Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Than One Third of Music Consumers Still Pirate Music (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

More than one-third of global music listeners are still pirating music, according to a new report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). From a report: While the massive rise in legal streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal was thought to have stemmed illegal consumption, 38% of listeners continue to acquire music through illegal means. The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%): using easily available software to record the audio from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate. Downloads through "cyberlocker" file hosting services or P2P software like BitTorrent came second (23%), with acquisition via search engines in third place (17%).

90 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Does someone still believe their research? by NuclearCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it is extremely beneficial for them to put the situation in such a way , so it is easier to introduce new taxes, new draconian measures to restrict the rights to backup copies, to limit the ways of reproduction and etc.
    Their greed has no limits

    1. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beat me to it. I was just about to post "Sounds like Made-up Statistics". I used to download music from piratebay, but not anymore. I get a ton of song in my Amazon Prime account, and if the song is not there, it's available from Youtube or Vimeo or some other legitimate source.

      > The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%)... from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate.

      So basically the modern version of Cassette-recording off the radio. Even if the stream-ripping was blocked, these people have NO intention of buying the music legally. Claiming these customers as "lost sales" is ridiculous. (Especially since many of them are children or teens with no money.)

      .

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by Thundercat007 · · Score: 3

      That's what I always laughed at with these industry people, claiming it's lost revenue. Especially with now crappy music/movies are now adays, it's a gamble if it's going to be worth buying. Newest movie on BluRay runs about $30 (Canadian) that's a bit gamble on a movie. Or $25 for a non pop star cd (again, gamble if it's a worthy cd). I've personally bought movies I've watched 100 times, because I've watched them 100 times. Same with cds I've listened to 100 times. If it came down to having to buy a movie @30 or cd @25 to see if I'll like it, I wouldn't buy it, I'd wait until a buddy had it, and borrow it. If I think it would join the 100 club then buy it. The time of quality things being produced, is gone.

    3. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      What's funny is the number of musicians over the years who got their start by trading casettes/samples/remixes. So on one hand, there's a little bit of *POTENTIALLY* lost revenue from that piracy, but it's absolutely dwarfed by the infusion of new blood into the industry that only exists because of the eeeebil piracy.

      Same thing with FOSS; by allowing people to enhance and extend existing stuff, or pivot off of ideas found elsewhere, the industry and society at large are enriched.

    4. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by fred6666 · · Score: 2

      The way I understand TFS, if you pay for Deezer, Spotify and Google Play Music and buy dozens of CDs each year, but ripped a single MP3 from Youtube, you are part of the 38% of pirates.

      Also, does it makes you a pirate if you listen to a Youtube music video with your monitor off? If you use an ad-blocker?

    5. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Piracy from one POV == Free advertising.

      If people are pirating content then that shows that there is POTENTIAL interest.

      I imagine that some people would rather have the entire content and judge it based on that instead of seeing a tiny sliver of a "preview" to judge whether it has value to them or not.

    6. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by Kiralan · · Score: 2

      And how, exactly, do they come up with 'stream-ripping YouTube' as most pppular? Do they have a magic way to tell you are streaming it to a file, rather than just listening to it?

      --
      V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
    7. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Even if the stream-ripping was blocked, these people have NO intention of buying the music legally.

      Nobody is arguing that every single one of those people would have purchased the music. But seems like a big fat stretch to say that unlimited access to something for free doesn't affect someone's desire top spend money on it. It's just dishonest to make this claim to such an extreme.

      Especially since many of them are children or teens with no money.

      Teens and children have parents, friends, and relatives. They birthdays and Christmases.

    8. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      If it came down to having to buy a movie @30 or cd @25 to see if I'll like it,

      That's an interesting anecdote but, believe it or not there was a time when the internet didn't exist and you couldn't download movies or music to try them out. Yet, people still bought movies and music. They bought *more* movies and music than they do today.

      The time of quality things being produced, is gone.

      Common reality distortion. The way it works is that you remember the quality media you consumed when you were younger. It sticks with you, because... it's good. That gives you the impression there was less shit at that time. It's not true. The majority of music and movies has always been shit. But you do not remember the shit.

    9. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      Wow you had a generous upbringing. My parents always said "no" to me. Basically I got 2 CDs a year: 1 from my parents; 1 from my brother. The end.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting anecdote but, believe it or not there was a time when the internet didn't exist and you couldn't download movies or music to try them out. Yet, people still bought movies and music. They bought *more* movies and music than they do today.

      Yes, because they didn't have any other choice.

      Now they do, and the game has changed.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      40 years ago there was no rap polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      It's yet another case of "Lies, Big Lies, and Statistics".

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    13. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I simply don't understand people who say there isn't any good music today. A music fan can spend an eternity on YouTube, just don't start your search with Quavo's B U B B L E G U M.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      As a statistician I'm offended by that. (It's "Lies, damned lies and Statistics" by the way). Statistics can't lie, they can be incorrect but not lies. People lie with statistics, they miss label, miss attribute, say that the statics show something it doesn't etc. But stats, if calculated properly can only describe the data.

    15. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I think the point is being very selective with the data you use - which is incidentally also the hallmark of a believable lie. Stick to the truth as much as possible - just don't tell the whole truth.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    16. Re:Does someone still believe their research? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They could probably detect ripping if they wanted to. I use an app called 4k Video Downloader to rip videos and audio from YouTube. By default it opens 3 HTTPS streams, but I configured it for 5 to speed it up. Rips at maximum speed, usually many times playback speed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      40 years ago there was no rap polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.

      IKR? And 70 years ago, there was no rock and roll polluting every bit of popular culture it touches. And 120 years ago, there was no jazz polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.

      See any pattern there?

    18. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I still find it difficult to find new quality music. Pandora essentially plays stuff I already own no matter what I drop into the seed, even something from the last year or two. YouTube, after a quick review, references things I can hear on any of the commercial radio stations. Nothing new there either. Maybe it's true, less good music is being made today. Good is subjective, obviously, but if you cut out all the Sheeran/Mendez/Katy Perry pop crap and a whole bunch of wanna be sorta rap thugs, there's really very little I call quality music.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    19. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The "good" part is very subjective. I find myself far more short of time than of music these days. Generally I hear something I like on WXPN, which I have on in my car. In the course of exploring that music on YouTube, I inevitably run across other artists. Not just from YouTube's algorithms, but also from the comments - which I read through as the song play. As the music plays, I read up about the artist on Wikipedia or the various music websites, and that provides even more leads as I search for bandmates, producers, writers on the album, opening acts, etc. I can literally do that until my eyes won't stay open anymore. And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The "good" part is very subjective....And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.

      I prefer post-modern, new wave, alternative, alternative rock, or whatever today's moniker of what essentially is a mostly non-mainstream line of music that caters more to musicality than whatever the teen masses deem good today. You can couple that with real country (not the rock/pop rip-off of today's "country" - but that genre is pretty much dead) old school rap (also dead) and definitely various flavors of hard rock and and even some metal and perhaps a couple of pop songs, and you have my mix. Perhaps I listened to a lot of music in the past (I know I did and I own a rather large collection) but most of what I've seen even in the comments and related bands almost never leads to anything new. I do have a couple of independent radio stations around which play new and eclectic music which generally leads to new bands before the mainstream gets a hold of them, so that's where most of my "new" exposure comes from. And the numbers are depressingly low for the genres I like, although there seems to be no shortage of what I consider talentless acts that will likely be completely forgotten and never heard again within 5 years except by their 4 remaining hard-core fans.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There's never been a shortage of dreck - and the dreck is of course also helped out by the ease of publishing today. If you go to the thrift store and leaf through their LPs, there's almost nothing good left in the pile unless it is fresh.

      Yeah, if your genre is dying, there's not much to be done about that. I don't know anything about old-school country. If you are looking for 90s-era rap there is Killer Mike off the top of my head. I haven't really been on the lookout for even older Sugarhill Gang type stuff so I have to plead ignorance there. "Alternative" is probably my main focus, whatever that means. Most recent likes include Milky Chance, War On Drugs, The Lumineers, Regina Spektor, Delta Spirit, and St. Vincent.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re: Does someone still believe their research? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There's never been a shortage of dreck

      True, but I don't think there's ever been so much dreck at the top of the charts. I mean, 11 entries for Sheeran in the top 40? At once? From a single album? While Sheeran isn't completely talentless compared to, say, oh, pretty much the rest of the top 40.... but he's no Elvis, Johnny Cash, Elton John, David Bowie, Janis Joplin, Garth Brooks or even Cher, for goodness sake. And none of them had half that many in the top 40 at once from what I can recall. (Ok, Sheeran might be equivalent to Cher)

      Yeah, if your genre is dying, there's not much to be done about that. I don't know anything about old-school country. If you are looking for 90s-era rap there is Killer Mike off the top of my head. I haven't really been on the lookout for even older Sugarhill Gang type stuff so I have to plead ignorance there. "Alternative" is probably my main focus, whatever that means. Most recent likes include Milky Chance, War On Drugs, The Lumineers, Regina Spektor, Delta Spirit, and St. Vincent.

      Old school country isn't my favorite, but I could at least listen to it. The countryfied pop/lt rock coming out of Memphis these days just makes me cringe. Next they'll be remaking Poison songs, if they haven't already.

      Milky Chance, The Lumineers and St. Vincent are fall into the light pop category for me. It's not that they're terrible or hated, it's that they're missing something, there's just no soul in their music, no real pop, nothing to latch onto. They might as well be remakes of Sheeran/Cher/Celine. The others are not my thing.

      I do like Twentyone Pilots, Pop Evil, Imagine Dragons, Jack White and Arctic Monkeys (although the last couple are a touch older, but then so are the Lumineers) among some other more recent acts. Each one has a relatively unique sound and you can tell the band normally from just a few seconds of play time. Most of the crap on the top 40 list you can't even tell apart anymore. One of the best demonstrations of terribly talentless top 40 music I've ever heard was on youtube but has now sadly been removed. It involved a number of Nickleback top 40 songs being switched independently on left/right channels without causing you to go into any deeper audible hurt state than you would just because you were listening to Nickleback in the first place. If you weren't aware they were separate songs, you might not even notice the left/right switching even occurring.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. In other news by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    only 1/3 of music consumers still pirate music. Also, no $h!t Sherlock. Broke kids are always going to pirate. Let them. It gets them in the habit of listening to music when they're young. Without piracy they're going to grow up without it and not care when they're old enough to pay. That's how Metallica got their start; pirated mix tapes. Without them they'd be working at 7-11.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The industry doesn't actually want piracy to stop.

      They want control over your hardware, and they use piracy as an excuse to get it.

      They also want free tax money funneled there way.

      Lastly, they want to be able to indiscriminately sue people for amounts of money that leave them impoverished for life. It's a long-lasting income stream that way.

    2. Re:In other news by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Why would I rent something that already belongs to me? And why would a kid become stupider as they grow up?

      Profits from paid-every-month streaming surpassed profits from paid-to-own purchases a while back. So it's not just kids.

      For me, it makes sense to rent movies and TV shows. Music, not so much.
      The day Apple stops selling music is the day I switch to Amazon.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:In other news by commodore64_love · · Score: 3

      Also: A lot of people will buy "Greatest Hits" compilations of music they heard when they were children and teens.... mainly for nostalgia (or because they think current music sucks). IOW the record companies lose money today on pirating kids, but they make it up later, when they sell these adults old hits from 20-30 years ago.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:In other news by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      Totally true. I'm 65 now and when I recall taping music from the radio... onto reel-to-reel tape originally and then onto cassettes once they appeared. Hell, the music industry survived that "piracy" so I'm sure they'll survive a little stream-ripping.

    5. Re:In other news by mckwant · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the tour: https://www.nkotb.com/news/tit...

      Pure hell. NKOTB, Salt n' Pepa, Debbie Gibson, Naughty By Nature, and @#%#ing Tiffany, whose entire set probably consists of the one craptastic semi-hit she had THIRTY-ONE years ago. AND it was a cover. AND they're playing basketball stadia.

      I'll defend music until I die. The industry surrounding it can go blow a goat.

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:In other news by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      I just looked-up Tiffany. She actually had four top 10 hits. Two were remakes, and two were originals, though none of them were written by her. (In contrast Debbie Gibson was discovered at a mall, singing self-written songs.)

      I don't think I would go see any of those groups. I liked NKOTB, Naughty by Nature, etc when I was a teen, but the music has not aged well. (And neither have they.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. Why so low? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> More Than One Third of Music Consumers Still Pirate Music

    Is this number this low because the other two thirds still don't know how to pirate music? Or are there still people who know how to pirate but still plug their holy ears should any not-properly-thithed music hit their virgin eardrums?

    1. Re:Why so low? by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or new music is crap and I already ripped/pirated everything I'll ever want to listen to decades ago.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    2. Re:Why so low? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I generally don't bother to pirate most media anymore. I'm perfectly fine with paying for it, especially if I get a DRM-free digital copy or I get access to a streaming service that doesn't include any commercials. If you make it easy for consumers to pay for what they want (i.e. don't insist on bundling content with things I don't want) most people are more than willing to pay.

      As you get older, your time becomes more valuable and you have a higher income. Paying $5 on Amazon or Apple, or $10 a month for Netflix is ultimately less expensive than trying to a functional pirated stream somewhere else online or dredging through seedy websites to find warez that isn't a malware-infested mess.

    3. Re:Why so low? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Or new music is crap and I already ripped/pirated everything I'll ever want to listen to decades ago.

      There is great music still being made. I find new good stuff all the time, it just takes some work. IMO, the de-valuation of recorded music due to piracy and streaming has forced bands to make money the old fashioned way ... live performances. There are some really talented musicians out there honing their craft and putting on great shows while cranking out great recordings.

    4. Re:Why so low? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      > but still plug their holy ears should any not-properly-purchased music hit their virgin eardrums?

      Your comment reminded me: I get into Las Vegas nightclubs for free, and hear the current hit music for free, since I don't spend any money. Would the music executives/producers consider this a form of piracy too? (I bet the greedy bastards do.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Why so low? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Or new music is crap and I already ripped/pirated everything I'll ever want to listen to decades ago.

      UNTIL your hard drive dies, like mine just did. Brother, can you spare a MP3?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    6. Re:Why so low? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The devaluation is causing them to do that? No, not really. The fact that they're being ripped off by the music labels forces them on the road to actually make a living more like.

      Pretty much any musician isn't going to ignore recorded music simply to do live performances. That's just as fast a way to the poor house than not doing any gigs at all. Those who put a focus on live performances are likely to give recorded copies of their music away if anything (although their labels, if they have one, will most certainly forbid them from doing that.) as that's free promotion to get people to go to a show.

      You completely misconstrue what I said. I never said they would forego recorded music. I said they would perform more live and hone that craft because that is where they can make more money.

    7. Re:Why so low? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure...Copying 'the collection' takes a couple of days though. Better since USB3.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Why so low? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      The rest of us can afford to buy it and/or have better morals. =P

      The same thing W.R.T. computer games. Almost everyone pirated them when they were young -- but when they grew up and had a job they wanted to financially support the developers so that they could continue to make more games.

      It's not really rocket science. The (non mutually exclusive) categories WHY people pirate are:

      [ ] Can't afford it
      [ ] Content is not legally available
      [ ] I'm sticking it to "The man"
      [ ] It's free, man!
      [ ] Yes, I can afford it but I don't care
      [ ] I'm a hoarder
      [ ] Fuck the MPAA, RIAA , etc. for being greedy bastards
      Etc.

    9. Re:Why so low? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      3,6,7.

    10. Re: Why so low? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      Who is Tyler's dad?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re: Why so low? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Uh, without copyright there wouldn't even be a need for the GPL.

      How does one even "pirate" the GPL ? That makes no sense. There only can be license violations -- such as NOT GIVING BACK (or trying to restrict other's freedoms.)

    12. Re:Why so low? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Well I think of it as a recording right. Can I hear it for free somewhere I can legally record what I'm hearing? Does it play on the TV or Music channels on my cable subscription? Then there's really no ethical difference whether I download a copy or record it. I can legally record radio. I can legally record my tv. I'm therefore not not doing anything wrong simply because I got the recording from a download instead. Them making me double pay is wrong.

  4. Duh by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course we do.

    I pay $10/month for a service, and side-load what's unavailable.

    Some of the side-loaded stuff isn't available anyway.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:Duh by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm actually quite happy with paying for streaming.

      To be fair, I paid for Ubuntu One when it existed, and for a Sub Sonic server at another time. it's more like paying for the hosted environment than the music itself.

      The cost is well worth it for me just for the access (when I had a blend of ripped, pirated, digital purchase music in subsonic I was paying nearly $10/month anyway, and adding music and discovering new music was a PITA).

      I've thought about switching back because beat hazard ultra requires an actual MP3 to play, but I really like having access to new music on a whim.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  5. Without "pirated" music by bblb · · Score: 1

    Without pirated music, the music industry as we know it today wouldn't exist. Piracy, garage recordings, dubbed mixtapes, is how the majority of bands get their name out... Growing up, I first heard everyone from the Greatful Dead to Metallica to Guns N Roses to Sublime via pirated music... and then went on to share those tapes with countless other friends. Piracy is where popularity comes from. I can honestly say I've never seen a band or bought an album from a musician who I didn't first hear through some form of pirated media. This sounds like nothing but an effort to make a "problem" out of something that's always been the case so that record companies can tax us further.

    1. Re:Without "pirated" music by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The big labels don't want new bands to become popular in this way, they want to control which new bands become well known.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  6. youtube by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%) using easily available software to record the audio from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate

    Sounds like a lot of work. I just listen to youtube with an ad blocker. Gives me exactly the same result, and it's not copyright infringement.

    1. Re:youtube by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Let me load YouTube on my cheap clip-on MP3 player... oh wait, that doesn't work.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:youtube by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      There are plugins for Firefox and Chrome where you just tap "download" and it rips an MP3 to your phone. Then you tap "play random" and you have a couple 100 songs on rotation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:youtube by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      Keeping a copy locally though ensures it is available for your listening pleasure after it does suddenly vanish from YouTube.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:youtube by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's a constant arms race with YT crippling itself.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  7. The biggest pirate of all is the Music industry by commodore64_love · · Score: 3

    Please take a moment to read this old article: "The plaintiffs (musicians) claimed compensation for use of work listed on what are known in the Canadian recording industry as pending lists. These lists, accumulated over many years, contain works for which no licence was obtained and no compensation paid........ the action could have been worth up to $6-billion."

    In other words the music industry owed 6 billion dollars to musicians for non-payment of songs they used w/o compensation. - LINK https://business.financialpost... And the followup: The record industry only paid 50 million of the 6000 million owed to artists: https://entertainment.slashdot...

    - The Music Industry wants to scold us commoners, and yet THEY are far worse at screwing the musicians than we are.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:The biggest pirate of all is the Music industry by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That's why they keep saying "Stop pirating! Think of our poor artists!"

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:The biggest pirate of all is the Music industry by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      - The Music Industry wants to scold us commoners, and yet THEY are far worse at screwing the musicians than we are.

      Isn't that why you get into playing music in the first place? To get screwed. It just didn't work out as planned...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Moving the bar by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What kind of fools do they think we are? We've been taping stuff off of the radio since before I was born in the 70s. Now we listen to music through YouTube and "tape" off of that instead. Only in the mind of an IP lawyer is there some kind of moral distinction here. I'll do this until it is technically infeasible to do so, and I'll sleep just fine at night.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Yet they still make money hand over fist by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    They're not in the least hurting for money but of course they have to have all the money. Then when they have everything so locked-down and monopolized they'll just raise the prices on everything, or worse: they'll try to convince everyone that paying every month forever for 'streaming' is somehow better. Yeah well fuck them no wonder people still pirate music.

    1. Re:Yet they still make money hand over fist by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Human greed is unlimited. The only good news is that being rich does not actually make these people happy, it makes them desperate to be even more rich. Hence they live pretty bad lives.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Yet they still make money hand over fist by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Yay! Moral victory! ........

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  10. Re:I think 1 third is low by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    So the options are to drive to CD store (most have now closed down so almost impossible) or to pirate the music.

    The music you want is not available as a CD on Amazon/etc?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  11. Shifting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The most popular form of copyright infringement is stream-ripping (32%): using easily available software to record the audio from sites like YouTube at a low-quality bit rate.

    This is also known as Time shifting.

    ProTip: The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Time shifting is perfectly legal Fair Use, and does NOT infringe copyright.

  12. People pay for music? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Pay for music? WTF?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  13. Re:Obvious by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    1. You think AAC is proprietary to Apple?

    2. In case you were referring to DRM, Apple stopped selling DRM'ed music in march 2009 in the U.S.A.

    3. Music encoded with AAC at 256kbps is lower quality than a lossless track, sure, but it is far from low quality.

    You have the right to dislike Apple or even hate them with a passion. But at least get your facts straight when talking about them.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  14. 99% music publishers still rip-off their customers by gweihir · · Score: 1

    ... and their musicians as well. Hence no surprise. They are at fault, not the "pirates".

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  15. name says it all by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    "Phonographic"

    cartel with a mid 20th century mind set

    1. Re:name says it all by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. The etymology of this word is still perfectly valid.

    2. Re:name says it all by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world disagrees with you and has a definition for phonograph that is quite precise. They're novelty items now, inferior 20th century mechanical tech.

    3. Re:name says it all by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes, and vacuum tube amps make them even warmer. .Incandescent lights over head while listening instead of LED or florescent will increase the warmth and electric bill too.

  16. Piracy by darkain · · Score: 4, Informative

    Piracy is easier than dealing with DRM. End of story.

    1. Re:Piracy by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Both Amazon and iTunes sell DRM-free music. Where are you buying your .mp3s that they come with DRM?

  17. Re: A single point of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back to reddit for you non-geek!

  18. Why bother at this point? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Between Youtube and Pandora, you can hear everything you want for free anyways. Streaming services have already pretty much killed piracy in the classical 1990's sense of the word.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Why bother at this point? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Streaming sucks. Poor quality. Poor selection.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Why bother at this point? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yet popular. I guess there are many consumers less discerning than you.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Why bother at this point? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Streaming sucks. Poor quality. Poor selection.

      Given that many people are ripping streams, then quality and selection of streaming services are clearly not the issue.

    4. Re:Why bother at this point? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about poor selection. My favorite band is prog-era Genesis, and I've found things from them on Youtube that I've never seen anywhere else. Never even heard of before Youtube. I'd never heard of It's Yourself or Spot the Pigeon, and Youtube introduced me to both.

      Maybe you're on some super-elite mp3 site that gives you access to stuff more rare than this, or higher bitrates or whatever - but I'm pretty impressed with Youtube's catalog.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  19. Hardly by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    People have their music taste developed between 12 and 18 and they stick to it all their life. To download all that music on broadband you need half an hour and you're good for life.

    So I doubt that third very much.

  20. Ok Ok But consider this... by gosand · · Score: 1

    There are lots of ways to find music and actually support the artists.
    I find stuff on youtube, and if I like it I may rip it (to listen in my car). If I really like it, I will support the artist on whatever site they have (e.g. bandcamp.com) I have found quite a lot of good stuff that you will NEVER hear on any of these services that cater to the masses. Check out youtube channels or bandcamp.com, or whatever you can find. And by all means support the artists by buying their stuff.

    It's usually priced right, and sends the real message to the RIAA - we don't need you any more!

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  21. I HATE music pirates! by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    I just hate when I music along on my music when suddenly, BOOM! Music pirates firing their acoustical cannons on my vessel!

    They force us to heave-to, or risk colliding with them, and throw over their limewire hooks. Repel all Billboarders! I cry to my gallant crew, but we are quickly overcome. The music pirates STREAM onto our vessel, and quickly Spotify our Pandoras box of music CDs, LPs, and cassette tapes are.

    They take our hidden treasure and stream back to their ship and sail away, leaving us adrift, musicless. We try to sing or hum, but all our crew who could even carry a tune in a bucket were abducted and went off with the music pirates, damn and blast them.

    At least they did not steal my ship bell.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  22. Biggest Issue in US! Not! by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Rearrange those Titanic deckchairs.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  23. I rent everything by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and if I really, really like it I buy. So I've got King Diamond, Fate's Warning, John Arch and Judas Priest CDs all over the place but, well, I like Udo but not enough to buy up his CDs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. All legal AAC codecs are proprietary software by tepples · · Score: 1

    AAC is not proprietary to Apple. Apple isn't even a member of the AAC patent pool. However, it is encumbered by royalty-bearing patents in Slashdot's home country and others, which means it cannot be implemented in software distributed under a license that meets the FSF, DFSG, or OSI criteria for a free software license.

  25. Offline while away from Wi-Fi by tepples · · Score: 1

    A lot of people have Internet access at home, at work, and in select restaurants, but no Internet access away from there. In order to afford a mobile ISP, they'd have to cancel their home ISP and make do with an oppressive monthly cap.

    1. Re:Offline while away from Wi-Fi by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      This guy understands.

      Also, even if I had a phone with data service, I wouldn't go biking with it. The risk of it dropping, the weight, etc. Too risky for an expensive device.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  26. Piracy will end when... by SlithyMagister · · Score: 1

    The music being offered is worth paying for

  27. More that one third of consumers by PPH · · Score: 1

    But how much content is pirated? 38% of the listeners might download an occasional song. But if the amount of content being acquired is down in the single digits of total distribution, it's not really a big problem.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Underlying reason by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    It may be that the underlying reason is that much of the music produced today is pure shit and not worth paying for.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  29. Not me! by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 1

    I subscribe to google music and more on more than one occasion I've observed music going missing from my playlists because of contractual agreements / rate disputes between google and the publisher. Google doesn't make any attempt to notify their paying customers of this change to the catalog. When you obtain music thru other means and upload it to google, you never need to worry about it disappearing. Piracy gives me the ability to continue enjoying the music long after it's removed from google.

  30. I thought it would be more than that by Crafted+Destiny · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised its only 1/3. 10 years ago, before mobile, this would at least be 40-50%, without all the great music apps we have nowadays.

  31. And ... 99.9% still buy music by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... adjust you're pricing and it will be 100%.
    'Pirating' will always be present until the purchase of the music becomes a reasonable 'risk' for the money and one is allowed to move and replicate the purchase on all one's owned devices.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.