You wouldn’t steal a car, but I would if I could download it

A says:

02:21pm | 18/06/09

I download everything before I decide if I want to buy it.  The last two times I went out and bought CDs I was thoroughly disappointed…Madonna’s Hard Candy and Eminem’s Relapse.  Both had 1 song I sort of liked but the rest was garbage.  Why should I pay for albums that have been heard once and then become coasters on my living room table?  If the quality of an album or movie is good, I’ll by it.  I downloaded Sims 3, liked it and now have bought a copy.  I downloaded BoA’s self-titled US debut album, liked it and imported a copy.  On the other hand, i downloaded U2’s recent album and got to track 4 before realising the whole thing was crap and condemning it to the Recycle bin.  I’d never pay money to listen to that album again!

Paul says:

02:21pm | 18/06/09

When will the entertainment industry realize that their stupid argument is gaining no traction?

Stealing a car leaves someone financially liable, ‘stealing’ music over the internet doesn’t in the same way stealing a physical CD does.  Come on, does the entertainment industry truly think that people are willing to start splashing around inordinate amounts of money all of a sudden were illegal downloads abandoned?

Lee Tran Lam says:

02:26pm | 18/06/09

I remember a criminologist once saying that the thing that deters people from crime is not the punishment but whether or not they’ll get caught. People are most likely never going to get caught downloading illegally (except for the odd examples toted out by certain recording industry lawsuits), so it’s easy for people to do it.
I’ve heard lots of (mainly stupid) excuses for why downloading music illegally is OK - the one I hear the most is that musicians make heaps of money anyway, so why does it matter? But only 10 per cent of musicians on major labels (to give an example) only ever recoup their costs, they are basically subsidising the other 90 per cent on the same roster. As downloads eat into this revenue, the major labels are only going to pursue the least adventurous, most samey boring chart-topping safe choices. Going into a supermarket for the next few decades is only going to become more painful because of this.

I’ve also heard that musicians just have to make their money from touring and forget about album revenue. But having friends in bands, I tell you it sucks that they have to be on the road for long stretches at a time away from their partners, kids, friends etc. And sometimes they only break even. Sure, touring has its perks but not everyone wants to tour all the time in a van cramped with four other dudes you’ve been stuck with for the last four months.. Especially if you have little kids.

The stupidest excuse I’ve ever heard for downloading music illegally is that if music should be free anyway and if musicians love music, they’d be happy people want to hear their music (and not pay for it). I bet every person who uses this argument would be royally pissed off if they turned up to work and were told that they should work for free and really just do it for the love. Everyone has to pay the rent, even musicians.

I’ve never used a bit torrent and I would say almost everything I’ve ever bought I have paid for or been given as a gift/promo copy. I know it seems anachronistic, but I think it’s important that artists get some money for the work they do. When I love a song, I want the artist to get some kind of royalty.
Also, if we paid for the music we liked, maybe we could get more of the artist we like to tour, cos promoters do use record sales as a catalyst for bringing bands out (they don’t monitor illegal downloads, I’m pretty sure).

Lastly, most music I buy nowadays is through eMusic, it’s cheaper than ITunes, it supports independent musicians (not on major labels - that’s why it’s cheaper than iTunes) and it costs me about $4 to download an album. So why would I want to steal it when it’s that affordable and I know the artist will get a royalty still? I want the musicians I like to keep making music, not pack it in because they can’t afford to do so anymore - while some stadium act with a tedious power ballad continues to invade the local Coles speakers again ....

Lee Tran Lam says:

02:32pm | 18/06/09

As much as I don’t want to be an illegal downloading killjoy, remember that if you don’t pay for it, someone does down the line and mostly it’s through job loss.
My favourite record store closed down because people kept walking in and saying to their friends “don’t buy that, I’ll just burn you a copy”.
I know a few people who work in film and music and I’d really like them to be able to pay their rent but it’s going to be hard for them to hold down jobs if everyone just pirates everything.
Nothing ever really is ‘free’.

Maureen Box says:

02:38pm | 18/06/09

Downloading music at work? You must have very relaxed system admins!

Paul says:

02:47pm | 18/06/09

Not at all – there’s still a negative to pirated music, but nowhere near in the magnitude that it’s being portrayed.  Furthermore, a stolen idea can conceivably leave the idea’s owner with a liability - for example, if someone infringes patent, it affects the owner of the patent’s ability to sell his or her idea as someone else is inflicting an opportunity cost.  If someone steals your song, that is far more serious than somebody downloading it off the net.  Thing about the degree here.

The entertainment industry would do well to gain some good will by not screaming arguments nobody identifies with, and by analyzing the entertainment market more intelligently.  There isn’t a massive opportunity cost here, as there aren’t buckets of money being withheld from entertainment spending here.  All those downloaders just aren’t willing to pay, even if their ability to download is removed.

Dave says:

02:52pm | 18/06/09

I always thought the whole downloading is stealing was a stupid argument. They’re both illegal but they’re seperate crimes with seperate names.

Damo says:

02:53pm | 18/06/09

There are lots of arguments for an against. I’m not sure i can really find a good argument in support of illegally downloading to someone who believes that doing anything illegal is wrong. Often the law is wrong and the reasons around their creation are even worse.
The impact of illegally downloaded music still remains fairly immeasurable despite what record companies and “some” artists will tell us. I remember hearing an interview with a legal head-honcho from Eminem’s label. His album had outsold all other albums for the year (apparently), well into the millions but there had also been a couple of million downloads. The record company was very unhappy. They wanted those millions of dollars too. Would they have got them if illegal downloads weren’t available? I doubt it. Those people were never going to buy the record anyway.
I don’t think artists should be robbed of income but I also don’t think major labels should be holding people to ransom. Major labels have seen a decline in sales, I suspect, not entirely because of illegal downloads but because they continue to market more and more lowest common denominator music on the public and the public just isn’t buying it any more. They fail to invest in young bands and artists that don’t sound like Britney, Pink, Coldplay or whoever else because they are greedy and completely disinterested in creativity and art.
Have you stolen from a snack machine? I bet you have. Now take back that snack now, Nestle is going broke because of faulty vending machines.

Lee Tran Lam says:

03:42pm | 18/06/09

Yes, but it’s not just the major labels (with their mostly poor taste in music) that are affected by this.  I’ve read interviews where small label owners (Elefant Traks being one example) are hit really badly by illegal downloading. When it’s the passionate, smaller-run labels that are hit, we really do get stuck with even more worse music being churned out by big companies (where the accountants rule, not the music lovers).

I have friends who ask me for burns of albums by small, independent bands. I think Chris’ column is pointing out how socially entrenched illegally downloading as become that no one baulks at this anymore - and that really should be questioned. It is socially awkward when someone asks for a burn of some small album - because you don’t want to start soapboxing to your friend about why you don’t want to rip off an indie artist to give them a burned CD, but you don’t want to give them a ripped CD without question either.

JB says:

03:55pm | 18/06/09

I interview hundreds of musicians every year, and though I do get lots of free music through promo, the music I download I download legally. It’s about respect for the artists, the majority work really hard to produce a quality product and deserve better from the public.

James says:

04:01pm | 18/06/09

I download a huge amount of music and movies and I don’t attempt to defend it, I know it’s stealing.  But having said that, I think piracy is blown out of proportion.  I read just the other day that 2009 is on track to be the biggest box office year for movies ever, and video games are poised to overtake movies for fat piles of cash generated.  Of course poor starving musicians are generally thought of differently because we can put a name to the face - but I completely disagree that downloading has any role in preventing small guys becoming bigger.  Just like I don’t download movies I haven’t heard of, I don’t download music without it having first achieved some level of notoriety.

Damo says:

04:03pm | 18/06/09

I’m not sure there is anything that can be done about the entrenched nature of illegal downloads. I don’t wanna twist your words but it sounds like you’re saying it’s ok to illegally download from majors but not small indie labels?
Depending on your age can you - or anyone else - tell me they never copied/dubbed a cassette (or even a hundred) for a friend? The music industry didn’t die when that technology was available.
I feel for the small labels. To make it clear, I buy an awful lot of music, more often than not at the local stores, but I still download. I couldn’t spend more on music if I tried, no one is missing out on income because I downloaded their music.
I understand that’s not the case for most but really, if the technology is available people will do it.
It’s just like trying to tell people who take ecstasy it will kill them, inevitably it won’t and you’re unlikely to change anybody’s mind by doing so.

Lee Tran Lam says:

04:04pm | 18/06/09

Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of artists go into debt to product a record - particularly small independent artists. Mixing, mastering, producing, manufacturing a CD and putting out a record is not cheap. To then rip them off by illegally downloading their music is kinda mean-spirited.

Guiltfreefree.com says:

04:16pm | 18/06/09

It costs money to make a car. The cost of copying a file is…?

john says:

04:19pm | 18/06/09

For some reason I don’t feel as bad downloading movies as I do music. The Hollywood juggernaut pumps out so much non-stop rubbish I almost feel justified in getting a little back. When I go to a cinema, at least i get an experience, but even that’s dwindling these days. Screens are getting smaller, tickets more expensive, snacks still absolutely ludicrous. The film industry is crying foul but in my opinion, they’ve been complacent in quality for far too long. Just watch The Oscars. “I’m amazing and thanks for the awards and all the money”. WHATEVER. Hooray for Hollywood? Sorry, since when did we need get down on our knees and thank these jokers for bringing us X-Men Origins: Wolverine?

im says:

04:57pm | 18/06/09

And what of news that the Pirate Party is the third largest political party in Sweden? Legally the message has been do it on a small scale, don’t do it for profit.

mitch says:

05:04pm | 18/06/09

For the sake of the argument, if the album was crap, the person who illegally downloaded it would not have bought it any way, therefore the artist is still not being paid.

What about the people who can’t afford the music? Are we discarding them to the heap of non-existent music because they can’t afford to buy the albums released by the artists?

It is fair enough that musicians are paid for recognition and appreciation for their work.
I agree with supporting the retailer and the artists and will go buy an album if I really like it, but with all the mediocre music coming out these days, it isn’t worth the time or the money for the album.

iansand says:

05:18pm | 18/06/09

Intellectual property is property.  Effort was expended to create it.  What defenders of downloading are saying is that their employers should take their effort and not pay for it.  I have a bit of work I have to do around the house.  Who will offer their time to me for nothing? Your call. 

Should entertainers be the only people who are required to donate their labour and resources?  Do people seriously believe that there is a cornucopia into which the producers of entertainment have unlimited access?

Lee Tran Lam says:

05:20pm | 18/06/09

I’m not saying that downloading illegally from major labels is OK, I just don’t want to go in to bat for them because they often invite their own bad PR.

It’s true box office has been really strong at the start of this year but film companies make most of their money (and recoup costs of a film) mostly through DVD sales. You might have heard the phrase that a film is really a trailer for the DVD? And DVD sales have dropped off significantly this year.

The cassette analogy is really old and not really applicable. I have a box full of cassette-copied albums from the 80s-90s but I went out and bought the CDs because it was lame having an album cut off by a 45-minute cassette spool coming to an end! Plus, cassettes degrade whereas - unless you’re an audio Nazi - there’s not much distinguishable quality difference between an mp3 and bought CD.
The scale is also totally different - a couple of crappy cassettes traded between high school friends is nowhere near the phenomenal scale of someone uploading an album that can be downloaded by thousands or more from across the globe.

Yes, illegally downloading is entrenched , like drugs etc but I don’t think that’s the end of the story. Think of Dan Ariely’s research on cheating/fraud. Sure, we all cheat at some level (steal something from your Mum’s fridge, take pens from work) but there’s a few case studies he’s brought up which could apply to this debate. One study allowed people to steal cans of Coke and dollars laid out on dishes. Lots of Coke cans got nicked (it’s easy to justify to stealing a Coke) but NO ONE stole the money - because it felt too much like stealing (whereas a Coke may seem harmless). There was another case where people were made to read the 10 Commandments before doing a test they could cheat on and NO ONE cheated on the test, whether they were religious or not. His conclusion was that when people are reminded of their moral code they’re less likely to do something dodgy.

This ties back to Chris’ column because if we actually questioned why we illegally download and whether it is right, it might make us do it less.
Currently there’s not much of a social taboo about it, but social taboos are created by culture and people - if it was taboo to do it, we might not do it.
Currently it’s normal to illegally download and he’s wondering why this is. In fact, a lot of people seem to have this weird sense of entitlement about illegally downloading, like it’s their right.

And I find John’s comment hilarious - this is often the high-horse argument used, like illegal downloaders are some kind of quality-control activists and by pirating Hollywood crap this somehow creates better cinema or teaches Hollywood a lesson.
If you don’t like Wolverine, don’t watch it! No one is making you.
Hollywood doesn’t give a crap about much besides box office and the occasional back-pat award like the Oscars.
Most of the interesting films are brought out here by local distributors. They take a punt on a film and if no one sees it at the cinema (cos they’ve got a cheap download), they lose money and they’re less likely to make interesting interesting choices.
So illegally downloading doesn’t just affect the big bad scholocky Hollywood studios.

And while I know it’s so easy to dislike big bad films (I do!) but the fact is they bring in the dosh for studios to make more interesting smaller films. And the people who work on some of these big budget films get to work on smaller projects for free or for less than they would usually charge. (Eg if you see visual effects in a small indie clip, the company probably did it for free or undercharged, but only because they get big bucks to do big pictures.) 

Lastly, I take this debate really personally because my boyfriend works in the film industry, I volunteer at a community radio station, I write about music sometimes and I have friends who work across the entertainment industry. I want them to all thrive. And I love music, it’s that basic.

T.C says:

06:48pm | 18/06/09

Lars Ulrich of Metallica, God love him (as no one else will) said in an interview back in the 80s, how when he was first starting Metallica (and poor) he used to take over a batch of blank cassette tapes to friends places and record their LP’s, because he couldn’t afford to buy the music.

My how times have changed. But if it was good enough for Lars before he got filthy rich and greedy, then it’s a good enough for me.

adrian says:

07:30pm | 18/06/09

>mitch said:
>What about the people who can’t afford the music? Are we discarding them >to the heap of non-existent music because they can’t afford to buy the >albums released by the artists?

that’s about the lamest argument i’ve ever heard! so, you can afford your pc/macbook/notebook, you can afford your high speed internet connection, you can afford your gigabyte external hard drive and you can afford your ipod to listen back to what you’ve just downloaded, but you can’t afford a few dollars to support an artist’s creativity?

Ben says:

08:43pm | 18/06/09

You wouldn’t steal a car, handbag or movie but you probably would trespass over some rich bloke’s lawn if it cut three months from your journey home. Particularly if he’s never home to catch you.

John says:

09:48pm | 18/06/09

LeeTran, I’m not saying that we should all revolt against bad Hollywood like some sort of vigilante mob, but the “if you don’t like it don’t watch it” argument has never sat right with me. Why is that ok?

Why shouldn’t we, as consumers, demand the VERY BEST of our entertainment industry when really, when it comes down to it, it is not a basic need. It’s not health, it’s not primary industry, it’s not caring for the underprivileged or the elderly. Yes art is important for the human spirit, man cannot live on the contents of baker’s delight alone. But come on.

Yes musicians, actors etc do it tough, especially when they’re starting out, but it’s a trade off. They don’t pick the nine to five that most of us do, where rewards other than a paycheck are hard to come by, let alone award ceremonies and the potential of widespread gushing admiration for bestowing their genius on the masses and getting to truly do what they LOVE.

It’s a hard industry, but it’s also a privileged industry, and I think that needs to be remembered. There’s a reason they don’t write songs called “there’s no business like janitorial business”. Because when BAD art continually gets made and thrust apon us all, tricking us into handing over portions of our paychecks with the deceptive promise of a cleverly crafted trailer, I tell you the red mist just starts rising and my empathy levels start dropping rapidly.

It’s the boy who cried wolf, and I’m sick of hearing the constant whine.

marce says:

10:27pm | 18/06/09

Actually, downloading pirated movies is not ‘stealing’ or ‘theft’ in law, despite the campaign (logically) to equate it with something we have been taught since childhood is wrong.

One of the first legal elements of the offence of theft (actually, it’s THE first one) is that to prove ‘theft’, the property ‘stolen’ has to be tangible and movable.

There are provisions against piracy (rightly, in the cases of profiting from it), but saying ‘downloading piracy is theft and theft is against the law’ is misleading.

DanO says:

11:45pm | 18/06/09

I used to torrent, but I’ve changed my tune.  I now listen to new albums through a streaming service (like Napster) which only costs me $5 a month, and then decide what I want to buy from what I’ve been listening to.

This solves the issue your commenter “A” was having with buying dud albums.

SA says:

07:55am | 19/06/09

You can run Bit Torrent at work? Your IT department is sleeping on the job.

Damo says:

09:41am | 19/06/09

So you did pirate music on cassette and you feel you can justify it, just like people who illegally download music. Your justifications don’t make it legal and there’s no reason to suggest that your pirating of music on cassettes had less affect on an artists income than file downloads.

I’ve worked in the music industry most of my working life. Don’t take it personally. If you had a friend that worked at a car plant, would you take car theft personally?

Sam says:

11:12am | 19/06/09

Regardless of the legality of it, I just don’t get how people can download an album, that you would usually pay for, whithout remorse. 

Your getting a product that you would normally have to pay for, for nothing…..

You wouldn’t walk into JB HiFi and just take a bunch of CDs, so what’s the difference to getting it off the net?

I mean yeah, sometimes you can buy a dud CD and you end up hating it, but thats what CD reviews are for.  Research CDs before purchase and you shouldn’t end up with a dud….

Damo says:

11:52am | 19/06/09

I made this comment much earlier but plenty of people do steal CDs.

We all get charges passed on for the insurance premiums retails outlets pay because of huge amounts of theft. There’s a significant percentage of the community that do steal.

But as someone else says, it’s not theft, it’s a different crime.

Chris Deal says:

11:54am | 19/06/09

Hey everyone - this just in:

“A US jury has ordered a 32-year-old woman to pay $US1.92 million ($A2.4 million) in damages for illegally downloading 24 songs in a high-profile digital piracy case.”
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/music-pirate-fined-24m-20090619-cn4u.html

Holy moley. This completely makes me reconsider my argument that no high profile court case could make me reconsider my feelings towards illegal download indulgence. For the next, oh, few hours.

Lachlan says:

12:42pm | 19/06/09

What about this then, since the Mr Mackey approach clearly doesn’t work (“Downloading music is bad, m’kay”?)

So instead of the music industry trying to stop people downloading the album and ending up with exactly the same products as those that could’ve been paid for, why not offer some sort of real world bonus?

Like, buying a record gives the buyer credit to get first dibs on concert tickets when that band tours. Or for any band touring, tickets will only be offered to people who have amassed credit from buying records. Or you get discounts on the best seats, discounts on any seats. Or the equivalent of a frequent flyers program: you buy enough CDs, you get concert tickets free.

That’s what the music industry needs to be tapping into. Getting music back to being about experience. This is the place where zeros and ones are no substitute.

AS says:

01:28pm | 19/06/09

Interesting that no one in the comments has mentioned the role of ISPs here.  For years Australian ISPs have charged ridiculous fees (I’m looking at you Telstra) for the most basis internet connections, and ludicrous fees for anything with a decent download limit.  And whilst some households might legitimately have use of a 20 or 30GB limit per month, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what most households would be using this for (at least until the recent advent of movie rentals over the net).  The ISPs have been enjoying a free run similar to that Apple enjoyed with iTunes - charge the consumer big bucks up front for the delivery service (internet to their house, a shiny new iPod) and let them subsidise the cost by obtaining “free” content from other providers.  I was amazed when the iPod came out that it was allowed to exist - Apple essentially leveraged the content of the entire music industry (at a zero cost to Apple) to benefit its own product.  ISPs are now doing the same, with even less R&D costs.  If illegal downloads suddenly became physically impossible to obtain, what would be the drop-off for high limit broadband services?  I’m not surprised that ISPs will continue to fight any suggestion they should be gatekeepers in this debate.

Damo says:

01:51pm | 19/06/09

AS, your argument makes no sense. It sounds like you’re saying everything on an iPod was illegally downloaded? I remember ripping hundreds of CDs in iTunes to make MP3s. All mine. All legally purchased.

Ninn says:

01:53pm | 19/06/09

Im confused why all these Indie artists think that people are downloading their music and that its making them poor, You can’t find good indie non mainstream music torrents, Sorry you cant.  You can find Journey’s back catalogue or the latest Flo Rida album or even someones idea of the best 1000 guitar solos but god help you if you look for a reliable seeder for something non mainstream.
.
Ive given up looking for reliable sources of decent music on the internet.

Indie artists aren’t struggling because 5 people may have found a decent seeder on mini nova, if anything they are struggling because 1000 people haven’t.

Word of mouth works for Indie bands, that way when they do decide to tour their on the back of their new album people actually turn up and pay the 25 bucks at the door (which will generally include the new album anyway).

I wouldn’t buy an unknown quantity, therefore if your not being played on radio (which most indie bands aren’t) or your not playing gigs (which all indie bands should be doing, at least locally) how else are people to know what you sound like? Music reviews only go so far. 

As for indie Labels, Im a co founder of a very small one (only three releases so far) , we do it because we love the music we help release and we front money because its not gonna get made any other way,and guess what, we make a loss. If you started fronting cash to pay for indie music because you love that music and were expecting a return in positive figures you must be deluded, if it could make money some suit would have already put it out..

iansand says:

02:06pm | 19/06/09

It’s not theft it’s a different crime is a justification for something?  If you think so, although I doubt there will be a similar distinction for the penalty.

Gardner Bob says:

02:10pm | 19/06/09

The money didn’t go away and yes everyone is still paying for music ... its just now on your (or your coys) monthly ISP bill !

The money is just in the wrong bucket now !

The ISP will always say they are just the postman, but they are a tollway, and as such are responsible for illegal activities. Could you imagine the screams from Today Tonight if the M2 was aware of illegal activities and did nothing (or maybe even assisted with it).

For all those downloaders, I hope whatever industry you are involved in becomes suddenly free. That should put some perspective into your free music is fine argument.

Dom says:

02:35pm | 19/06/09

Its a bit hard to feel sorry for for singers that have more money than they know what to do with and then they cry poverty when people download songs for free when they probably wouldn’t have purchased then in the first place. When I see them living normal lifestyle not driving luxury cars, constant parties and flash mansions then I’ll sit up and take notice.

Lee Tran Lam says:

03:05pm | 19/06/09

You missed my point - I didn’t say copying cassettes was cool, I was saying I did it in high school and then I went and bought the CDs after because an album on cassette is pretty crap!! The last song gets cut off and eventually it sounded pretty lame after 1000 listens, etc etc.
Anyway, I brought it up to say you can’t compare sharing some dodgy cassette-recorded albums with a few friends in high school to someone who puts some album online that thousands or more people can illegally download. The scale is so different. And copying cassettes in the 80s/90s has had not had anywhere near the effect that illegal downloading has had on the music industry now.

Bands used to be able to make all their money from touring (while record companies recouped their costs through album sales) but now bands - even indie bands - are being made to do 360 deals where record companies get a cut of everything: endorsement deals, touring, merch, because illegal downloading has significantly eaten into the album sales revenue that record companies used to be able to rely on. So bands actually have to work a lot harder to earn the kind of money they could have relied on from touring before. It’s really shaken up the industry in a way that cassette-recording never did.
Small record labels, like Elefant Traks, have talked about how they have been really affected by illegal downloads and the resultant drop in album sales.

Sure, your indie label might be happy to front up a loss to put out a record but when the reality is that everyone’s losing money to put out music, is that really going to lead to better music getting out there? If anything, that’s going to deter a lot of labels from starting out.

I really don’t get why musicians should be forced to give out music for free because people can’t be arsed paying for it. Well, the answer is because it’s easy, but is that really a great defence?

Lee Tran Lam says:

03:08pm | 19/06/09

90 per cent of musicians do not make any kind of living like the one you describe. Only 10 per cent of artists recoup back their costs and they actually subsidise the other 90 percent on a label (in the case of a major record label).
Every week, I get 20 demos from bands who have mostly self-financed their recording. They are not in any way living the lavish lifestyle you describe.

Robert Holtom says:

03:40pm | 19/06/09

These days, the average music consumer is distanced from the end band, they’re mass marketed around the world, so with that the piracy of music doesn’t have much moral impact.

For alot of bands these days they see very little profit from the sales of records as record labels generally don’t give much if any royalties until the album is paid off, some bands never actually do pay that off just with record sales, so the idea of an album for a band is more a marketing tool, something that is released so people will want to see them live and buy their merchandise.

This is where most bands generally make their money, by touring, the fan goes and sees the band, and becomes more connected, so they’re more inclined to want to support that band and will most likely be more inclined to fork over hard earned cash for that album or merchandise.

I used to see alot of local bands while at uni, they were by no means the best acts in the world, but you saw them, had a few beers maybe even chat to them after the gig. You would feel connected and want to buy their album and their merchandise to support them.

This is why piracy is becoming more common, bands are a brand to be sold, people are distanced from the band and feel no connection with them.

As for pirating movies, people maybe more inclined to pay their $16 ticket at a cinema for the big budget action flick with the full cinema experience, big screen, loud speakers etc. Where as a drama or something slower, you don’t need that big screen or loud speakers to get the full experience.

Most people hear “Actor X” was paid however many millions of dollars to play the role in a movie, we think “pfft, what difference will my ticket sale make in the grand scheme of things?”

Maybe the whole issue is the two industries don’t understand their audience and take them for granted without trying to get in touch with them?

Daryl Roe says:

04:05pm | 19/06/09

Its not worthwhile downloading most modern music, but to obtain rare albums, otherwise unobtainable, what is wrong with file sharing?  Maybe like we do with everything else in Australia that displeases certain factions within our society, we should ban this too!!!  Lets hand it to Stephen Conroy, our moral arbiter!

ninn says:

04:21pm | 19/06/09

To Lee,
I guess you missed my first point, which is that it ISNT easy to download indie music, because there are very few reliable seeds for small acts in the first place.

I also do not subscribe to the concept that downloads and possible purchases would have anything like a 1 to 1 ratio. 

I dont think muso’s should work for nothing, but I do think acts trying to make a go of it at this time are aware that downloading exists and that it can be used as a medium for promotion rather than just railing against the injustice of it all.

In the end it is in the best interests of new /indie acts to get as much play as possible, if a million people download your album chances are your going to make some money from somewhere whether its tickets, albums, shirts, endorsements/advertising, or soundtracks or hell even patronage (i think a website with a donate button is something all bands should have).

John Foster says:

04:32pm | 19/06/09

In reference to today’s Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, I think stratospherically enormous fines like these are not only detrimental to the industrie’s image, but also a complete waste of time.

One woman getting a $2.4million dollar fine is like winning the anti-lottery. The chances of that happening to you or I is so slim that though the figure might instigate a large ripple of fear, it soon subsides to ZERO when people contemplate the outlandish odds of receiving such a punishment.

If policing is to be enforced to instigate change, surely the “authorities” need to hand out smaller fines and more often. If I knew that a multitude of people in my own country/city were receiving $1000, $2000 fines on a regular basis, I as an illegal downloader would really start thinking twice about my behaviour.

One person half a world away gets taken to the cleaners? That’s just another interesting headline in a sea of news.

John says:

06:09pm | 19/06/09

Bank managers wouldn’t steal a car but they can legally rob us.Politicians wouldn’t steal a car but they wouldn’t tell the truth if they did. Car yards steal cars and rob you.ALL music moguls, not the singers or writers, have been robbing us and the singers and writers for years so we get one back for a change but i get to go to the concerts now.which are getting a bit pricey

AS says:

08:05pm | 19/06/09

Damo, you ripping your CDs to make the MP3’s for your iPod was almost certainly illegal at the time, just not enforced.  For much of the iPod’s life the ripping of CDs you own was prohibited under the Copyright Act (no applicable fair use exemption, shortly followed by a prohibition on anti-circumvention in the Digital Agenda addendum Act).  Same situation in the States (where iPods first took off) under their DCMA legislation.  So I think my argument makes perfect sense.  Even if you forget about tracks ripped from CDs you own, I’ll bet most iPods have at least some, if not a lot, of tracks ripped from “friends and relatives” CDs, which is just the same as bit-torrenting the material (you do not own it), just faster.  And then there’s the material that actually does come from bittorent.  And all Apple had to do was put a “Don’t Steal Music” sticker with each iPod sold.  Bargain.

Andy B says:

03:31am | 20/06/09

One woman getting a $2.4million dollar fine, like shes gunna have the money to pay that kind of fine. just declare her self bankrupt or refuse to pay go to jail for a “few” years no more fine u know what i say? F**K em keep making crap with a price tag of £30 - £50. what do they think is going to happen? yea iv downloaded and probley will do again not saying its right. But would u buy a car befor test driving it? would u go buy a house befor seeing what the area was like and who lives next door? come on get a grip this $2.4 million fine isnt going to stop anybody

M says:

01:50pm | 24/07/09

good discussion, there are valid points on both sides of the argument.

here’s my 15c (apologies for the wall of text):

Occasionally, downloading is the only viable way to see or hear something! I still prefer to have the CD or DVD itself, but sometimes availability is next to nil.

for instance, a few years ago I saw Takeshi Kitano’s film “Zatoichi” at a film festival. I then bought the DVD, brand new, from Borders. Since I loved the soundtrack, i started to look for it on shelves. except, over the last 5 years, i have NEVER ONCE seen it for sale. I’ve even been overseas, and looked for it at every record store I entered.

I downloaded the OST so that in the interim I could at least listen to it. I have already supported the film itself by:

A: paying for an overpriced movie ticket, and
B: paying for an overpriced DVD.
C: telling people it’s good (IRL, and on my former Blog) and deserves a rental! (Viral marketing works)
- by that token i’m even advertising it right here, right now.

Eventually, when i’m flush, I will bite the bullet and import it, but getting it from overseas will double the price. what’s a fella to do? it’s a recession!! I would much prefer to find a copy without all the extra charges attached to it. which leads to my next point - in order to buy this CD i pay (directly or indirectly):

1 - a retailer, such as amazon
2 - a courier/postal service, in order to actually receive it
3 - because it is a movie tie in, i imagine a portion goes to the movie studio
4 - a portion goes to the record label
5 - DVD/CD replication plant
6 - the studio’s marketing company/department
....
100 - by the time everyone’s had their finger in the pie, the musician/composer in question eventually gets maybe ~10c of my initial ~$50 (import) investment (that’s a guess, i don’t know the average ratio, i just know it’s low). that is, depending on the arrangement he has with his studio.

one possibility is, he may have been paid a one-off fee and forfeited his chance for royalties. in which case, the artist gets nothing whatsoever from my investment. (as in the case of artists such as 2pac who sold their rights to a company that subsequently made millions off them)

as far as the artist is concerned, they may be better off if i took $30 out of my account, set $20 on fire, and sent them the remaining $10 directly.

i tell you what, i will ONLY download as a temporary measure. I don’t value or listen to downloaded mp3 nearly as much as legit. they mess up my naming scheme, are often incorrectly labelled, and of inferior sound quality. if i wasn’t downloading anything, they stand the same chance of getting my $$, because anything i would download but not eventually buy, i wouldn’t have bought in the first place. of course i probably wouldn’t download it if i didn’t think it was something i liked enough to buy.

I want to support artists that value their fans. Artists such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who have released entire albums for free. or bands that allow fans to tape their shows. I own a legitimate copy of every Radiohead album, and a good deal of their singles/EPs too. I go to concerts, and often buy a t-shirt or poster when i’m there. I do order CDs online if i can get them straight from an ethical label.

I also want to support labels such as Tzadik, Ipecac, Factory, or the new and exciting Polyphonic, that value their artists. Artists on these labels get (or got) a fair cut of their sales, instead of the profits going towards some fatcat’s coke habit or new Bentley. They often get to own the IP rights to their own recordings, and don’t get as much “creative interference” from their label.

who’s really ripping these artists off? the 13 year old kid that doesn’t have any money of their own, or the record company who spends extravagant sums marketing the acts they decide to push into the big time, only to take most of the profits?

and in response to “no good places for indie torrents”, here’s a couple of places to get legitimate torrents and downloads from not only indie but studio artists:

http://www.archive.org/index.php
http://bt.etree.org/

there is nothing on these sites that will land you in trouble. archive.org also has a huge selection of public domain films. surprisingly they’re not all silent films from the early 1900’s (though there are definitely a lot of those)

nathan says:

03:06pm | 24/07/09

if i take a photo of the mona lisa, print it out, and hang it at home, have i stolen the mona lisa? of course not. it’s not like i was ever going to buy myself the mona lisa, but if someone else really wants to, it’s still on the wall. or shelf, if said mona lisa was actually a cd of which i downloaded a copy.

regardless of your own opinion of online piracy, it is nigh on unstoppable. it’s up to the music industry to find a new way to monetise the product, or face becoming redundant. it’s easy enough for a band/musician to record themselves, promote themselves and tour for themselves. if i could have 150,000 illegal downloads or 15,000 cd purchases, i know what i’d choose. the money will be made when you convince the 150,000 downloaders you offer something worth paying for.

and with fear of this post growing into a novella, final point - 50 cent earns more in royalties from reebok (per pair) than metallica does per disc. and at $3 a disc, they are well ahead of most bands, and explains their issues with napster, back in the day….

James says:

10:11pm | 23/01/10

lol, nothing twigged, the not downloading a car thing has been an internet meme for a long time

http://3.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpcvvy3eqK1qz4a62o1_500.jpg

Les says:

01:34pm | 26/08/10

This may sound over-simplistic but hear me out. Digital music downloaded has not substance to it physically, so it gives the impression that nothing was taken therefore no-one get’s hurt. I say give CDs the flick, release albums on vinyl with codes to download the MP3s for you portable device (suitable licensed) and Bob’s your uncle (or bedroom device or home phone/internet). The effort needed to pirate a record would deter all but the hardiest thief, the artwork gained would inspire artists again, and the sound knocks the socks off a poorly encoded lossy MP3 format.
I thank you

Richard says:

01:20am | 27/08/10

As someone mentioned earlier, stealing a car or a CD is wrong because it costs something to make it so people are actually losing money because of you. Copying a file is free. If we could copy cars the same way it would be ridiculous to not offer everybody a free car, wouldn’t it? Or are we actually such capitalists that if it were possible to offer everyone free homes, cars, and food at no cost to ourselves we wouldn’t do it? Now where are your morals?
What about the poor people who actually can’t afford a new DVD or CD? They are not in any position to pay for music, they can just about afford an internet connection for their children’s homework out of their benefits money. They don’t own a car, their house belongs to the local council, their food is all from the store’s budget range, they buy new clothes on an annual basis and they constantly worry about bills. These people exist and they cannot afford £15 for some music or a film.
I agree, if I film is good, I will pay for it, I own 400 + DVDs but I will happily download a film too to see if it is any good or even (choke) if the film is not available in the shops on DVD as many of the rare classic films I hope to watch aren’t.
What really ticks me off is when they show anti piracy adverts in the cinema before a film. WTF??? I have paid to see this film now leave me alone!!! Advertise on the piratebay if t makes you feel better! If I want to go home and download the movie when I get home after loving it so much, so what? You aren’t going to release the DVD for another 4 months!!! Where is the legal version that lets me watch it at home now? If it’s really that wonderful I’ll have a DVD when it finally becomes available.
Now.. as for the argument musicians shouldn’t be on tour all the time.. why not? Most people only have two weeks off a year, what makes them so special? It’s hardly work anyway; turn up, do what you love then go home.

Jo says:

06:40am | 16/12/11

Downloading content is perfectly legal in my country. What i find ethical illegal is stealing my time when I have spend the buck and am confronted with this You would’nt crap which I probably woulnd’t see if I actually downloaded it. It is addressed at the wrong fucking public. Dvd production firms WILL go out of business when they this sort of crap at the upright buying citizen. Please go out of a job all of you and start a download platform and live of porn sidebanners.