The Music Piracy Poll!

[Chuck Nessa]

And it continues ad nauseum.

My biggest problem continues to be that people who are against copying refuse to admit that there are significant benefits to it. That is why we draw the line in a different spot, and that is why it is a gray area. you simply cant say "downloading is wrong" or "copying cds is wrong." Its incredibly out of touch with the realities of technology today, and out of touch with how music is consumed today. I download an incredible amount of music. I also buy an incredible amount of music because of that. Until you can admit the vast benefits of downloading and burning, we cant have an honest discussion about the negative implications either.

Please explain how technology trumps "right and wrong". Please provide some statistics to back up your "excuse". That might solve your problem and lead to "an honest discussion about the negative implications".

I'm certainly not "out of touch with how music is consumed today" but am bothered by some of the consumption. I fear for all creative endeavors when reward is denied to serve "the beast" of consumption.

Ad nauseum indeed.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Chuck Nessa

[md655321]

Technology trumps your narrow concept of right and wrong when it helps the very people you are claiming it hurts. You make no allowances whatsoever for how downloading music today has become very similar to a user friendly radio. I for one can point to literally hundreds of cds and dozens of concerts I have attended as a direct result of exposure to downloaded music. I know of many MANY people who have had the exact same response. In a way, the democratization of music (im sure you will love that phrase) has led to increased fan base AND intensified fan base. I wouldnt be 1/100 of the jazz fan I am without access to the music. I just dont see how you draw the line as "Wrong" because it hurts artists when actually in MANY cases it helps them greatly. Maybe you are drawing it as wrong simply due to law, for which is even more absurd. Never once in my life did I consider legality and morality to be related.

[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.

[rostasi]

You can't tell me that all the business that supported all these places has just shifted to online purchasing.

I know that I have - big time!

and nearly all of my friends and acquaintances have too.

If I (or they) step inside a Tower Records or Virgin, for instance,

it's usually either for an impulsive-must-have-now purchase

or a let's-see-what's-come-out outing.

I checked my Amazon orders for 2005 and saw that I placed 360 orders

(multiply 1 to about 6 discs per order...) and that's just with Amazon!

All of us here know the dangers of Mosaic, Dusty Groove, et. al. and so it is

extremely easy to buy away from the brick and mortar stores.

I shake my head all the time at these "list prices" -

many of which are higher than actual list price which of itself

is artificially inflated by the poor downtrodden <<snif, snif>> SuperLabels.

I've mentioned it before on this forum that I cringe

when I see so-called "sale" prices and

prices of $18.99 on independent label discs that

if I bought them directly from the label would cost only $14

and if I bought them from online dealers would often cost

anywhere from $10 - $12.

Concerning the used market:

In the mid to late 80's, it was incredibly frowned upon (by, guess who?) to be a store selling used discs -

first, it was presented by the major record label hoodlums as a losing financial situation -

that it was a foolish undertaking that any "serious" store owner wouldn't commit to.

After it was discovered that people did indeed enjoy the savings and the stores were actually

going to stick around and prosper (the "key" word here), then - around the early 90's - the labels began complaining and even tried, unsucessfully, to sue stores for selling the promotional copies that were sent out by the labels. Major retailers were screaming bloody murder and were getting lots of ink in the papers about their ever dwindling profits. Artists would even sometimes show up in stores to protest that they were losing money (I had a particularly unpleasant experience with the guitarist Jonathan Butler who was thereafter known as Jonathan Butthole in our store).

(Gosh, anybody notice a pattern here? Yesterday's "no downloading"?).

Soon afterwards - beginning in the mid 90's - the major store chains saw the light

(as some are in the industry today - re: Universal) and decided to take their

"Hey, we can make money on this too!" ideals and began not only offering used CDs for sale

in the major outlets like Sound Warehouse/Blockbuster Music/Warehouse Music to name just one,

but started to flood the market with these smaller stores that became as ubiquitous as 7-11's.

The problem was that these stores were expected to buy nearly every and anything that

came thru their door. No buying discretion was practiced for two main reasons: 1) the appearance of volume was important and 2) the majority of the employees had very little musical knowledge and couldn't be expected to sift and buy. It was easy to go into one of these places only every 6 months because the stock would still be sitting there - often not even moved from it's original location in the rack.

If the promos that I got from the majors were of any indication coupled with keeping a keen eye on these businesses, much less than 5% of the discs would be anything close to a regular selling item. Many of the prices would stay the same as well.

Well, they could only sit in their own rot-gut for sooo long and the stores began disappearing when it was pretty clear that the companies spread themselves way too thin...with product that was also spread too thin.

People have spoken. Sales doesn't just refer to brick and mortar anymore,

so it is easy to have lots of selling going on without them...

and it will continue until there's another breakthrough and the majors (if there are any)

will continue right on fighting that development too - until, of course,

they find that the people have spoken once again.

[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!

[rostasi]

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.

I wanted to say too that although I agree with most of your position, I haven't fallen for this oft-repeated line.

The majors cry about losing money thru downloading, but what ALL of the "Big Ten"

mean is that they didn't reach their expectations - in other words, they made a profit during a quarter,

but it wasn't the profit that they had projected. They wanted 10% profit and they got 6% and then they announce that they had a 4% loss and we're all supposed to get out the hankies. When the record companies do have a quarterly loss, it is usually due to expenses incurred by a merger (like Warners and Sony/BMG) or a legal case that often hinges on some stoopid greed-based mistake that was made

(Sony's CD copy-protection fiasco, their WaCkY propietary ideas - ATRAC instead of mp3, et al.).

So, the concerns really revolve around what the majors want - concerns about not getting an even larger part of the pie that is provided by, for instance, Death Cab for Cutie, Coldplay, and the new Juicebox single by The Strokes.

I think that with most of these major record labels being foreign owned - Warners the only American based

and, ironically, their parent company owns the Winamp and Gnutella programs that seem to give The Industry the feverish shakes - the US courts will side with the future growing commerce of the country which is Internet commerce.

from an article about Napster:

"...we live in something called a democracy, and laws, in theory, evolve toward the wishes of the majority. If the law states that hats cannot be worn in the malls, but 95% of the crowd insists on wearing hats when shopping, the hat law will change. If the "people" overwhelmingly feel that Internet song trading is acceptable then laws will eventually move to affirm that, whether the record companies agree or not..."

Lastly, I have 10 songs of Mbalax music that I want the naysayers to go out and not only find at your local brick and mortar - no Internet downloads please - but to buy the complete CDs with the hopes that the whole CD will be a gem. I will start with only 3 songs - the first being by the most famous - and you can write me offline for the other 7 if you're curious:

Youssou N'Dour: Gandiol

Abdou Guité Seck: Dekaalé

Ablaye Mbaye: Yaaye Maag Naa

Tho not Mbalax, Souad Massi has a beautiful sounding new CD - her third - that I'm picking up

to go with the first two I own - discovered not thru any Tower or Virgin listening station - but thru the magic of download.

[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."

[rostasi]

Wow! We're gonna need a pretty big broom

for all of those sweeping generalizations!

[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.

[rostasi]

Hahahaha. This is hilarious!

"...Global music retail revenues fell about 2 percent last year, said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

A very unbiased opinion.

"...as executives assembled for the music industry's largest European gathering, Midem, which is taking place this week in the French Riviera

The drop in overall sales came {blah, blah, blah...} The federation sees total sales broadly unchanged in 2006

eh, hem...

Record bosses are now having to look beyond piracy to explain the latest decline in revenues

yup, they sure do!

"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."

Yeah, those extra choices are just making it so difficult for the robber barons. I mean, what happened to the good old days when music was one of the main and few chioices of electronic/home entertainment?

They have argued — so far without success — that they should be able to charge more for the most sought-after hits.

Yeah, instead of charging less for the crappy ones! Gimme, gimme, gimme...

{blah, blah, blah...}

Despite the music industry's gloomy sales and outlook...

they will continue acting like neanderthals and fight for the right to have more big cars and luxurious soirees...

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.

No decrease there eh? Edited January 23, 2006 by rostasi