Can the illegal downloading culture be changed?

Me me culture. Everywhere and not easily going to be reversed. I suspect that the recording industry as we know it is in terminal decline ...

There is no answer. It is down to respect for others and accepting that they have a right to earn a living.

The concept seems out of date already. It does not matter what a minority think, the majority wish amounts to a demand for the lowest common denominator ...

George

A colleague is the drummer in a well regarded, emerging band and quite understandably frowns upon people who steal music by downloading. However he was quite happy to discuss a movie he'd downloaded last weekend. Double standards or what?

Indeed. The truth is that the reason illegal downloading is so rampant is that enables people to get something for nothing, it's fairly easy and the risk of getting caught is pretty low. Until this changes, I don't see it going away. Depressing, but there you go.

I suspect that it also helps that clicking on something probably doesn't feel like stealing in the same way other crimes might.

From a slightly selfish perspective, though, I wonder how much illegal downloading there is in classical - I suspect the fact that classical represents quite a high proportion of legitimate downloads would suggest it's lower. Also, classical is pushing up the data rates of downloading: the Philharmonia's online store offers 320kbps downloads (DRM free) and DG offers a similar data rate (not sure about DRM). But that still isn't as good as a CD. Linn Records, though, offer not only CD quality but studio master quality downloads. But I still like a physical CD.

I think to some extent that may be a generational thing. There was a piece in the Economist recently which talked about downloading and a focus group type event EMI had done with some teenagers. At the end they'd pointed to a stack of CDS and invited them to take what they wanted. Nobody took anything. Which either indicates it was a pile of junk, or that CD sales are going to be in trouble in the years to come.


regards, Tam

Tam, that's the thing that also worries me, the loss of buying music in physical format. The response of those teenagers to a big pile of free CDs is amazing, I'd have been straight in there. That to me just signifies that CDs are perceived as old fashioned, but I want more than a load of files on a hard drive.

And George, that does seem to be the general way of thinking, that musicians shouldn't earn a living from music. One person even said that they (the artists) don't own music! No, but they own their music.

I think the copyright thing has been blown, and it is only a return to the old days ...

There is a story of old Handel, who made and lost a fortune in music, one day when he produced a new piece with a tune lifted from Thomas Arne. On being questioned about the author of he said,

"Yes, but it was too good a tune for him!"

George

If I write software for somebody then my company expects them to pay for it and it pays me - strange that some folk think it should be different for musicians. For example, Basia Bulat is far more talented than I'll ever be and deserves to receive some remuneration for releasing the best album of 2007 - at least I think so.

I often sample tracks from the Internet, but if I like what I hear then I buy the music - just seems fair to me.

I don't approve of people selling music for grossly inflated prices just because it has become difficult to get hold of - you often see sellers on Amazon trying to rip buyers off - ridiculous prices for Shirley Collins albums. I have suggested to Shirley that she allows these rare tracks to be downloaded for free; she would do it, but apparently doesn't own the rights to do so - the record company does.

HMHB were furious when people were bootlegging their Peel sessions and selling them on evil-Bay, especially as you could get most of the tracks for free, if you wanted to. The group said they don't care about been recorded or bootlegged, but they do care about fans being ripped off.

ATB Rotf

quote:

The truth is that the reason illegal downloading is so rampant is that enables people to get something for nothing

Tam is, of course, 100% right - it is just the way some people are. I once showed a senior executive a shareware program and he said great that'll save me £1000s, when I said he would need to donate £10 to its author, he became angry and said I was stupid after all how would the author ever know he was using it. I did not install the software on his computer.

I used Ranish Partition Manager and sent him 10-dollars [in cash in a letter].

Sorry, this is just back to 'home taping is killing music'. It didn't kill it then and downloading won't kill it now.

Fact is that music sales were never healthier than when home taping was rampant. Lots of young people (like me) were exposed to lots of music we could never have afforded (at £5 an LP in the 70s).

It was the start of a real interest in hi-fi and music. The same will happen again.

What will not recover is the traditional music biz. Its reaping the rewards of an entire industry which ran amok and gouged its customers for as long as it could (£12 a CD for how many years??).

One glance of Amazon or ebay will show you the real market price of these things.

Does anyone really believe the crap about needing high prices to invest in new talent. What new talent? One album made to our formula and if it doesn't sell you're dumped?

Everybody, including young people, has had enough and out of the ashes of this blighted industry that sues kids will come a new and better music culture with a sensible business model - remember Radiohead and host of other bands agree.

This question poses an alternate question.

Is it morally acceptable to continue buying CDs produced by major record companies?

These people have sued bands for making music as expression, (Neil Young, Talk Talk), run cartels to keep the price of CDs artificially high (remember £16 in the UK for a new album before the days of the internet), and continue to prevent bands from releasing recordings/performances that fans want due to the restrictive contracts they hold them under (David Bowie's album Toy, and many, many other artists).

A very interesting article about the practices of record companies, and their inability to embrace the changes in music media and the internet was posted by the designer who works for Nine Inch Nails, it is quite long (so get a cup of tea/coffee first), but does give a great deal of very valid information, scroll down to the 'When pigs fly: The death of Oink' posting - http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/

For many bands now a great deal of their income comes from sales of T-shirts, concert tickets, etc. The album royalties are not the major source of funds.

There is also the case that the record companies, together with the BPI and RIAA lump bootleg live recordings in together with illegal copyright breaking sharing of legitimate releases.

Many bands support the taping and free sharing of bootlegs, as (for many people) they raise interest in the band and generate sales. I ran a poll of the BT-Dime group (Yahoo group for probably the major live bootleg sharing site) a couple of years ago asking how access to live bootlegs had changed peoples CD buying:

It has greatly increased my buying of music by exposing me to more music - 21%
I buy a little more. - 29%
Has made no difference. - 34%
I buy a little less as I now listen the live shows more. - 9%
I buy a great deal less, since I can get torrents for free instead. - 4%

My experience has been that my buying of official albums has increased greatly since starting to collect bootleg live recordings. I do not hear the music I like broadcast on mainstream media, so if I want to know about a band I will try find a radio session, or similar, on Dime to try them out.

I do buy official releases of the albums I want, I like to have original versions, packaging etc. I do buy them direct from the band, or through small distributors if possible, even if it costs more, the money is going directly to the band, or those close(er) to them.

I do still buy albums distributed by major labels, but to be honest I can not think of the last one I did buy. The bands I like are leaving the major record labels, were never on them, or I had bought all their albums long before the question arose.

I would also add that if record companies want people to buy their products then stopping suing grannies who download a MP3 for a child, and instead making their products something worth owning (carrot, not stick) would be a better option. For example, an ingenious way of counteracting illegal MP3s of the last Tool album was to make the packaging something so lovely to own, that getting the original album was worth while, also the rice was sensible, see - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-images/B000EU...UTF8&index=3#gallery

So all in all, I would agree with the demonbaby article in that if you want to support an artist, buy their concert tickets, and all the peripheral material, posters, shirts, etc. Encourage them to leave an outmoded and restrictive industry, and have the freedom to make the music they want.

Abbydog & JamieL

Thanks for posting the alternative arguments far more cogently than I could have managed. I have few qualms about "ripping off" major labels - I have over 1000 CDs, and have probably bought a similar number of LPs in my time, so I feel I've more than paid my dues to the music business. However, I would not dream of illegally downloading tracks by a new artist on an independent label, as I strongly believe in supporting artists that I enjoy. Not sure that the young 'uns see that distinction though.

De Beers act as a cartel and artificially restrict the flow of diamonds, raising their price beyond what it would be in a free market. They are, in effect, gouging their customers. Is it, therefore, acceptable for me to break into a jewelry store to steal some? Of course, to do so would be rather silly, and doesn't happen in the same way as illegal downloading because it requires a good deal more effort and comes with a much greater chance of getting caught, and as I said above, whatever arguments are advanced, people download because they know a free lunch when they see it and they like it.

droodzilla - so once you have paid enough to a company you should not have to pay any more? By that token, I should get my shopping at Tesco for free. After all, over the years the amount of money I've filled their coffers with....


abbydog, the comparison with taping is interesting but flawed. Taping required more effort - getting tapes, finding someone with something you wanted to copy, the actual physical process of doing so. Downloading an entire album is much simpler, and hence the extent to which it has taken off.

I don't really agree that they've gouged customers - I've never paid more than I've been happy to for a CD and the only occasions I've felt cheated have been when musically it isn't an interpretation I much like (like a recent, and actually very cheap - about £2 a disc) box of Dvorak symphonies I bought. If a CD is priced too high (and sometimes that still happens), I simply don't buy it, and wait for it to get cheaper. If I can't wait, I have to pay what they're asking - the same thing happens with new technology or many other things besides, and none of it justifies what is, in effect stealing. I have no moral qualms about buying from a major label if it's a record I want to hear. I think in the grand scheme of immoral companies, they come a good way down the list.

Investment is an issue - there was a recent studio recording of a major opera (an activity which has decreased in recent years) which cost half a million pounds or so. It isn't a cheap process and you need deep pockets to do it. Chandos's (a small label) opera in English series only keeps going because Peter Moore is very generous and has very deep pockets. But even getting an orchestra together for a really major recording session as would have occurred 50 years ago is lessening - most things now are live tapings, patched over with a brief studio session. I think this is a shame. I don't know to what extent it's down to downloading, but there seems to me to be less money being invested. I don't care really whether labels are big or small, or what happens to the large labels so long as their back catalogues remain available (and ideally are made more so) and someone, somewhere has the finance to back the large classical recording projects that should be backed.


You say this will all give way to a new business model - I really am curious what that is?


Jamie, I do agree that their stance on bootlegs has been unhelpful, and I would argue that there are ways to make this material available legally and make a reasonable profit.

The problem with your poll is twofold. Firstly it isn't representative, not only in terms of sampling, but more specifically because the place it was conducted seems to be one frequented by pretty dedicated music fans. Secondly, though, even if that wasn't the case, with the final answer you're asking people basically to admit to stealing. As one sees from this thread, people use all kinds of rationalisation to get around that, and I suspect it's one of the many questions they would lie to pollsters about.

You say albums are not the major source of funds. I suppose it may be true for some bands, but I would be curious to see some figures to support that.

regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
However, I would not dream of illegally downloading tracks by a new artist on an independent label, as I strongly believe in supporting artists that I enjoy. Not sure that the young 'uns see that distinction though.

As far as I can see, "artists", "labels" and "albums" are concepts widely unknown to young people. And I won't blame them for that. They grew up with MTV as a model of what music business is.

Good points from Abbydog & JamieL. In the majority of cases the major record companies stand between the musician and the listener and make a nonsense of everything. They berate us for not buying what they want us to, tell us it’s all our fault and accuse us of destroying the industry through illegal activities. Talk about broad strokes! They have become so comfortable choking on the vast proceeds of everybody else’s toil (from the creativity and sweat of the musicians/writers to the fact that we have to go out and work to earn enough money to buy their over priced goods) that they think it’s some sort of birth right.

If the industry is making so much money and writers and musicians are getting so little, is it solely the fault of people who obtain music (albeit illegally) which they never would have considered paying for in the first place? Much of the more recent output in terms of sound quality is worth less than the cost of a blank CD-R. That doesn’t give anyone cart blanche to steal, but the industry needs to get it in perspective. Fat chance.

Cheers

quote:

De Beers act as a cartel and artificially restrict the flow of diamonds, raising their price beyond what it would be in a free market.

Yes, but does DeBeers act against the interests of consumers or lower the quality of diamonds supplied to the market. I think not.

"Bootleg" has come to define several very different things.

A Dylan, Beatles or Stones "bootleg" would virtually never be initially authorized by the bands and/or their management and therefore possession of, let alone money transactions for, these items, should never be done and should be considered illegal use of copyrighted material. To add confusion, the term bootleg is then eventually used by the artist if they make these official releases for sale. Bootleg here refers to the original source of the material, not the transaction of purchasing the product from the artist/record company.

Many artists, following the model of the Grateful Dead, but to include such current artists as Dave Matthews (Band), John Mayer, David Gray, Ryan Adams, Drive By Truckers (the list is endless) permit live recording as long as there is no monetary gain in the transaction - ie; money changing hands. Downloading, trading and gifting of shows is permitted and encouraged (a form of marketing). Official taping policies are posted on the artist web sites, and it has been my experience, there is an unwritten code of ethics strictly promoted/followed within this music environment/community. If someone offers you a live recording "to purchase" and they aren't standing at the bands merchandise table, "say NO". Many of these artists make "official" live recordings for sale as well, they are better quality, and sell well.

Just wanted to clarify a bit - terms like "downloading" and "bootlegs" have become somewhat like "Xerox", broadly generalized, leading to misuse and misunderstanding. Don't download illegally, don't "buy" live recordings unless they are official releases from the artist.

Jeff A

I think that keeping the price of diamonds high IS acting against the interests of consumers. I have no idea if they lower quality or not, but then I don't think the major labels do that. A good chunk of my record buying comes from them (some comes from smaller labele, some from artist owned labels) and I'm rarely dissatisfied with the quality. I don't really think, bootleg aside (and to most music consumers, I don't think they are an issue - they are something for hardcore fans only), anyone here has provided an argument that shows the major labels have reduced the quality of music supplied to the market. I would be interested to read it, though.

regards, Tam

quote:

I don't really think anyone here has provided an argument that shows the major labels have reduced the quality of music supplied to the market.

There is enough evidence from artists, bands, consumers, radio stations etc to fill a library. If you don't want to read it listen to EMI, Working for MCA, Have a Cigar...

Incidentally, acting as a cartel to stabalise the price and quality of a comodity is not necessarily against the interests of consumers. I don't want to sit here and defend DeBeers particularly, but they're probably saints compared to the content-controlled digital nightmare major labels that don't even want to recognise the concept of fair use.

And if you think the music industry is bad, check out the moves their movie industry cousins are making...

quote:

Originally posted by abbydog:
There is enough evidence from artists, bands, consumers, radio stations etc to fill a library. If you don't want to read it listen to EMI, Working for MCA, Have a Cigar...

So present it - put up or shut up.

regards, Tam

I personally believe the rapid growth of the "indie" artist (within pop, rock, folk) is largely due to a stifling of originality at the major label looking for the next Backstreet Boys, Britney, Bruce, Coldplay,etc. Also the majors now do little but "front" money for new artists, you owe it all back to them (expenses for promotions, tours, etc) and you get a small percentage of sales.

With changes in technology, indies now have access to high quality "local" recording facilities (to include manufacture and distribution - think CD Baby), percentages as high as 80-90% on sales, the capability of self-promotion (internet, web page, myspace) and smaller regional tours on established circuits that are often promoted by word of mouth within music forums such as this one (and, by authorized "bootlegging"). There is some incredibly original, quality material being produced this way. These artists aren't wealthy beyond imagination like U2, Bruce, etc but they make middle class or better (sometimes significantly) careers doing something they love.

Classical and jazz don't fit this model as well, though I think we have seen some of it with the success of Naxos, symphonies releasing themselves on downloads, more jazz festivals, allowing jazz artists more self-promotion (with the exception of blue note, the last 30 years of jazz has been primarily small label).

Podcasts and internet radio have also contributed to sea-changes in the industry. Good or bad, we each decide.

Jeff A

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:

Jamie, I do agree that their stance on bootlegs has been unhelpful, and I would argue that there are ways to make this material available legally and make a reasonable profit.

The problem with your poll is twofold. Firstly it isn't representative, not only in terms of sampling, but more specifically because the place it was conducted seems to be one frequented by pretty dedicated music fans. Secondly, though, even if that wasn't the case, with the final answer you're asking people basically to admit to stealing. As one sees from this thread, people use all kinds of rationalisation to get around that, and I suspect it's one of the many questions they would lie to pollsters about.

You say albums are not the major source of funds. I suppose it may be true for some bands, but I would be curious to see some figures to support that.

regards, Tam

Tam is quite right about the poll, Dime is a home for very dedicated live music collectors, had that poll been on one of the 'Warez' sites the results would have been exactly the opposite, but then the 'Warez' sites are the ones that distribute pirate copies of officially available material, not solely bootlegs.

I would, however, trust the answers of the Dime community, they are very self richeous about supporting artists and music, and to an extent see themselves as archivists of recordings not available elsewhere. The are a great number of posts on Dime promoting the artists, and many would see themselves as countering the censorship of the music industry in not releasing such recordings. They would not see sharing as stealing, and many of the artists would agree with this stance.

I have even had a reply from an artist who I contacted before sharing one performance which I though might be officially released at some point. He trusted the fans to 'buy it anyway' if it were released, and only felt that record companies created 'complications', and that he was happy for people to get the recording for free now.

Such exposure does stimulate interest and sales, especially for artists who like to been seen as outside the corporate world, or are just happy for any exposure.

Regarding the amount of funds generated from sources other than CD sales, the linked Demonbaby article says this:
'Anything a band sells that does not have music on it is outside the reach of the record label, and monetarily supports the artist more than buying a CD ever would. T-shirts, posters, hats, keychains, stickers, etc.'

For rock and metal bands this is particularly true, look at the queue outside a gig, and tour shirts are a necessary part of the 'uniform'. I do also remember hearing this on a documentary following a band on tour many years ago (BBC Arena I think, following Metallica, and also strangely launching the career of 'Napalm Death', and again on a report about Big Country)

Different types of music will no doubt have very different percentages of revenue from such sales. Not an awful lot of 'Beethoven' baseball caps in evidence the last time I went to the proms (though I quite like the idea!). I would presume that the actual ticket sales are the major source of revenue for classical music, and probably jazz as well.

I also remember seeing a pie chart many, many years ago showing how the money from an album (then vinyl) sale broke down, and the percentage received by the artist was very small, something like 4%, but I may out a few percent here. I also heard that for many years record companies paid only 50% royalties on CDs in order to recuperate development costs for the CD format. I am sure this went on well into the 90s, but can not give a specific source for this, sorry.

I hope I do not sound like a conspiracy theorist, saying record companies are evil. Most were started by enthusiasts who wanted to help share the music they loved, but over the years they have been bought out by huge multinational companies who are interested purely in profit, and not artistic expression.

As for the mentions of the film industry, I work in it, and know how restrictive it has become, speaking of which I had better 'restrict myself' to getting back to work on a shot I have to deliver this week.

quote:

A Dylan ..... "bootleg" would virtually never be initially authorised

I read that Dylan disliked the many bootlegs of his work because they weren't the recordings he wanted people to hear and the tracks were in the wrong order - it was artistic grounds rather than financial grounds.

I found it frustrating that Pink Floyd would never release some early Syd Barrett tracks - I could understand the argument that it would have hurt Syd, but now he has sadly died these tracks could be released. I have them on ROIO, but would much prefer an official release.

Another interesting group is the Desperate Bicycles. They released some DIY singles and an album in the late 70s. All of their music is unofficially available for download. All the group seems interested in is that nobody is ripped off and there is no CD release. The songs were made to show that anybody so inclined could make a record, It was easy, it was cheap, go and do it; they did not believe they had made any music of great lasting merit and seem quite happy to let it fade in to obscurity. My opinion is it represents the pinnacle of new wave music.

There are some practices of the majors I don't like - the artificial boosting of the volume I despise, bringing out the same albums with slightly different bonus tracks on them to take advantage of completists.

MySpace is great in that it lets me hear musicians I might never of heard otherwise, lots of whom are really very good.

ATB Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Anderson:
I personally believe the rapid growth of the "indie" artist (within pop, rock, folk) is largely due to a stifling of originality at the major label looking for the next Backstreet Boys, Britney, Bruce, Coldplay,etc. Also the majors now do little but "front" money for new artists, you owe it all back to them (expenses for promotions, tours, etc) and you get a small percentage of sales.

You may have a point there, and I think the rise of small labels (and proliferation, or so it seems to me) has been a good thing for consumers. However, none of that justifies illegal downloading, in my view. I suspect that a good chunk of what gets downloaded is stuff from the majors that people do want, but just would rather not pay for if they don't have to.

CD Baby is interesting. I was speaking to my uncle a while back (who is better known by his stage name Thomas Dolby) who was with EMI in the 80s and 90s and since his return to music has released a couple of live discs through iTunes and CD Baby for the reason that he gets a much better deal (though it doubtless helps that he already has an established fan base). From what he's said, the new album that is in the offing will come this way, or something similar.

Jamie - thanks for a very interesting answer. I'd agree that for the Dime people the pole is probably fairly accurate. Beethoven baseball caps - I'll keep an eye out. I do know that at Bayreuth they'll sell you a bust of Richard Wagner! I suspect you're right, though, that in classical ticket sales are a bigger chunk.

As a consumer, I certainly find I get better service from small labels (when I've had problems with things I've bought you tend to get a better, and personal response), but that's the case more generally with small companies. However, as I mentioned earlier, the don't have the capital for really big projects - and I think if that were lost entirely it would be a shame.

regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
. However, none of that justifies illegal downloading, in my view.
regards, Tam

Agreed

You go out for a day...I thought this one had died!

I'm certainly not saying that we should shed tears for the majors, I'm defending the artist. It would be galling for an artist to be dropped from a label, despite healthy illegal downloads, but only average legit sales! And also releases on small indie labels being 'shared' which they can ill afford.

But what amazed me was the attitude towards the artist, as your moderately popular band or artist is usually not sat on a great pot of money. This however is the perception, and the people I spoke with weren't downloading U2, Peter Gabriel, Bon Jovi etc, they were downloading indie/low volume stuff.

I'm glad artists are doing for themselves, and the internet is a great tool for this, just as it's a great tool for 'sharing' files.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I would hate for physical formats to disappear, I like buying CDs. But just as direct internet distribution is beneficial for those artists who have broken away for traditional labels, it also beneficial to majors. It's not totally outside the realms of possibility that they may stop producing CDs, with their packaging, distrbution and retailer margin costs. Direct download sales would increase their margins too.

quote:

So present it - put up or shut up.

Do your own research, mate. Try Google...