The Music Piracy Poll!

[Aggie87]

It still sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. People that are doing this say "lots of people i know do it" and "i buy music anyway so who cares if download it illegally".

As Chuck asked, I'd like to see statistics that support your claim that downloading music illegally leads to increased sales of legal music.

I'd love to have 100x more music than I own. But I won't download stuff illegally to make that happen. I'll buy stuff as I can, when I'm able to do so.

Why not just walk into your local Best Buy and try to walk out with CD's without paying for them? How is it any different?

[md655321]

Well for one, if I steal from Best Buy the artists still get their money.

[Rooster_Ties]

Well for one, if I steal from Best Buy the artists still get their money.

Good point. AND...

If you're gonna steal anyway -- is it better (or, rather, "less bad") to steal from Walmart, than from Best Buy??

[Rooster_Ties]

The real problem is that there are lots and lots of people who download and/or otherwise copy lots and lots of music, who aren't paying a dime for most of it.

While at the same time, there are quite a lot of other people who downloand and copy, but then do a LOT of legit buying of music (people who are spending quite a lot of money) -- based on when they hear when they download and/or copy (though violating copyright laws to do so).

The trouble as I see it, is that the first group is WAY bigger than the second group. And, demographically speaking, much of the youger generation sees music as something that is "normally" "free" -- and only something you have to pay for when you really feel like it. (And like clockwork, every year another new "year's" worth of young-adults is created, who also think of music as being free.)

Chuck and md655321 --- you're BOTH right.

Chuck's complaining about the first group (with lots of justification), and md655321's saying how good the second group is (and many or most of them are), and how downloading and/or copying fuels their good behavior.

And really -- you ARE both right...

Chuck, I do think it's a crime that an entire generation thinks music not only ought to be free, but that it IS free.

And md655321, I think it's WONDERFUL that a hell of a lot of music fanatics (like myself, in many ways) get turned on to scads and scads of new stuff worth buying -- mostly stuff they would have otherwise not bought, if it weren't for "illegal" downloading and/or copying.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[RDK]

It still sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. People that are doing this say "lots of people i know do it" and "i buy music anyway so who cares if download it illegally".

As Chuck asked, I'd like to see statistics that support your claim that downloading music illegally leads to increased sales of legal music.

I don't think now that you'll get more than anecdotal evidence since both sides spin the figures so much to make their agenda. But in my case it's certainly true that I've bought many more discs and have been exposed to many artists I otherwise wouldn't have heard of if not for borrowed discs or downloading. Heck, I wouldn't have become aware of Mosaic if a buddy hadn't loaned/burned me several oop sets.

I'd love to have 100x more music than I own. But I won't download stuff illegally to make that happen. I'll buy stuff as I can, when I'm able to do so.

Why not just walk into your local Best Buy and try to walk out with CD's without paying for them? How is it any different?

Ah, and then there's those pesky shades of gray again. Personally I don't download released and/or available albums and I generally refuse to make copies of same for others. But if something's oop or otherwise not officially released - say, live broadcasts/bootlegs - then that, to me, is another story (though I concede a different set of legal/moral issues to that as well). I can't walk into Best Buy and steal something that they don't carry.

[md655321]

Chuck and md655321 --- you're BOTH right.

And in a way, that is my point. You can not simply draw a line that says "All downloading is wrong." As a guitar and history teacher, I see how disgustingly widespread downloading and copying is. Especially since now there is no physical difference between copied and real cds because it all ends up on the ipod anyways. It is rampant, and it is VERY dangerous. But to take a party line that says all downloading is illegal and immoral will cause kids to completely ignore what you are saying. And this is what the music industry has done. AS a result, what they say is a complete joke, to be mocked and ridiculed by the average kid. I tell my students that yes i do download, but if I like the music I buy it, not only to support the artists but also the record companies that do take on quite a bit of risk to release that music. I also talk about sound quality and the like. I KNOW they respond better to that than just chastising them like im their Grandpa.

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck and md655321 --- you're BOTH right.

And in a way, that is my point. You can not simply draw a line that says "All downloading is wrong." As a guitar and history teacher, I see how disgustingly widespread downloading and copying is. Especially since now there is no physical difference between copied and real cds because it all ends up on the ipod anyways. It is rampant, and it is VERY dangerous. But to take a party line that says all downloading is illegal and immoral will cause kids to completely ignore what you are saying. And this is what the music industry has done. AS a result, what they say is a complete joke, to be mocked and ridiculed by the average kid. I tell my students that yes i do download, but if I like the music I buy it, not only to support the artists but also the record companies that do take on quite a bit of risk to release that music. I also talk about sound quality and the like. I KNOW they respond better to that than just chastising them like im their Grandpa.

If someone says "you can have this for nothing" that's fine with me. If you say "I can have this for nothing and MIGHT buy something from you at a later date" I have a huge problem. That's the diff.

[JSngry]

If downloading is helping sales, how come there's next to no used CD stores left in my area, and why are the remaining brick and mortar retailers focusing more and more on less and less music?

I know that downloading/file-sharing/etc. are not entirely to blame, but surely they're a factor. You can't tell me that all the business that supported all these places has just shifted to online purchasing.

[md655321]

Overall there is no doubt that music downloading has hurt sales. There is clearly an epidemic of music piracy that is deeply indebted in the culture of youths today, and that culture is VERY bad for music.

However, the line is a bit wavy, and the area is a bit grayer than many in the business are willing to accept. Record companies still have not seriously dealt with music downloading and the fact that clearly the consumer prefers electronic means of acquiring music. Even itunes was a LONG time coming in the Napster age, and it still isnt adequate. Their flat rates for everything, and a very high 10 dollar price point just isnt in touch with how music is consumed these days. If music companies truly wanted to end downloading, they would respond to there customers needs better, and not just sue them.

[Chuck Nessa]

However, the line is a bit wavy, and the area is a bit grayer than many in the business are willing to accept.

Black and white AND gray in this area are the same as they have always been. That stuff doesn't change 'cause of current "customs".

FWIW (not much it seems), there is more recorded music available for sale now than any time since the beginning of recorded music (and I mean percentage of the whole). THAT is what is put in jeopardy by current file sharing.

[Jim Dye]

At least not until we pay it off, please.

I haven't seen any of your CD's out there yet, but I have seen someone requesting it.

Path: nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:52:11 -0600

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz

Subject: REQ: Organissimo - This Is The Place

From: JazzNut <justjazzed>

User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25

Message-ID: <i_udno-RPrRyhPnZ2dnVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com>

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:52:12 -0600

Lines: 6

Really nice B-3 and guitar. Here's a link to hear samples.

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/...s+The+Place.htm

Thanks!

[Tjazz]

FWIW (not much it seems), there is more recorded music available for sale now than any time since the beginning of recorded music (and I mean percentage of the whole). THAT is what is put in jeopardy by current file sharing.

Depends on how you look at it.

The distribution systems are better today. So more recorded music might be available for sale now than at any time since the beginning of recorded music.

Tomorrow, looks like the distribution systems will even be better. It's more likely that MORE music will be available to MORE people in the future. Satelite, cable, and the internet radio are offering more music thru the air than before.

People hear music thru their cell phones. They buy ringtones. More music is played on TV shows and there are more shows and movies created than in the past. More music is being used (and paid for). Do TV shows and movies use music without paying for it?? Alot of new artists get their songs played on commercials, so they have other forms of revenue coming to them, not just the sales of CDs.

Looks like music availability is going UP.

Just the distribution systems are changing. Artists can make money selling CDs, selling online, playing concerts, doing commercials, putting their songs on TV or movies, doing exclusives for radio, etc. More distribution systems, more money.

There is still a BIG market for MUSIC.

[Jim Alfredson]

At least not until we pay it off, please.

I haven't seen any of your CD's out there yet, but I have seen someone requesting it.

Path: nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:52:11 -0600

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz

Subject: REQ: Organissimo - This Is The Place

From: JazzNut <justjazzed>

User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25

Message-ID: <i_udno-RPrRyhPnZ2dnVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com>

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:52:12 -0600

Lines: 6

Really nice B-3 and guitar. Here's a link to hear samples.

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/...s+The+Place.htm

Thanks!

Yeah, I saw that, too. I thought it was funny! I do a search of the Usenet once in awhile to see if it's out there yet.

[Chuck Nessa]

FWIW (not much it seems), there is more recorded music available for sale now than any time since the beginning of recorded music (and I mean percentage of the whole). THAT is what is put in jeopardy by current file sharing.

Depends on how you look at it.

The distribution systems are better today. So more recorded music might be available for sale now than at any time since the beginning of recorded music.

Tomorrow, looks like the distribution systems will even be better. It's more likely that MORE music will be available to MORE people in the future. Satelite, cable, and the internet radio are offering more music thru the air than before.

People hear music thru their cell phones. They buy ringtones. More music is played on TV shows and there are more shows and movies created than in the past. More music is being used (and paid for). Do TV shows and movies use music without paying for it?? Alot of new artists get their songs played on commercials, so they have other forms of revenue coming to them, not just the sales of CDs.

Looks like music availability is going UP.

Just the distribution systems are changing. Artists can make money selling CDs, selling online, playing concerts, doing commercials, putting their songs on TV or movies, doing exclusives for radio, etc. More distribution systems, more money.

There is still a BIG market for MUSIC.

Since I seem to have lost the ability to communicate clearly I'll go away. Have nice futures.

[Aggie87]

For what it's worth, it's not you, Chuck. The younger generation has a sense of entitlement to things they haven't earned (or pay for).

Like Joe G said in another thread..."I think it all ties into the attitude, especially prevalent in America, that you can get something for nothing."

[Alexander]

For what it's worth, it's not you, Chuck. The younger generation has a sense of entitlement to things they haven't earned (or pay for).

Like Joe G said in another thread..."I think it all ties into the attitude, especially prevalent in America, that you can get something for nothing."

But that's why I make a distinction between "home-copying" (which is to say, you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy) and downloading. In the case of home-copying (at least in my case) it's an issue of exchange. I'll let you copy a CD (that I bought and paid for) if you let me copy one of yours (that you bought and paid for). In this case, we've BOTH paid for music and are allowing one another to share in it. You don't let *everyone* share in your music, just your friends. In the case of file-sharing services, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world can share in your music. These are people you've never met. And while you are getting something from them, it's not the same kind of "friendly exchange" that I'm talking about. Illegal file-sharing does seem to be an example of a "something for nothing" mentality. But the kind of sharing that I do is something else entirely. The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

Edited January 23, 2006 by Alexander

[DukeCity]

Just saw this on Yahoo news:

Music Sales Resumed Decline in 2005

By LAURENCE FROST, AP Business Writer Sun Jan 22, 6:44 PM ET

CANNES, France - Recorded music sales resumed their decline in 2005, the industry's leading global body said Sunday, despite high-profile victories against piracy and a surge in online and mobile music store revenues.

Global music retail revenues fell about 2 percent last year, said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. In 2004 they remained flat at $33.6 billion, punctuating a four-year slide.

The new downturn, based on data from three-quarters of the global market, underlined major challenges facing record companies as executives assembled for the music industry's largest European gathering, Midem, which is taking place this week in the French Riviera town of Cannes.

The drop in overall sales came despite a threefold increase in digital music revenue to $1.1 billion from $380 million, while illegal file-sharing volumes changed little, according to a separate IFPI market report published Thursday. The federation sees total sales broadly unchanged in 2006.

Record bosses are now having to look beyond piracy to explain the latest decline in revenues, which have fallen about 20 percent globally since 1999.

"Piracy in all its forms has been the major factor in this reversal but not the only factor," said Eric Nicoli, chairman of EMI Group PLC, the world's No. 3 record company.

Speaking at the MidemNet music technology forum, which preceded the main event, Nicoli also cited tougher competition from other categories of consumer goods.

"Twenty years ago there were no mobile phones, no DVDs, no computer games to speak of," he said. "In categories that did exist, like magazines, cosmetics and designer clothes, we've seen a massive explosion of choice and accessibility to consumers. So no surprise, then, that music sales have come under pressure."

EMI and other record companies are also pressing Apple Computer Inc. to allow more pricing flexibility on its iTunes Music Store, which charges the same rate for any song downloaded — 99 cents for U.S. customers. They have argued — so far without success — that they should be able to charge more for the most sought-after hits.

Apple's iTunes accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. and British online music sales and has significant shares of its 19 other markets. Its popularity is widely credited with halting the growth of piracy, but record companies complain that this has come at the price of a loss of control over their own pricing and marketing.

"One of the biggest mistakes we've made is to hand a monopoly to the retailer," said Alison Wenham, chairman and chief executive of the Association of Independent Music, which represents 800 indie labels.

Some analysts see other reasons for the industry's current woes. "Executives have focused so much of their attention on piracy that they've diverted their efforts from developing new talent," said Phil Leigh of Inside Digital Media, a U.S. market research firm.

Entertainment companies won a series of major court rulings against music piracy in 2005, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing them sue the file-sharing site Grokster for encouraging copyright infringement. Grokster paid $50 million to settle out of court and closed down the site pending a planned switch to licensed sales.

But anti-piracy laws and their enforcement remain patchy in some parts of the world. Record companies, copyright holders' groups and artists are planning protests during Midem against a French move last month to legalize online file sharing.

In a rebellion by lawmakers from the conservative ruling party, the French parliament approved amendments introducing a so-called "global license" — allowing Internet subscribers who pay an extra monthly fee to copy as much music as they like online. The government is seeking the amendments' withdrawal and is expected to announce compromise proposals in coming days.

Despite the music industry's gloomy sales and outlook, almost 9,500 participants from 92 countries are registered to take part in Midem, which runs through Thursday. That's a 7 percent increase from 2005.

[marcello]

I'm sorry, am I missing something?

Peer to Peer file sharing of any previously issued music ( and yes, even if it is OOP ) is wrong and theft. That should be clear.

No wonder why the live music scene is so dismal!

Artists and producers ( and yes label owners ) do not live in a Utopian society that takes care of their needs. They work for it.

Sharing live concert material is not theft. Although there are other that may see it differently.

[marcello]

The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

Alexander,

The difference is that you own the food with no strings attached!

Let your stingy impulses flower and encourage them to buy a copy.

Jazz sales are so low, so dismal, that if you don't, there won't be any labels to record this music, and every free - burned copy that gets handed out, is another nail in the coffin.

This is one subject where the Sage of Whitehall should be listened to.

[Jazzmoose]

But that's why I make a distinction between "home-copying" (which is to say, you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy) and downloading. In the case of home-copying (at least in my case) it's an issue of exchange. I'll let you copy a CD (that I bought and paid for) if you let me copy one of yours (that you bought and paid for). In this case, we've BOTH paid for music and are allowing one another to share in it. You don't let *everyone* share in your music, just your friends. In the case of file-sharing services, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world can share in your music. These are people you've never met. And while you are getting something from them, it's not the same kind of "friendly exchange" that I'm talking about. Illegal file-sharing does seem to be an example of a "something for nothing" mentality. But the kind of sharing that I do is something else entirely. The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

Ah, I see; if you're personally acquainted with your accomplice, it's not an actual crime...

[RDK]

All of this makes me fondly recall the old days, when we actually invited each other to our homes to listen to music together...

[Dan Gould]

Gee Ray, I'm getting the feeling you're a wee bit older than I am ...

[Rooster_Ties]

But that's why I make a distinction between "home-copying" (which is to say, you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy) and downloading. In the case of home-copying (at least in my case) it's an issue of exchange. I'll let you copy a CD (that I bought and paid for) if you let me copy one of yours (that you bought and paid for). In this case, we've BOTH paid for music and are allowing one another to share in it. You don't let *everyone* share in your music, just your friends. In the case of file-sharing services, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world can share in your music. These are people you've never met. And while you are getting something from them, it's not the same kind of "friendly exchange" that I'm talking about. Illegal file-sharing does seem to be an example of a "something for nothing" mentality. But the kind of sharing that I do is something else entirely. The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

As I see it, this isn't really all that much different than shop-lifting. Every disc you burn for your buddies, Alexander -- or that they burn for you -- is music you or they get to enjoy without paying for it. Where I come from, that's not any different than sneaking into a movie theater, or into a concert, or anything else where there is an entry fee required to experience something.

So how is it again, Alexander, that you can justify steeling something -- simply because you happen to be friends with the person who aids in the theft?? Friendly, indeed.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[couw]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

[Jim Alfredson]

The solution to see who is "right" is simple: Go spend $10,000 making a record (which is very inexpensive these days), press 1000 copies, and try to just break even, while giving away copies to all your friends and telling them, "Hey, I don't mind if you copy it for anyone."