The 10 "Inconvienient Truths" of File Sharing

54mc writes "The IFPI, an international recording industry organization, has released a list of Ten "Inconvenient Truths" of file sharing. Though the group has a vested interest, it's still an interesting read as it tears apart some of the most common arguments in favor of file sharing. Ars Technica follows up with a more thorough explanation of some of the points. 'Point five is an attempt to turn the "innovation" argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away. And then there's point seven, which isn't an "inconvenient truth" at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An "anti-copyright movement" does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright--and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.).'"

Comments

Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Lockejaw]

For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away.

What did it take to make them start producing "manufactured celebrities"? As far as I can tell, they were the norm before file sharing became widespread, so it must be something other than file sharing that induces this manufacturing.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[nuzak]

> What did it take to make them start producing "manufactured celebrities"?

The fact that they were wildly successful doing so. In fact, it's not entirely new and represents something of a return to the patronage system of protegees. The best at their art were not necessarily the most famous then either.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Zanth_]

One such group or perhaps a few do come out of the woodwork and it is part of their "act." They become popular, because they are "cute" and can sing and can dance. The labels observe the popularity and decide that the market can tolerate 100 of these bands. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

It is the same with any popular act. Instead of trying to discover some fresh artists they go with the "safe bet" and mass produce the over-produced clones in order to pad their wallets. As a business strategy is may seem sound. Some may argue that it even works. The problem is that because they are not going out and really cultivating new and different acts and are using other methods to exclude such music on our airwaves (payola, Clear Channel monopoly etc) we don't get to know if other acts would be as profitable for them or even more so. So their safe bet may be slitting their throat and many observing the trend in declining music sales points to this.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[svendsen]

Another theory is the purchasing power of teenage gets is greater then adults. This can be for many reasons (less bills, higher allowance, whatever) but overall teenagers have tons of disposable cash on hand. Also teenagers are a billion times more likely to follow fads to be cool then adults. So if band A is hot, doesn't matter if they don't like band A because they better pretend to be cool.

And being the free market the point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight. Sometimes being the minority in market (aka your taste vs the rest of the population) leaves you only the selection of fried burgers when you really want a great steak. It sucks.

But unless every adult in the world is going to start blowing all their money on stuff the teenage demographic will reign supreme!

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[morgan_greywolf]

Precisely. It's all logical fallacy: appeal to sympathy, appeal to authority, complex cause, begging the question, etc. The whole terrorist thing is hasty generalization.

The IFPI is essentially just trying to mindfuck people into believing that nothing needs to change in the music industry and everything needs to change with P2P file sharing. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle -- the music industry needs to learn a better model for making money and P2P file sharing networks need to develop methods of revenue generation that repays artists and producers, while at the same time allowing relatively free exchange of music for casual sharers.

If someone can come up with that solution, they will not only make everyone happy, but they will likely make themselves rich in the process.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[websitebroke]

Well, a lot of teenagers actually have jobs, and the money is theirs to spend as they see fit. Sure, they're wasting it on crappy music, but it's their hard-earned cash that they're spending.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Zanth_]

Did you have a job when you were a teenager? I did, and so do many many teenagers. If they work for their money should they not be permitted to spend it on what they want? Perhaps with some gentle parental guidance they may want to save some or a good bit of it, but spending money on things like CDs (and comics as I did) was good part of the reason I did work as a teen. I worked to buy myself stuff so I would not be a burden on my parents and moreover because I knew they would never give me enough money for all the things I did want.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[gerrysteele]

I think the prevalent present argument is for the sake of "safety".

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Grax]

The ifpi news release is labeled "Music piracy - ten inconvenient truths"
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531. html

Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.

That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.

Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?

AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.

Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson

Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"

Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat
Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.

ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?

The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it.
However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.

Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.

Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.

P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[sYkSh0n3]

Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

Now, IANACrimelord, but how do you launder money by illegally selling counterfeits? Doesn't laundering money usually involve a business that at least appears legitimate?

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[sheepweevil]

Perhaps one reason behind the decline in music sales is due to easy ways on the internet to find niche artists. Some years ago, I liked the stereotypical, popular bands, but after discovering new material through sites such as Pandora and last.fm (and perhaps from becoming more mature) I now like much more niche bands. I suspect that this happening on a large scale is the reason that the 'safe bet' strategy is not working for the music industry any more.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[X-rated Ouroboros]

"The point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight."
And the point of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What did it take to make them start producing "manufactured celebrities"? As far as I can tell, they were the norm before file sharing became widespread, so it must be something other than file sharing that induces this manufacturing.

In fact, near as I can tell manufactured celebrities were the norm *before* computer networks existed outside of the educational laboratories. I seem to even remember a Brady Bunch episode about the subject- from what, 1972?

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[oatworm]

Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

Also, in other news...
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use computers running Microsoft Windows to track their resources and finances.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use oxygen as part of their metabolic processes.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use explosives to blow things up.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use water to hydrate themselves.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use coffee and other stimulants to stay awake in the morning.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use exercise equipment to stay in shape.

If you don't want to be like organized criminal gangs or terrorist groups, you better stop selling counterfeit CDs, running Microsoft Windows, breathing, using explosives, drinking, caffeinating, or exercising RIGHT NOW!

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[shark72]

Actually, a lot of their points seem to be direct responses to many of the Slashdot/digg memes.

"Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure."

Believe it or not, this is lost on lots of people. Just a few weeks ago when an article about software piracy in India came accross Slashdot, a common retort was that the average income in India is something like $2,000 a year, and thus they simply can't afford that software. As you've no doubt figured out, the average income includes the millions of dirt farmers who have no computer, let alone running water, and the pirated software is being used by that segment of the Indian population that can afford mobile phones, computers, designer clothes, et al. just fine. Yet it's a good enough statistic for us to justify piracy.

"If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed."

This is another direct salvo against the rationale that you hear all the time around here: "the real reason that music sales are off is because today's music sucks!". Yet the list of top pirated songs matches up with the top ten tracks sold. 90% of popular music sucks in any given year; this is something that people learn as they get older; thus the common perception that it's only today's popular music that's awful; nostalgia helps us forget that the top music in, say, 1993 was pretty crappy, too. The music-listening public has just as much appreciation for today's sucky pop music as we always have; we're simply pirating it a lot more than we used to.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Rei]

Indeed, it's through file sharing, mostly years ago, that I've found all of the obscure bands that I like -- through the typical "I download your hard drive, you download mine" type of exchange, not your typical "I get on a P2P network, I search for keywords" type of exchange. How else would I have found E-Lab, MC Frontalot, Doria Roberts, Ellis, Robb Johnson, Chris Burke, Cat Power, Crampo, Braces Tower, DSICO, Loo and Placido, Soulwax, Pedro the Lion, Slint, Papa M, Scala and the Kolacny Brothers, Sky Davis, Son Ambulance, TEXT, Mediaeval Baebes, A Luaka Bop, Fermin Muguruza, Shotei Hanevuah, Chara, Globe, Olivia, Pizzicato 5, and Brave Combo to name a few artists I've been listening to recently? Even some bigger bands, like TV on the Radio, The Arcade Fire, The Anniversary, and Sigur Ros, for example, I probably would never have found without such exchanges. And yes, such exchanges have prompted me to buy CDs before.

Much of it is music that I never would have expected to even be out there. A 7th grade girls choir singing Rammstein, Radiohead and The Divinyls (Scala)? An experimental post-punk band reciting long treatices about the history of torture to music that frightens my parrot (TEXT)? And songs just as creepy assembled largely out of 1991 Gulf War news clips (Chris Burke)? A polka group whose biggest hit is "In Heaven, There Is No Beer" (Brave Combo)? I mean, it goes on and on.

I'd argue that point #5 is mostly correct for many P2P networks (Gnutella, etc), but not for all forms of file sharing.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Captain Splendid]

This dates back to at least the 50's, and is probably an outgrowth of our nation's racist past. Popular black music was re-recorded by a white artist.

Hey, man, don't harsh the mellow! Otherwise, talentless shlubs like Pat Boone would have had to resort to giving handjobs at truck stops to get by.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[LordVader717]

Try to think out of the box. Just cause you got by without a cellphone when you were 8 (it wouldn't have been an option for you anyway) doesn't mean that kids change along with technology. "What does the man on the street need a cellphone for?" might have been a question asked 20 years ago when brokers used them.

Communication is of increasing importance to newer generations, and if you refuse to accept it you'll just become an old fogey.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Planesdragon]

what does an 8 year old need a cell phone for?

To call mommy or daddy without talking to a stranger.

To call 9-1-1 when they are in danger.

For mommy or daddy to call them when they are lost in the mall.

Any child old enough to use a telephone is old enough to use a cell phone. And any parent with the means to provide their child a cell phone should. And those cell phones should be locked down to reference only a few numbers.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Grishnakh]

I said the same thing in a sibling post. I think the locked-down phones, which only allow the kids to call their parents or 911, are a good thing for parents to provide their kids. There's lots of times growing up when that would have come in handy.

But giving them a deluxe full-featured phone so they can play games, surf the net, and text msg all their friends (all of which add hefty fees to your monthly bill)? Forget it.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[ResidntGeek]

Everyone who doesn't die young becomes an old fogey. Doesn't matter anyway, because old fogeys are perfectly capable of being right in their opinions of social trends. Communication was important to older generations too - that's why the FSM gave us mouths and legs.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Robber Baron]

Ummm...excuse me but, what in the fuck are 8 year olds doing wandering about in the malls and other places without a parent/guardian in the first place?

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[macshit]

what in the fuck are 8 year olds doing wandering about in the malls and other places without a parent/guardian in the first place?

Huh? Kids have always wandered around on their own in "familiar territory", past the age of 6 or so (it's a bit depressing to think of a mall as familiar territory, but it's certainly true these days for a large portion of the population). Has American society become so insanely dysfunctional that this isn't possible anymore?!?

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[glittalogik]

Yeah, but 15-year-old boys do. Trickle-down economy in action =)

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[misanthrope101]

Ummm...excuse me but, what in the fuck are 8 year olds doing wandering about in the malls and other places without a parent/guardian in the first place?

I sent him to get beer and cigarettes. And the little bastard better bring my change back. What the hell is your problem?

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[gsslay]

If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?

Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.

And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson

Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?

According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels.

There's a difference between caring and preferring. The point is that while p2pers may prefer mainstream acts on large labels, they don't care if they're not. This is to address the usual argument that p2pers are some kind of principled copyright Robin Hoods, striking out in the name of freedom against the man. They're just freeloaders. They don't care where the music comes from, they just won't pay for it.

If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.

You're missing the point (deliberately, I think). What's being addressed here is again a usual argument that p2p file sharing is good because it lets people discover exotic new music they wouldn't otherwise hear. Everyone is supposed to agree that this is a good thing. (We'll side step the argument about whether that makes it ok to take it without payment for the moment.) But the point being made is that this is not evident when you examine the music being shared. The vast majority of it are mainstream acts that can be heard anywhere and most filesharing is not about discovering new acts at all.

Naturally, everyone can produce anecdotal cases of discovering new acts. But do they outweigh all the other file sharing? I doubt it.

Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason?

[Grax]

Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?

The idea that if you purchase counterfeit CDs that the money may go to fund someone's murder or some other crime doesn't hold up because the same thing can be said of legitimate music purchases. We hear all the time of famous stars committing all kinds of crimes, including murders.

inconvenient truth #1

[brunascle]

it is entirely possible that my actions are unfairly hurting the recording and/or motion picture industry. and i couldnt care less.

Re:inconvenient truth #1

[ScentCone]

I'm definitely not paying to listen to 18 year old American Idol choir boy's templated 'debut' album.

But... you ARE going to pirate it? Do you even LISTEN to yourself?

Re:inconvenient truth #1

[jstretch78]

Do you even LISTEN to yourself? Not without downloading through Limewire first.

Downloading.

[rustalot42684]

If I had a way to buy music online with no DRM and no credit card (I don't have one), on any platform (i.e. Linux), I would. But I don't. That said, I personally don't download illegally much anyways, because it eats up my connection. So I end up going to Best Buy, and buying CDs.

Re:Downloading.

[Grishnakh]

So I end up going to Best Buy, and buying CDs.

Great, so you're passing on supporting one form of evil (overpriced DRMed downloadable music) and supporting another evil (Best Buy) instead.

Stop supporting evil and buy music from someplace non-evil, like your local used CD store (or an online one like secondspin.com).

Re:Downloading.

[Jason Levine]

I buy my music online from Amie Street. They give me my music with no DRM and it should work on any platform. (Their website works in FireFox, so I don't see why FF-on-Linux shouldn't work and the songs themselves are plain MP3 format.) The no credit card thing would be an issue almost anywhere you shop online though. And no, Amie Street isn't "big name celebrity singers" (except for Barenaked Ladies), but they have a bunch of smaller groups who have great sounds. Personally, I'd recommend Beats Working, Filthy Teddy, Foregone, and Seth Kallen & The Reaction. Your musical tastes may vary, of course, but there's a huge number of songs to choose from. (No, I don't work for Amie Street in any way, shape, or form. I just really like their service.)

Re:Downloading.

[Klaus_1250]

I recently downloaded a movie and it took me a only a few hours. I don't feel an inch of guilt about it, since I ordered the DVD two months (!)ago and am still waiting. The only reason I haven't canceled my order is because I'm really curious to see how long it will take and I would feel guilty towards the director/writer/actors/crew etc.

Re:Downloading.

[brokenhorse]

OMG. Buy an iTunes gift card from just about any brick and mortar store and purchase DRM free songs from iTunes.

Great post..

[Mockylock]

It would actually be nice to see actual numbers of sales and correlation between Newer and unknown bands becoming popular due to file sharing. The people actually cursing copyright infringements are usually those who are already millionaires. The rest know they had become famous because of it, and they can rely on concert sales (the real skill) for income.

I'm not for ALL filesharing for music, but rather using it for recognition and buying albums to support their cause.

Word fogging

[Kpau]

first issue is that "file sharing" is not automatically the illegal sharing of copyright violated files. More credibility may be had if one uses "copyright violation" or "illegal file sharing" ... as I sit here torrenting a blizzard game patch and torrenting some linux packages I note that driving a car does not equal "hit and run". But then murk and word-fogging seem to be standard ops for people who equate copyright violation (civil) with piracy (mayhem, murder, etc).

Re:The whole list

[$RANDOMLUSER]

11. Bands don't make real money from record sales, record companies make real money from record sales. Bands make real money from touring.

Quick responses...

[pla]

1) PirateBay has ads. So what? So does Slashdot.
2) Previous Russian law allowed AllOfMP3. It no longer does. So?
3) Copying a CD from my friend doesn't (yet) count as terrorism, guys.
4) Very few people care about the label behind their music, pirated or not.
5) So the labels can't afford small artists - Good thing they don't actually need labels anymore!
6) That would break the law. File suit, if you actually believe such BS.
7) Boo-hoo, I don't generate tax revenue. Hear the violins?
8) "Bought Pirate Products" - Change the subject, much?
9) The law already disallows piracy. Most people just don't care.
10) I've discovered over half of the artists currently on my playlist via questionably-legal means.

Point 11

[rlp]

They left one out:

11) So all that justifies:
    a) A legal vendetta against a disabled single mom, children, dead people, etc.
    b) Treating out customers like criminals
    c) Trying to extort money from and/or destroy any channel the industry does not
          control (like Internet radio).
    d) Bribing lawmakers to extend copyrights ad infinitum.
    e) Attempting to eliminate the legal concept of 'fair use'.

Re:Point 11

[Alioth]

public void Ballmer(Developers developers) throws Chair

No! It's

public LegalThreats Ballmer(Developers developers) throws Chair

Only ten?

[Anonymous Coward]

... the list was actually 20 long, but they condensed. Here's the rest:

11. Illegal filesharing puts puppies in blenders.
12. Illegal filesharing makes the baby jeebus cry.
13. Illegal filesharing leads to people removing the tags from their mattres.
14. Illegal filesharing causes male-pattern baldness.
15. Illegal fileshreing can make you teh ghay.
16. Illegal filesharing can make you teh straight.
17. Illegal filesharing killed Chuck Norris.
18. Illegal filesahring fills the tubes.
19. Illegal filesharing caused Pangea to split.
20. Illegal filesharing makes international trade groups release incredibly stupid 'top ten' bullshit like this, only cementing people's desire to fileshare further.

Seriously. Fuck these people and their little top ten list ...

Re:Only ten?

[aicrules]

Seriously. Fuck these people
It took some time and some creative googlemapping, but DONE!

and their little top ten list ...
I'm still trying to find the right hole to do the same to this one though...

Re:Only ten?

[MC Negro]

19. Illegal filesharing caused Pangea to split.

Pangea... hmm, never heard of them. Anyone got a torrent?

Re:Only ten?

[houghi]

Pangea... hmm, never heard of them. Anyone got a torrent?

Sure http://cache.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=929202

Wow...

[Lumpy]

that was an incredibly thin piece of propaganda if I ever read one. They did not even try to explain truths about file sharing but only regurgitated the same old lines that you hear from the undereducated executives that talk to the media.

They ignore the inconvienent truths such as....

If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.

Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere. DRM music files do not allow that so they either rip the sings or pirate them.

song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)

Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....

Re:Wow...

[ScentCone]

If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.

But, they used to buy MORE than they do now. And the form in which you usually buy it (say, on a CD) remains available. What's changed is that people are no longer willing to pay what the artists ask for their recordings because they've found an easy way to rip it off, instead. The number of people who really, actually, thoughtfully are downloading pirated copies so that they have a more flexible version of something they've actually purchased ... fractional, compared to the kids to just grab it because now they can, without having to actually pay for the entertainment they want.

Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere.

Unless, of course, you take into account the publisers that ARE starting to sell non-DRMed files for that exact reason. When you say "record companies," you say it like you're describing all of them accurately, and that you know exactly what they're all collectively going to be doing for the next 12 months. They're not a homogenous group, and they're busy working on it, and on retaining as customers the very artists that every seems to be happy to rip off.

song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)

And did you really have hundreds of thousands or millions or anonymous friends with whom you shared bit-accurate exact copies? Really?

Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....

Oh, well, then that makes it OK, I guess, to rip off the really good quality stuff from someone else, then. Yeesh.

Re:Wow...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

They ignore the inconvienent truths such as.... If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.

Nope. Suppose people have a choice between the following:

1. Downloading a piece of music for free.
2. Paying the price they'd be willing to pay for that piece of music if they couldn't download it for free.

It is a trivial and charitable extension of their argument that if people have these two choices, they'll overwhelmingly pick to download for free over paying. It also follows that to the extend that people have the free download as an option, record companies will have to price their products upwards to be compensated for their work.

You can argue that record companies are overpricing their product all you want, but as long as you don't recognize this basic economic matter, you're just being unrealistic. Even if you think they're being compensated too much, record companies still deserve to be compensated at some rate for the services they provide; so you must provide some mechanism that guarantees that they can be compensated for their services, by making it impossible for people to steal those services.

file sharing is "wrong"

[ducman]

9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them.

Copyright infringment may be illegal, but "illegal" is not the same thing as "wrong."

Re:file sharing is "wrong"

[bcharr2]

"We" live in a democracy, which means "we" elect the greedy government officials that make and enforce the laws. If "we" believe the laws to be "wrong", then it is up to "us" to elect officials who will make and enforce the laws that "we" feel are "right".

But please, let "us" not pretend that downloading illegal copies of copyrighted material represents some form of civil disobedience. It doesn't. It represents "us" once again taking the easy and apathetic route to instant personal gratification, which is incidentally the same behavior that keeps the corrupt government officials in Washington.

If you want change, then work for change. If you want to maintain the status quo, then keep downloading your music illegally, and tell yourself that you're really sticking it to the man.

Re:file sharing is "wrong"

[trytoguess]

Irrelevant, I too want to change copyright laws but simply stating well my morals say infringing is a'ok gets you nowhere, you have to consider and hopefully change the laws. For starters you probably want to change the minds of people who's morals agree with those laws.

Re:file sharing is "wrong"

[JesseMcDonald]

Our society says murder is illegal, theft is illegal, B&E are illegal, these are all societally "wrong".

"Society" doesn't have any say in whether those things are wrong either. If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion. In any event, it doesn't really matter. For all property-right violations the legitimacy of the punishment is inherent in the offence. A murderer cannot rationally argue against corporal punishment; a thief cannot rationally argue against being fined. Either the defendent must agree that the action was wrong, and thus deserves punishment, or they must claim that the action was right, and thus the punishment (being the same action) must also be right.

Subjective morality only becomes an issue when you attempt to criminalize things that are either victimless, or acceptable to those committing the "crime". Copyright violations fall in the latter category (or possibly both, depending on your point of view). Let the punishment fit the crime -- prohibit "pirates" from holding copyrights. See if they care.

When you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism

[acidrain]

Reminds me of that spoof RIAA poster when you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism.

You, sir, are an ass.

[paladinwannabe2]

If the MAFIAA provides a valuable service to you, and expects money in exchange, it seems reasonable that you should give them money. If they aren't providing a valueable service, then don't pirate their garbage. Jerks like you give the rest of us who oppose the current copyright regime a bad name.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[brunascle]

i pay when i feel it is deserved. every song on my MP3 player was legally purchased. i bought the DVD of Prestige recently, because i loved the movie. i do have plently of other downloaded movies, though, that i watched once and will probably never watch again. i'm not playing $20 for a movie i dont know is worth it yet. and i have no idea where the closest rental place is.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[Sciros]

That's the thing, though, isn't it? That the SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING isn't very valuable. It's crippled by DRM, it has even gone so far as to prevent people from creating guitar tabs by ear and sharing them. Such service might be worth *something* monetarily, but far less than consumers are being charged. It is not that they are providing garbage per se, more that the *manner* in which they are providing music/film/etc. is unsuitable for many people.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[MontyApollo]

>>i'm not playing $20 for a movie i dont know is worth it yet. and i have no idea where the closest rental place is

Netflix and Blockbuster online have all the movies you can watch for about $20 month. You only have to walk to the mailbox.

You can find trailers and movie reviews online as well to help you decide how to spend your money.

Laziness is kind of a lame excuse.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[Arterion]

I think the GP has it right. Why should I care if a parasitic industry whose owners live like kings on the hard work, ingenuity, and art or a few talented individuals loses money? If I like something, I'll buy tickets to the tour, or I'll buy some merchandise from the artist. Then the artist gets the compensation. The record companies call the shots, have all the money, and decide which artists we get to hear. They take advantage of laws they've lobbied extensively for in order to maintain their power.

I think this, like most other instances where a small caste of people benefit wildly from the work of someone else, will all come to an end through technology, and the richest individuals will find themselves living only as well as everyone else -- and for the everyone else, this will be quite an improvement.

That's what file sharing means to me. It's a non-violent way to say NO. I don't think most people who participate would present their case exactly like this, but it's the underlying theme.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I will sometimes find myself in a situation where I will purchase a legal copy of some content X on medium Y only to find that I need to use that content in a way that's inconvenient. I will then go download an "illegal" copy from t3h internets which I will then use in the way that's convenient. Not everyone downloading is "stealing" (I know, I know, it's NEVER stealing, but you get my point)... some people just want a more convenient format.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[Fozzyuw]

If the MAFIAA provides a valuable service to you, and expects money in exchange, it seems reasonable that you should give them money. If they aren't providing a valueable service, then don't pirate their garbage.

Interesting point. However, what your point lacks is quantity/quality. If it's worth money, how much is it worth? Pirating isn't being done by the masses to give the F-You to the record company and "the man" just because they are a big company, but because they do not believe the product/service they supply is not worth the value they're presenting it at.

Simply put, if pirates could buy brand a new movie on a standard DL-DVD without a box (toss it in a paper slip) for $4-$5, pirates would probably buy it oppose to copying. However, $15-$25 for a new DVD film is not worth it for most people. They probably already paid $10 to see it in the theater or can pay $2-4 to rent it and watch it as many times as they want in the week they have it.

A long time ago, I mentioned this 'dream' of mine. Big box retails (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc) getting a high quality DVD burning machine. You walk up to the counter, ask the person for the film you want, they'll punch in the movie id into their computer and the machine plops out a fresh high-quality burned DVD with sticker art. The clerk tosses the DVD into a paper slip and charges you $4. Maybe you rested a DVD case, and he charges you an extra $2 and prints out the DVD case insert, pulls a plastic DVD case off the shelf and inserts the slip art.

The consumer walks out the door with a $6 DVD, the store doesn't need to bother about inventory space, besides the machine and computer containing the DVD image catalog. Movie houses don't need to spend the time and money running DVD making machines, paying truckers and shippers to drop it off at distribution centers, etc. All they do, is download it into their customers DVD Making machine computers on release day. They can even setup a distribution network (hello bit-torrent), so they only have to upload it into the central Big Box Store system and Big Box Store can be responsible for the band-width for uploading it into all it's stores.

The cost is still more than DIYers but low enough to entice those who might pirate to just buy instead. They don't have to go out and buy a stack of DVD media. They probably get better quality DVD since they're not compressing the image, or removing audio tracks to fit onto a non DL-DVD. They also get a nice fancy art-work sticker, instead of just scrawling the name on with a sharpie marker.

The only way to fight the pirates is to offer the service at the value that it's worth. I think that, in general, people feel the cost of watching a movie isn't what it use to be in a world where entertainment is at your finger tips anywhere you go, from portable video game players, to cell phones, to the internet.

Movie theaters are not the only place one can go to 'escape' reality, anymore. Since the prices continue to climb along with entertainment competition, it's only natural to see demand drop off. It goes for saying that I often won't see a film in the theater anymore (unless it's a blockbuster or I'm a fan) and even then, I make every effort to go the the cheaper matinée. It's now 'wait until DVD' because I can rent it for $1-3. The same philosophy probably goes to those who use to buy DVD's for their collection. However odd it is, that such a crime is fairly socially acceptable.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[TheRaven64]

According to the record labels' logic, every time someone might have bought something from them, but didn't, they have lost money. According to this, they have lost £7.99 as a result of my actions while reading this article. A tune came on Radio Paradise that I liked. I checked the album, found it had a few other tracks I'd enjoyed hearing, and went to iTunes to buy it. It wasn't available on iTunes Plus, and so I didn't buy it.

They lost a sale, but not due to piracy. I didn't decide to download the music instead (I am much too lazy to deal with low quality, badly tagged, crap from a P2P system). They lost a sale because they are not providing their product in a form that I want to buy.

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

If the MAFIAA provides a valuable service to you, and expects money in exchange, it seems reasonable that you should give them money.

The mafia does provide a valuable service. They give me protection for my business. It's just that if they weren't around, I wouldn't need the protection. Oh, you were talking about the RIAA and MPAA... what's the difference?

Re:You, sir, are an ass.

[EllisDees]

>Sharing the song isn't "saying NO". Not listening to their music at all is "saying NO".

But I'm only saying no to the *paying* part. The recording industry has screwed people for years, and now it's their turn.

>The truth is that the majority of people sharing music are the ones who have heard a song on the radio or TV or wherever, and decided they want that song. But they also decided they don't want to pay for it. I want a Ferrari, but I am not willing to pay the price, so I drive a Honda instead.

The day someone invents a car duplication device, you too can have a Ferrari. And why not?

The 10 Convenient Truths About File Sharing

[VE3OGG]

1. It encourages the distribution of art. That is what music is -- art. It isn't a product that can be bought, marketed, packaged and sold (though some people would love to believe so). The band, well maybe they could be a product, but the music itself can never be.

2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.

3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.

4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?

5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.

6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.

7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).

8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.

9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.

10. ??? & Profit! (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Re:The 10 Convenient Truths About File Sharing

[bangwhistle]

1. It encourages the distribution of art. That is what music is -- art. It isn't a product that can be bought, marketed, packaged and sold (though some people would love to believe so). The band, well maybe they could be a product, but the music itself can never be.

This raises the question- how are those who produce art supposed to earn a living if they can't sell their product? I can see the arguments coming- "they don't make money from art sales, the middleman does." But again, how do they put food on the table?

3 . It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain

Well, if obscure bands want their music to reach the masses without a middleman, they should put it online. Again, to predict the argument - "bands are oppressed by record labels and can't do what they wish." The record the music in your garage and post it online.
The thing is, art and any intellectual property takes time and effort to create. Why shouldn't the creators be compensated? And the argument that the actual producer of the product doesn't see much of the money. Well, when you buy a pound of coffee or a pair of jeans the farmer or tailor doesn't see much of the money, but does that mean you should just shoplift them?
Asbestos suit on!

pro copyright

[Rotworm]

At least in the case of Lessig he's stated he is not anti-copyright, he is pro-copyright-reform.

Re:The whole list

[superskippy]

Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. Disorganized criminals just lose the pirated CDs down the back of the sofa before they get chance to sell them. You mean they are using techniques such as forethought and planning? We're doomed!

Allow me to preach to the choir

[gold23]

Copyright infringement, however terrible it may be, does not deserve to be placed on the same level as the climate change problem. These "truths" may be inconvenient to them, but they are hardly a global crisis.

See items 5 and 10 (paraphrased here): File sharing forces record companies to devote resources to big-name marketing vehicles rather than "artists" [item 5]; You won't find new music through file-sharing because it's mostly "popular music" [item 10]. It sounds to me as though they're playing into the hands of the infringers, then, by continuing to produce and promote exactly those things that are the bread and butter of their nemeses.

However, I will concede that point 3 is correct. In fact, I purchased a bootleg Britney Spears CD from a poorly-disguised gentleman calling himself Mr. "Lin-Baden" last week.

Re:The whole list

[SQLGuru]

4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.

Aren't these counter to each other?

Layne

Ten inconvenient answers

[Opportunist]

For the "questions", RTFA.

1. Besides the obvious "so?" answer, they, too, gotta pay their ISPs. Given the traffic they got, that bill could be a tad bit more than the average person can earn with honest work (for the IFPI, this is usually less than 3000 bucks a month).

2. AOMP3 has a license from the Russian equivalent. Care to tell me why globalisation is only good if it works for the company and against the customer?

3. I don't respond to arguments based on terrorism or child porn. They get old and are usually based on thin air. Like in this case. Care to show me ANY kind of proof (or at least a forged statistic) where Ozzy has been buying his AKs with money he got from selling bootlegs?

4. A quite blatant generalisation. Fact: It's often impossible to get a "honest" version of some out of print indie song. Many would buy it, if they could. Though, if you take a look through the various "old school" musicians who took their time to build up a support base, you'll see that their CDs sell quite well, often despite (or maybe because?) they refuse to use DRM or other crippling means, despite their fans being able to get the material easily through P2P means. Yet still, they buy the song because they want to show the artist their support. Check album sales for reference.
I can understand, though, that it's hard to sell some overhyped crap of a noname that you'll drop the next month.

5. Yes, and since the internet has been your bane since the New Kids on the Block (that was in ... 1990? Earlier? Don't remember, look it up), this is certainly the reason why you refuse to support new artists and instead go for castbands. Anyone who believes that might want to take up my offer of a nice bridge with a perfect view on L.A.

6. Car ads praise the maneuverability and speed of their cars, are they now liable for bank robberies and their cars being used for getaways? Phone services offer pre-paid phones where you don't have to go through the hassle of filling out forms, are they now liable for those phones being used in kidnapping calls? And don't make me start about guns.

7. The copyright world doesn't either. It outsources jobs to sweatshops and siphons money off our youth. With the difference, that they DO know how the commercial world runs. Unfortunately, though, they know little about art.

8. No, it usually is caused by people not wanting getting their computer infested with spyware or other unwanted "goodies", or that the content simply doesn't work on their system because the industry fails to conform with a standard, and so they have to resort to other means to get to use what they bought. Not buying because one is not able to afford the content is rarely if ever a reason. Maybe ignoring students.

9. Most people realized that it's near impossible to navigate the copyright laws and that they're guilty of breaking a law anyway if they don't live like a hermit. So many thought, why bother trying? More laws will only make this effect worse.

10. Actually P2P software is a tool. I use it to get (and spread) new versions of Linux. MMORPGs spread their updates through them. Others find music in it, decide that it's good and go buy the CD. And of course there are those that don't discriminate and download simply everything there is, hunting and gathering is a strong impulse in the human. Generally, though, P2P tools are simply that, a tool. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad, it depends on the person using it. Like the cars, the phones or the guns.

The REAL Inconvenient Truth

[Shadow Wrought]

Is that the only way to stop global warming is to dramatically increase the number of pirates. Were it not for these valiant File Sharing buccaneers, we'd already be hip deep in the Ocean. Who are we to deny them their religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment? The recording industry is not only areligious, but also anti-Constitution.

Re:The whole list

[UbuntuDupe]

And what's the record company's reason for working with them in the first place? Oh yeah ...

Forest? Nah, I just see a bunch of trees.

Well, I have a couple of minutes to spare...

[91degrees]

1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.

Yes. We know. We can tell because there are ads there.

2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.

This is more of an inconvenient mistruth. i.e. it's technically true but highly misleading. AllOfmp3 had the money availalbe to rights holders. The rights holders refused. "Facing criminal proceedings" is very weaselly. It doesn't mean they're guilty. Reputable copyright maintaining companies such as Microsoft and Sony have also faced criminal proceedings. MS were found guilty. Sony settled over the rootkit fiasco, I believe.

3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

This has nothing to do with file swapping. There is considerably less sympathy for commercial pirates.

4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.

And we don't care that we don't care.

5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.

No it fucking doesn't! That's a filthy lie and they know it. The finances don;t work like that. It's not about money recieved it's about return on investment expected.

6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.

Ehhmmm... They provide a network connection. Are we ghoing to charge the labels with selling CDs to pirates?

7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.

The FSF is generally considered part of the "anti-copyright movement". Free software creates a lot of jobs. 8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.

No. It's caused by a general ambivalence about the rights of considerably wealthier foreigners.

9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.

More weasel words. What does "wrong" mean in this context? Most people know it's illegal. They form their own opinions on the ethics of it. Some people evidently consider it a greater "wrong" to spend money on stuff they don't have to.

10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.

Wow. An actual truth. What went wrong there?

Tough subject, really.

[keithburgun]

A friend of mine who works in the game industry and I always talk about this issue. Sometimes I feel very sold on the whole "screw 'em" to the super mega corporations arguement, but I also feel like there are so many facets to this issue. I feel like at this time, no one fully understands it, where it is going, and what we will do about it (if anything even CAN be done). It's an exciting time to be alive, one thing is for certain, that things already have changed a lot in our lifetimes and will change dramatically still before we come out of this strange transition period.

Total PR BS.

[PriceIke]

Anything referred to as "an inconvenient truth" automatically sets my BS meter going. This list of "truths" is pure PR bullcrap.

1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric. This is the same industry who argues that listening to the radio is free, but makes millions if not billions of dollars on radio advertising. They run commercials in my market talking about how radio is and should continue to be free, and to please patronize the businesses being advertised, because YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO START CHARGING YOU NOW, WOULD YOU??

2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia. Er ... so? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. This one's really pathetic. Playing the terrorism card? That's just the bullshit cherry on the bullshit sundae. The point's been made already but it bears repeating: what does the sale of bootleg CDs have to do with file sharing on the internet? Furthermore, SOME TERRORISTS have used BANKS to launder their money. Guess we should all get rid of our savings and checking accounts, cause *gasp* we might be supporting terrorism!!! This kind of argument has no credibility because the whole "ohnoes terrorism!" argument has been overused so much that it no longer has any weight .. not even when it should be considered seriously.

4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label. Loaded language much? This list is replete with very badly biased language. Let me rephrase it: 4. People who share music digitally don't care what labels the songs they trade are. And all that is is a boo-hoo for the record industry. No, we don't particularly care about labels. We care about music. DEAL WITH IT.

5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. HAHAHA! Ohh, so THAT'S what they did with all the obscene profits they made from the illegal overpricing of CDs all those years. They invested them in REAL TALENT! OMG where do I sign up to let them gouge me some more?

6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale. Again, spin city supreme. ISP often advertise music as a benefit, and then let their users use them as they see fit. I fail to see how this is an argument against me wanting to share digital music with my friends and family. Try again.

7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little. Very few political movements create jobs, exports, tax revenues or economic growth. They exist to fight to enact change in laws or government. "Pontificating". "about which they know little". This is an ad hominem attack on people they disagree with, nothing more.

8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners. Err, real piracy is caused by criminals who attack ships at sea, pillage, rape and murder victims (or sell them on the slave market), and this is a product of pure criminal greed and amorality. What, you meant file sharing? Oh, well yes, this is correct. People do not share music because they can't AFFORD it. They do it because it is FAIR USE and, if they're doing it on p

Point 3

[Cal Paterson]

3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

Only because it is illegal. 1930's mobsters made quite a good living out of the illegality of alcohol. Career criminals will profit from whatever is currently illegal. This isn't a particulary convincing moral arguement as to whether copying is morally right or not, it simply states a negative effect of a prohibition. Any prohibition of something (be it violence, restricted substances whatever), will always have some negative effect. Counterfeit CD's might as well be heroin for all they care.

Re:The whole list

[ScentCone]

11. Bands don't make real money from record sales, record companies make real money from record sales. Bands make real money from touring.

So, if you really want to inspire some people that don't always work together (just throwing a dart, here... let's say, The Chieftains along with Van Morrison) to do something that you can enjoy, you've got to convince them to go on tour together? I'm personally very happy when people that will NEVER have their lives lined up right to tour together nevertheless put up the money and time to work together in the studio and record some interesting work. They have no means whatsoever to pay for those efforts (and all of the overhead of travel, post-production, studio personnel, etc) unless they can sell the work to the audience for whom it's intended. Much great music would never happen if those circumstances couldn't be arranged and paid for. Sales of the recording is how that happens.

And... let's not forget that this isn't just about some band. Should Pixar be out "performing" the movies that it takes hundreds of people years to make, just so they don't have to fret about someone in Russia making advertising money off of setting up pirated downloads? You're right, I'm sure. For some people, their movies might indeed seem better performed live in a bar.

Inconvenient truth #11

[Peter Simpson]

The "recording industry" is an anachronism. Bands can (and do) record, mix and publish their own music. They still need to get airplay and concert dates, though. The web (and inexpensive Asian disk manufacturers) has allowed them to bypass the traditional record companies, should they desire to do so.
Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.

2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate

[bill_mcgonigle]

P2P file sharing networks need to develop methods of revenue generation that repays artists and producers, while at the same time allowing relatively free exchange of music for casual sharers.

Two questions for the Peanut Gallery:

1) What do you think the payment compliance rate would be if it were voluntary?
2) Would you pay per play? 2 cents? 5 cents? How about if there were a cap at a dollar?

I had a framework for doing this worked out but never did any of the market research.

Re:2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate

[TheRaven64]

This is how I would like to pay for music:

Pay a fixed rate per month. I'm not sure how much this should be, but not a huge amount. Have iTunes (or whatever) record a play count of each track each month. At the end of the month, the money should be divided amongst that artists I listen to (assuming any are still alive), with a percentage determined according to the play count. If I don't upload a play count, then it should be distributed amongst the most popular artists of the month (for the privacy nuts), or according to my history (if I have one). In exchange for this, I want to be allowed to listen to any music that has been created.

This system would reward artists who create pieces which I want to listen to again and again. People who release an album that people buy, listen to once, and then decided they didn't like would get hardly any money. People who make music that finds its way into a lot of peoples default playlists would make more. I would be able to copy music that I liked to my friends, and if they listened to it then it would benefit the artists.

Re:2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate

[Rei]

My preferred solution, which I know the libertarians here would hate, is to take a page from the past. Throughout most of history, art in all forms was sponsored by the government. All of the Rennaisance greats -- musicians, artists, sculptors, etc -- had government sponsors. Of course, the art world was limited by the fact that it was the tastes of the few who were being reflected then, but that's easily remedied in modern society: a democratized system, where the more music is being downloaded / the more prints are being made of a work or the more it is being visited / etc, the larger the share of the total pot the artist gets. The music industry is bypassed altogether, and the artists get all of the money except for the small amount of overhead (instead of the pittiance percentage they get today). For artists to average making the same amount of money, the total industry's dollar figure could be much, much less. Everything would be in the public domain. Companies could still make a profit, say, printing hard copies of things or advertising on download sites, but they can't do so with exclusive rights to the material.

Cue complaints that this is Communism in three, two, one ...

Just take it from Lloyd Christmas

[PeeAitchPee]

"Hey! The Monkees. They were a major influences on The Beatles." ;-)

Re:Just take it from Lloyd Christmas

[Junior J. Junior III]

Wow, I never knew that. Most people just said they monkeyed around...

Re:Just take it from Lloyd Christmas

[Drooling Iguana]

The Monkees weren't about music. They were about rebellion! About political and social upheaval!

Terrorism! Terrorism!

[jollyreaper]

Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. Can we create a Godwin's Law for terrorism?

Re:Monthly rate

[Proteus]

How about, say 6 bucks a month to be able to listen to any song whenever you want (so long as you keep paying), and around $1.29 to own the track permanently?

The subscription model is already fairly successful, and most subscription services will sell you a given track -- those that you buy, you can continue to use even after you cancel the service. The model is fine. What needs to happen is that DRM needs to all but disappear.

Using the artists-get-paid-for-plays model is novel, but would require some sort of DRM to work; you'd need to limit the players that could use that music so that stats would be properly reported and aggregated. It could be less-restrictive (i.e. work on any machine participating in the service), but it would still have to exist.

I don't necessarily have a problem with DRM in cases where it's very clear that you don't own the content (such as the subscription tracks). However, it's essential that tracks offered for purchase be DRM-free (you either own it or you don't, there should be no gray area).

Re:If you agree to fileshare, then you agree to th

[maxwell demon]

Ok, you may copy(!) my TV, and my DVDs. I don't have a gaming system, sorry.
BTW, I'd like to have a copy of your copying device for physical items! :-)

Re:Monthly rate

[Auz]

That all seems over-complicated. Why not just give away the music and live on the proceeds of t-shirts and compilation sales? Sites like Penny Arcade, PvP or Red vs Blue suggest that sort of model can work for some forms of art. The question is, can it for musicians (who do also have the concert as another revenue stream) and how many can it support.

Re:Monthly rate

[It'sYerMam]

How about the previous system, whereby you paid a fixed rate per month to listen to any song you liked, with the fixed rate being divvied up according to your most-played tracks. When you've either listened to a track a certain number of times, or "paid it" a certain amount, you automatically own it and can keep it. Of course you would also be able to buy tracks and albums as you wanted so that you could listen to them without the service.

I'd envisage different scales of payment and so on so that you can arrange varying deals according to how much music you actually listen to. A half-decent service would automate the use of payment scaling to an extent, (just like you automatically buy a track if you've spent enough on it) so that you don't have to make sure you don't start being uneconomical.