it.

St. Michael says:

01:28pm | 22/02/12

Hang on, what part is bullshit? You seem to be agreeing with me on every material point I’ve made.

- You say fifty percent of first books published through the “mainstream” industry fail, and twenty more break even, and therefore large publishers won’t spend money on promotion.  That’s exactly what I’ve just said.

- You’ve agreed with me that an author only gets 10% of the cover price.  That’s exactly what I just said.  You split the rest up between the retailer and the publisher, which includes the distribution chain.  You don’t seem to have included the distributors in the list, so presumably the books get from the actual publisher to the retailer via magic.

In order to get my royalties paid, I have to wait until the publisher deems it appropriate to send them to me.  If I’m a small publisher selling to a distributor, the contracts are abysmally bad: everything from having to pay to get your own books back to creative accounting as to how many books the distributor actually has on hand, along with dozens of nickel-and-dime made up fees.

Compare that to an Internet model: if I sell one book, I keep all of the profit I choose to make on that book, since the printing cost is factored into the price and I can put a marketable premium on that for my time and effort, as all authors do.

Compare that with your 10% per book that I’d get back on the same book sent through a conventional publisher.

I literally would have to sell ten copies to get the same profit back, and you’ve all but admitted the publisher won’t help me in any material way to do that - unless you’d like to set out in writing what forms of promotion—not what money—are included in a first author’s contract.  If it’s more substantial than being put on an obscure Publisher’s Weekly list of books I’d be very surprised, and I can do better than that on the Net for myself—as Alan Baxter’s article proves quite eloquently.

bella starkey says:

02:04pm | 22/02/12

You said 70% of a books cover price is collected by distribution, it’s not, publisher factor that into their business overheads.

I said no publisher is going to spend 30 000 dollars on a book and not promote it. Promotional budgets vary from project to project but, like i said, generally they are stipulated in a publishing contract. If you aren’t getting any promotion whatsoever for your book, get a better agent.

The publisher supplies you with a publicist who knows the media and how to get you interviewed on the radio or even television, they get you onto into the paper and on panels at lit festivals. They have marketing people who put ads into papers and magazines, get your book in catalogues for chain stores and on the front page of the ibook store (this actually costs a lot of money). Then they have sales reps and merchandisers who get your book in the right stores, in the place in the stores so people will actually see it.

They also have people flogging the rights to overseas publishers so you can have foreign editions of your book. They don’t pay a fortune for spots and frankfurt and bolonga for nothing.

Depending what type of publisher you are looking at, depends on the distribution arrangements. The big ones: penguin, random, harper etc have their own. The sell their services to smaller publishers who wouldn’t find it economically viable to run a warehouse. There are some independant distribution companies, I can’t vouch for their business ethics.

No one is saying don’t self publish, you are ruining our industry, because you’re not. It really doesn’t make a dent. There are some self publishers who have made a success of themselves but more often than not they soend a year writing a mediocre book, they don’t spend the money on having it finished properly, they don’t want to pay editors or proofreaders or typesetters, they think they don’t need them and they sell 4 ebook copies on amazon for 2.99 and can’t figure out why.

One thing to remember is, people who work in publishing are paid abysmally, they don’t do it to rip off the authors and they don’t accquire books they don’t care about. The money isn’t worth the effort.

St. Michael says:

03:15pm | 22/02/12

“The publisher supplies you with a publicist who knows the media and how to get you interviewed on the radio or even television, they get you onto into the paper and on panels at lit festivals. They have marketing people who put ads into papers and magazines, get your book in catalogues for chain stores and on the front page of the ibook store (this actually costs a lot of money). Then they have sales reps and merchandisers who get your book in the right stores, in the place in the stores so people will actually see it.

They also have people flogging the rights to overseas publishers so you can have foreign editions of your book. They don’t pay a fortune for spots and frankfurt and bolonga for nothing.”

And yet for all of that marketing implicitly available to a new author, by your own estimate five out of ten new books fail to make a profit and thus don’t pay their authors anything, two break even and thus don’t recompense their authors anything, and two make a profit.

80% chance of failure to sell doesn’t convince me of large publishing’s expertise at selecting or marketing first books.  It’s also proof that 80% of the time the publisher is, in fact, doing spots and frankfurt and bologna for nothing.  Not the wisest business model on the planet, with respect.  That failure rate is something I can get from going direct to the Net and my own activities, and it won’t cost me a percentage of my profits for the work I’m going to have to do in any event.

As for the comment that most people don’t do self-publishing well: agreed.  But then whether a “published” book is popular or not is a crapshoot, too.  If it wasn’t, brilliant authors like King, Rowling et. al. wouldn’t have piled up the rejection letters on books that subsequently went big.

Maybe that’s as far as the comment can be taken.

bella starkey says:

04:12pm | 22/02/12

Are you being obstinate on purpose.

Every commercial venture has risk of failing. I can give you the figures on profitable and loss making books, I can’t do that for films, games, records, fashion lines, mobile phones, television programs or any other consumer product doesn’t mean that there isn’t a high failure rate there also. What I am saying is that it isn’t the authors who shoulder those losses, it’s the publisher.

Everything that is done is a massive gamble. You might write a book, pay someone to build a website for you, pay an editor, pay a designer for the cover and all the rest, put up your ebook, and start selling copies. Thing is, if you don’t sell any copies, you are out of pocket. If an author goes through a publisher, and it doesn’t sell, the author doesn’t have to give the advance back to pay off the production costs, the publisher writes them off. So yes, after you pay off your overheads, everything is pure profit, but you have to earn enough to pay off those overheads, which i have already explained is fairly unlikely even with a publishing company behind you.

There are also so many reasons why a book doesn’t do well, it can be something as silly as the cover falls flat with consumers to it gets drowned out by a big release at the same time, and sometimes the book just isn’t very good, it gets bad reviews, or no reviews and no one wants to buy it.

I think you don’t understand how the creative industries work. There are very good reasons why JK Rowling would have a pile of rejection letters, mostly because if she just posted a MS to a publisher she would get rejected automatically, publishers don’t have the money to read unsolicited submissions. She probably did the clever thing, got herself an agent and is now work 5 gazzillion dollars.

Publishers don’t always get it right, if they did they wouldn’t be working on such tiny margins, they’d be making actual money. Sometimes they misjusdge the market, sometimes they try too hard to jump on a bandwagon, sometimes they just publish god awful shit just to make budget.

I really don’t know what has caused your agression towards the publishing industry and I hope that you are successful in the self publishing avenue, it’s a lot of hard work but I guess if it goes well, you’re laughing.

St. Michael says:

08:53pm | 22/02/12

“Publishers don’t always get it right, if they did they wouldn’t be working on such tiny margins, they’d be making actual money. Sometimes they misjusdge the market, sometimes they try too hard to jump on a bandwagon, sometimes they just publish god awful shit just to make budget.”

Come on.  It’s stretching it to say publishers “don’t always” get it right with new authors, thus suggesting wrong decisions are occasional.  Per your own figures they get it wrong 70% of the time.  No wonder they’re on tight margins; any other business getting investment decisions wrong more than 70% of the time wouldn’t be in business.  On the other hand, I’ll concede there are various cute traditions that book publishers have to put up with, like for example, return of books by bookstores for full retail value, which gets abused a lot by bookstores.

I’ve nothing against large publishing—except when it tries to suggest it can pick the market for a book better than your average 1800-number fortune teller, when it suggests it either puts money or expertise into marketing new books, and when it cultivates the image that the only “real” way to be published is to have your book accepted by a major publisher.  In the Internet age, the last is particularly in error.

Any aggression you’re sensing from me, with respect, is your own projection.  Not mine.  You started with the profanities, not me.

Bertrand says:

09:17pm | 22/02/12

@St. Michael - can I just say that I’ve read through all of your comments on this thread and, although we have certainly had our differences in the past, you have made some really valuable contributions to this whole topic.

I don’t agree with everything you have said, but you have articulated the problems with the publishing and recording industries’ current business models really well.

Your thoughts on the potential for new writers/musicians to break away from this model are spot on.

So, yeah, thanks for everything you have had to say on this whole thread. It was thought provoking to say the least.

St. Michael says:

10:08pm | 22/02/12

@ Bertrand: peace.

Does this mean you’ll put down your sword and I’ll put down my rock and we’ll try to kill each other like civilised people? (Princess Bride FTW)

Brizben says:

12:18pm | 22/02/12

I don’t remember anyone saying home taping will kill music. Did you actually make a mix tape from LP’s? I did and they took forever. A 90 minute cassette could take hours to do because you had to listen to the songs and sometimes you found other songs on the album you just had to listen to.

The problem is the speed and ease of redistribution of digital music - one copy can be redistributed 10,000 times in a matter of seconds.

subotic says:

12:51pm | 22/02/12

@Brizben, Cassandra is 100% correct and accurate. Many of those big old plastic discs they used to sell in the olden days (1980’s) had a little symbol of a cassette tape with crossbones under it with the words “Home Taping is Killing Music: And It’s Illegal”.

Google a few pics of the back covers for Morgan Khan’s “Electro” records series from the early to mid-80’s and you’ll see what we’re talking about.

subotic says:

12:51pm | 22/02/12

@Brizben, Cassandra is 100% correct and accurate. Many of those big old plastic discs they used to sell in the olden days (1980’s) had a little symbol of a cassette tape with crossbones under it with the words “Home Taping is Killing Music: And It’s Illegal”.

Google a few pics of the back covers for Morgan Khan’s “Electro” records series from the early to mid-80’s and you’ll see what we’re talking about.

Cassandra says:

02:42pm | 22/02/12

@Brizben - The home taping is killing music campaign was a big one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

The logo of a cassette tape with cross bones was from the campaign. It reappears from time to time on “the Pirate Bay” website .

Yep - I have made stacks of mixtapes and yes they can take hours.

Agree with you about the ease of redistribution in the digital age. It’s also a lot easier to promote a band using the same technology.

We need to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve - a loss of sales revenues or artists’ revenues. Related but not quite the same thing.

A lot of the points of comparison in sales are based on the era when CDs were first released. Recording companies had no compunction in charging high prices for albums that they had well and truly covered their costs on in the days of vinyl (Beatles’ CD prices, for example). There was also the massive gouge of the “remix” and 12” single, Furthermore the same companies went to extraordinary efforts to stop discount imports of the same releases (particularly in Australia) . The end result was a peak in sales revenue that could only ever be a bubble.

If you think that the record companies have learned their lesson, look at the prices charged these days for the Pink Floyd re-releases/ immersion experiences or whatever they are called.

So the gravy train ride has all come to an end - except for some artists who seem to be able to sell huge amounts (whether you like what they do or not). For years the record companies thought the answer was to ban the easy distribution via the internet. No strategy, no planning just ban Napster and whatever followed.

But then along comes itunes and suddenly money is being made again. Respondents to this article might not like what is being bought but there are people still paying money for new music.

So rock musicians have to go back to touring to make a living. Boo hoo. Tell that to the jazz, country, folk and classical musicians who’ve had to do it that way for years. Things change.

Sorry but I just don’t buy the argument that all of this comes back to illegal downloading. I can see the problem but I don’t buy what is claimed to be the solution. The genie is out of the bottle

St. Michael says:

12:40pm | 22/02/12

Hear and believe, people.

It got quietly past most news services that the G8 were meeting to discuss the topic of “Internet commerce”.  Given the G8 hasn’t seen fit to have big meetings on similarly international subjects like drug dealing, arms trading, child pornography rings, or sex tourism, one can safely conclude they are only meeting about the Internet because it’s a threat to the current economic system.

marley says:

03:35pm | 22/02/12

@ST Michael - the G8 has been discussing internet and intellectual property issues for at least the last three meetings and probably a lot longer.  Heck, Chinese piracy was a huge issue a decade ago, wasn’t it?  It doesn’t mean they’re not involved in the other things you mention, but that’s more via the UN and the assorted Conventions on transnational crime, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, people trafficking and exploitation of children.

M says:

04:56pm | 22/02/12

I have a friend just like that. 72 days of music, most of it he’s never even listened to.

St. Michael says:

01:07pm | 22/02/12

What. music?

Al says:

02:28pm | 22/02/12

Whether you are stealing from the musician or the distributer is irrelevant.
You are still stealing.
Its a bit like stealing intelectual property from a person or a university.
It is still stealing and can be prosecuted under law if the choose to.

Timbo says:

02:55pm | 22/02/12

Make no mistake, this is about power.

It’s always been illegal - but people have been making illegal copies of music for decades before the rise of peer-to-peer and other file sharing mechanisms.  Now the power shift away from control by pre-digital distribution businesses is beginning to tip the balance. 

I don’t endorse pirating, but it’s an inevitability when people have the means to quietly break the law in the privacy of their own home.  I don’t endorse prostitution either.  Same deal.

void says:

04:06pm | 22/02/12

Al, it’s like stealing intellectual property from a uni only if the perpetrator then uses it for their own benefit.  Uni’s use their intellectual property, such as research and findings, art, etc., to earn them grants and prestige from sponsors.  If another were to steal this material and use for themselves, then the victimized uni would not be able to claim the benefits without costly proceedings to prove the materials’ origin.

As has been pointed out so many times, digital piracy doesn’t victimize the material’s creator/publisher in this way because the material is not being removed from their possession and being consumed, which would disallow the creator/publisher to benefit from it.

stephen says:

04:33pm | 22/02/12

‘without’ authority, I meant.

marley says:

07:59pm | 22/02/12

I’m curious as to the period when music was free.  I’ve paid for records and CDs and tickets to concerts all my life.  My granddad paid for records back in the 1920s.  My great granddad paid to get into music halls in the 1880s.  My ever so great grandparents no doubt paid street buskers or the local troupe of actors for their entertainment.  Before that, minstrels, were paid by the earls or kings of the courts in which they performed.  So when, exactly, was music “free?”