JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Music Piracy

I like to see the pitiful rationalizings for "the right to free music" blown out of the water.

One of my own analogies is:
If I was making nice furniture in my front yard and you come by with a truck,
should you just be able to pick up a table and drive off? Well why is is that just because you have a computer, do you feel you have a right to the intellectual property of others. . . cleverly calling it "file sharing".

This article recommended by ASCAP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/nov/18/digitalmusic-digitalmedia

Excerpt:

"Another argument being aired is that the music industry should stop being so hung up on trying to get paid on line, indeed one story even referred to "the music industry's obsession with copyright". That's like saying "the car industry's obsession with cars". Copyright is the oxygen of the music industry. Without it, there is no industry. Sure, there may be cases for changing some industry practices, but copyright remains the essence of making money from music.

Terry

End users should be educated that it's not really cheap to create music. They are actually paying for the rights to own the vessel of the music (in online terms, you pay for the right to download).

Listening to music is free. Getting it is not.

You should read this:
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/

Here's my take on music piracy: for every 100 or so people who download my music from Mininova (I put it there myself), there's 1 or 2 who'll gladly give me money. You can probably guess which are the ones I care about...

The Nine Inch Nails understand this even better than I do, giving away their latest music for free and at the same time selling out their limited run of 2500 special edition boxes for $300 a piece.

In short, I think your attention should focus on those who do want to pay for your music (including radio stations, tv/movie licenses, etc).

I agree, Jim. Piracy is something that will never go away. There's this need for people to OWN something. And right now, like you, I do appreciate those who are willing to shell out hard-earned cash for a copy of my music.

It's not the individuals who download for their personal use or reference that cause the labels worry, but those who actually SELL pirated music for profit.

I can understand your position, but who's to say, how would you know (and I'm saying this as a BIG IF) if the ones who are paying you are actually the ones making profit afterwards.

I've almost given up on "selling" music online, that's why if anyone asks me where they can get my songs, I direct them to my links and ask them to "listen" for the meantime.

Most piracy that involves actually selling the music for profit occurs in countries where this is the norm. Russia, China, etc. And even then, most of the activity is limited to well-known artists.

Honestly, there is way too much music out there to be worried about it. Most of us are just a tiny drop in that ocean. When you're as big as Coldplay, then you can worry But then again, if you're as big as Coldplay, you've probably got a few million fans willing to pay for your music, so who cares about some street vendor hawking counterfeit CDs in Siberia?

Interesting statement. However, is it wrong?

In Dunbarstan, a small, relatively unknown country with a poplulation of 5 million, there is hardly any crime. There is a man there who murders someone once every five years. But who cares? I mean it's not hardly anything. Nowhere near the number of Russian street vendors?

I understand the thinking: it's small potatoes, hardly a drop in the bucket so who cares? But the day may come when the Russian pirated stuff floods the market. Then what happens? It's easier to fix the small hole in the dam than to rebuild the village that gets washed away.

Diseases affect everyone, after all...

Mike, if you wanna spend your time and energy fixing that hole, good luck. The major label system is wasting tons of cash and goodwill trying to patch it up. Meanwhile, the water just finds another way out, as water often does.

We've been living with piracy for how long now? Napster (the original) was built in 1999. Physical CD piracy has been around even longer. Has anything changed? Has filesharing decreased? No, in fact it's more rampant than ever. Is there less music as a result? Nope, there's even more music being released these days, some directly from ProTools to the internet, with no copy protection (on purpose!).

Forget about the Russian pirated stuff flooding the market. It's already flooded.

Artists should be focused on creating new music and building a fanbase that is interested in supporting them. No one should have the "privilege" of griping about piracy until they've built something of value. Writing songs doesn't count. Releasing a few CDs doesn't count. Those things used to be rare. They aren't anymore. Writing a *great* song that attracts several thousand people to your mailing list? Okay, now you can complain, but only after you mail me your first iTunes check.

It's cliche to say so, yeah, but it really is an adapt-or-die situation. Diseases may affect everyone, but there are always survivors who emerge stronger and fitter.

Scott,

I agree wholeheartedly that Artists should not bother focusing on this. But artists' representatives and champions should continue "plugging the holes" and when folks find new ways, which they will, plug them also. It's like battling internet viruses. We may never stop them, but if we give up, they win.

There are a number of industries that have been affected by the technological revolution but entertainment media is about the only one where millions steal and feel no compunction about it. Retail chains may have online stores but many also have the brick buildings to go along with it. You can steal credit card info but there are safeguards. Only material created for enjoyment can be easily stolen on the internet.

I believe the ISPs could stop it if they had a reason to. It may take constant diligence but their ad dollars are pretty constant too.

It started with Napster so I hear. I've never been able to determine how Napster made money. They got a lot of venture capital while they were being given away for free though. In 2002, Bertlesmann said they'd buy Napster assets for $85 mil. That deal never went through. A porn industry group wound up buying rights to Napster for $2.43 million. In September of this year, Best Buy bought Napster for $121 million.

It bugs me that because of it's gargantuan presence in the web world, Microsoft has to be considered partly responsible for the success of file sharing theft. At the same time, Microsoft made the biggest chunk of their money through Windows operative systems. The part that bugs me is we don't own the Windows on our computer, we're just leasing it. Microsoft owns it and they keep doing things to our computer. They can tell if we copied it illegally and they have been known to seek restitution. That software they protect so diligently is the same software that helps a lot of thieves steal copyrighted material. It don't seem right to me.

I fail to see what Microsoft did to promote file sharing. Unless, of course, you are referring to their draconian DRM efforts (i.e. "Plays For Sure", etc) that are so cumbersome they practically beg consumers to seek out DRM-free torrents instead...

And can we please stop calling file sharing "theft". It's not. Theft is when you take something from me and then I no longer have it... file sharing does not fit that description.

So if I steal your car but later you get it back, I haven't committed theft, because you still have your car. Maybe I only borrowed it for a while.

Songwriters as well as anyone that creates what is known as intellectual property and registers it for copyright has the right to determine who may use that property during his lifetime plus 70 years according to U.S. copyright law.

If someone uses that property without permission it is theft. Someone had to do all the work for that music to be availiable to use. If someone downloads that file for personal use and doesn't pay for it, it is theft. You may say but it's just a copy but then there are thousands of copys in CD Stores. You can't just go in and pick up a free copy.

Certain countries that refused to sign the Berne Agreement may have allowed bootleg copies of Movies, Cd'S, Clothing, Watches, and many other things that are protected by Copyright or other Laws.

There have been confisation of products on more than one occasion of bootleg products imported into the country.

So you have a job. Well the employer paid one employee. So now he says you should work for free? Is it theft or is it not?

You worked hard to produce a CD. Someone wants to make a copy of it. Should they? How about everybody making a free copy? You made them for sale. Now what?

Jim,

If you bought a book. Let's say whatever book is now the best seller at Amazon.com, then typed out every word of it and put it on a PDF file for free download on the internet, what do you think would happen? Do you think that you stole the book?

Well there are two definitions of "book" here, just as there are two definitons of "song." One definition is as the physical copy of the author's work, the other defintion is as the author's intellectual work itself. Taking either without permission is stealing. When we say "stealing a song" we mean the stealing of the author's intellectual work, of which they have the right to copy (the copyright) not the illegal filesharer.

If someone uses that property without permission it is copyright infringement. They haven't taken your copyright away from you.

Define Theft:
The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

Yes, to be accurate, that is true. What I would call "stolen" would be my ability to be compensated for the property. That is what was removed. The recording is not "removed" but is illegally copied. Beyond that, I believe it is simply wrong to deny an author or composer the ability to be compensated for their work.

How are they denying you the ability to get compensated for your work?

You can still sell and license your music. I don't see where that right has been denied?

Because someone saw your track on a filesharing network and downloaded and listened to it makes them a thief? I would call them a fan and a potential purchaser of my band's t-shirt, poster, live concert ticket, iTunes album download, etc.
The more they shared that track with their friends I would call them my band's promoter and evangelist before I would call them a thief and get my team of lawyers on them.

But that's just me.

Because when someone copies the file without paying for it, where does the money come to the composer? When a cd is sold, the composer gets their share. When a song is broadcast on the radio, the composer gets their share. Then comes the technology, beginning with the home tape recorder, to copy from the radio or from a recording. This is illegal. The reason it is illegal is because the person doing the copying did not get permission from the composer to copy. (I'm simplifying here, there are "fair use" laws also)

Now, I have had songs of mine that I (the operative word being "I") allowed people to copy. I simply assigned my right to copy (my copyright) and this is a good idea. This is what the Grateful Dead did, they encouraged their fans to copy. It is a good tactic. If someone copies and shares that work, they do so legally and are "evangelists" for that me or for the Dead. But if they are doing it without the aforementioned permission, then they are copying it illegally and stealing the ability to be compensated.

And that's not just me. That's the law.

I encourage folks to give permission to copy some of their work.

I also encourage people in the music business to educate others in the sanctity of creation. Music is not free. It belongs to the musicians who create it. They may decide to give it for free, or may decide not to. Taking music that is given freely is well and good. Taking music against someone's wishes is not.

Hey, by the way, Partners in Ryme, welcome to JPF. I love Barcelona, went there to play music at the World's Fair some years ago. It's a beautiful city and Spain is full of wonderful people.

But that's just it. If you make an (illegal) copy of one of my recordings, you do not diminish my capacity to sell copies of that recording to other people. Heck, I can even sell you another copy!

The word theft, in my opinion, would be warranted when you take one of my songs, pass it as your own and end up collecting the PRO royalties that would rightfully belong to me. THEN you'll have diminished my capacity to make money with that song. Of course, technically, this is also not theft but infringement.

What is stolen is the intellectual property. It is being taken without being paid for. It's not "diminishing" the capacity to make money, it does not allow the creator any capacity to make money on that particular copy, it is simply taken (put onto someone's computer, Ipod, or cd) and not paid for.

It is not "theft" in the normative use. It is, however, taking something one has no right to...a copy of someone's creation.

Now, do I think it is a serious offense? No. So if folks don't mind it, maybe it's something like taking a ball point pen from a business or bringing home some envelopes from the office. Some businesses don't mind and actually expect it, others do mind and can get pretty upset. It's like that.

Fair enough. Let's not get bogged down on the semantics, it appears we have quite similar views on this.

Lets define what constitutes theft. If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that which belongs to another, without the rightful owners permission or paying an agreed price to said owner, that is theft. If you live in an apartment building and doesn't have cable TV, if you decide to tap into your neighbours cable connection, with or without his permission, you have committed theft, even though you have not prevented your neighbour from still watching TV. You've stolen a service provided by the cable company, because you never paid for that service. Some people like to justify their act of theft to ease their conscience by saying "they'll never miss it anyway" or "they have more money then they'll ever need".

Here's Webster:

Steal

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b: to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c: to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>

Theft

1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

I report, you decide.

Hey, I stole that! No wait, I couldn't have stolen that...they still have it...right?

Piracy in the modern world does not merely constitute "taking something" you do not own. In music, it doesn't matter if you own an original CD. If you rip that, then sell it for profit, it's piracy. The pirate, therefore is the one doing the pirating. He's the one making profit from music that may be his, but selling copies of it illegally.

When someone buys that, that someone is not really a pirate, but someone who buys pirated goods, and is therefore promoting piracy.

Theft, on the other hand, would be physically stealing a CD from someone. Or stealing someone else's melody or lyrics and claiming it as your own.

I thought we were talking about illegal file sharing? At least that's what my inference was, based on the above which was the original post.

To me, file sharing is "to take or appropriate (someone's music) without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and when done, it is "b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property" Of course, "as" makes that part of the definition a simile, meaning that the defined word is not limited to "embezzlement or burglary," but is similar to both or either, which I find illegal file sharing to be.

However, anyone is certainly free to believe differently.

Thanks Mike, looks like a lively forum here and one I look forward to taking part in.

Partners In Rhyme started out in Hollywood, then moved to New Zealand for 6 years and for the last 2 years Barcelona as been our home and 'el punto final'. It is an awesome city to live in with tons of musicians and music being played everywhere.

-Mark

Here's a quote from recent article regarding film piracy but I think we can substitute it with 'music' just as easily.
The main quote being;
"You should be afraid of obscurity, not piracy"


"What of the downside of this brave new digital playground – the thieving online pirate scum that Hollywood loves to hate?

"You should be worried about obscurity, not piracy," said Brian Newman of the Tribeca Film Institute, unveiling his company's Reframe project for the digital dissemination of otherwise inaccessible old film and video. "I don't believe piracy lowers the numbers."

"Films are made to be seen," said Steal This Film's Jamie King, "but the goal of cinema at the moment seems to be trying to stop people seeing films."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/nov/12/power-to-the-pixel-2008

The biggest problem with the "file sharing = theft" stance, I think, is that it is too black and white.

Say I rip a friend's CD to my iTunes 'cause he says I should check it out, but then I never get around to listening to it. Is that bad for anyone involved in the creation of the CD?

Or what if I listen to the whole album exactly once and then delete it because I don't like the music. Is that bad?

Or maybe I'll listen to the album five times and then love it so much, I'll happily pay $60 to see the band live. Is that bad?

Ask these questions to "normal" people (i.e. those who are neither musicians nor copyright experts) and they will most likely answer "no" three times in a row.

I agree up to a point. Most folk who get pirated get a huge income anyway so a few bucks here and there TO THEM is no big deal.
If someone pirated my stuff I would be flattered that I had another fan albeit non paying. They might buy tickets to my next gig or recommend me to their friends who just might buy a CD.

It is all down to perception and greed. I maintain that the suits and big stars earn way too much anyway.

Which is how most musicians actually make money; through performances and product endorsements. The main problem, therefore is what does the songwriter (if the songwriter is not the artist) earn aside from the royalties, to which is dependent on albums sales?

But he is not dependent on album sales alone! He'll be able to collect PRO royalties for all public performances of his work, including radio and TV. If you're not a touring artist, that's where the money is.

It varies from country to country Jim. Our local FILSCAP has a blanket charge on all establishments for the pro performances of registered members, and the only other avenuw for a songwriter to truly make money over a song is sequencing with a TV series or a movie (as part of the soundtrack). Also, most of the time, radio stations play songs not because they are good, but because of payola, so nothing really goes to the songwriter except the initial advance royalty and after sales royalty.

That's why some songwriters here become "commercial" songwriters, following the formulas that the "masses" want.

What's more "disappointing" is the sudden burst of remakes. Most labels and outfits want a guaranteed return, so instead of getting new materials, they'll produce remakes instead.

Your music is not confined to just one market... if the Philipines don't work for you, sell your music elsewhere!

Yes but remakes are an international problem. LOL

I switched from songs to screenplays, only to discover the term "sequel"...<sigh>

Midnite

Wait till you discover the prequels. LOL

I was speaking with an Iranian Exile who is one of the most popular artists in the entire middle east. His music is not legally allowed to be played in many countries but he says that nearly everyone in many countries has copies of his music they got from the black market. He get's no radio play and can't even appear in his home country because he's banned. But he's not bothered by it because when he goes to any of those countries where he's allowed to enter, his concerts always sell out (and we're talking large rooms). He just recently sold out the Kodak Theater here in the US. He's got a great attitude and he seems to be doing just fine financially on nothing more than ticket sales for the shows.

Something to consider however: The fuzzy logic that people use to say file sharing is fine and that it's not stealing should consider that sneaking into a concert without buying a ticket would be the same basic offense. And if everyone did that ALSO, then Andy wouldnt' have any way to make a living at all. You can tweak the concept of moral equivelency and suggest file sharing isn't stealing, but it's certainly the same thing as sneaking into a concert without buying a ticket. That hurts everyone involved as well. If everyone sneaks in, then there's no way to pay the sound guy or the janitor sweeping the floor or to replace the spotlight bulbs that burn out or the even pay for the power to plug everything in, not to mention the artist themselves. Far more than just the artist themselves suffers when music isn't paid for. And the affect of the theft trickles down well beyond just that artist/writer. It causes labels to sign less artists. That pushes high level artists down into the smaller venues and local scene. That pushes those artists out of those slots into the coffee houses and dive bars. Those performers there end up back at open mics and the open mics stop being a place for the entry level folks to cut their teeth. This really happens in the real world all because of file sharing. And because artists can't develop their skills anymore, a lot of great music isn't made and a lot of potentially great artists are never allowed to grow into that role.

File sharing has lots of negative unintended consequences that goes well beyond just dollars and cents.

Brian

Personally, I can't stand the term "file sharing." Granted, in literal terms, it's a file. But at the same time, it's a work of art. All music is. I don't care how good or bad it is, it is a work of art created by a human being. To think that art has been relegated to the realm of being a mere "file" really bothers me. A file that gets haphazardly passed around amongst people. Is that what technology has done??? Is that what happens to art once it's put on the internet? Man, I hope not.

I'm not gonna comment on the whole piracy thing. But it does bother me that the lingo surrounding music is becoming more machine-like and less human-like.

Eric

How do you arrive at this conclusion, starting from an Iranian Exile who has sold out shows because people made black market copies of his songs (= file sharing)?

File sharing can have positive unintended consequences too. I've sold CDs in Australia because of it! Folk like Jonathan Coulton and Brad Sucks have made a career starting with music that spread through file sharing.

Yes, it would be bad if everybody snuck into a concert, but that is a preposterous "what if" scenario that would never happen. If I had booked a show, sold only a few tickets and then had a thousand people show up, I would notice! In practice, I'd be really surprised if you made it past the bouncers (present at each and every venue I've ever been at).

File sharing or as some would call it piracy is only a small part of the problem. We need to look at the industry from top to bottom. The chosen few for too long have had the monopoly in music production, distribution, record sales and promoting artists. They have been able to charge what they like and have amassed fortunes whilst the artists and songwriters at the bottom of the pile struggle. Now with current technology music production and distribution is available cheaply to us all. All of a sudden the big boys are finding it hard surviving on a level playing field.

Now I do not intend to argue the rights and wrongs of piracy or file sharing BUT it has broken down the monopoly, made everyone think and opened up new doors.

Just had to weigh in.

Yes, piracy bad. Contravenes the Seventh Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal"), and in some cultures you could lose a hand or two if they caught you. And since I intend to make a living as a writer, even though I'm not managing to do it yet, I am not interested in the proliferation of processes that result in writers not getting paid for their work.

That said, I would consider having some of my work pirated an honor. It'd let me know somebody anonymous thought my stuff was worth stealing, and was something they could make a lot of money off of. Dang, I'd like somebody to have that kind of confidence in my writing. I sure haven't gotten that from any record company or music publisher (with the exception of Lynman). Sure, if it happened, I'd do my best to make sure it never happened again--but I'll write more. I'll always write more. And my ability to write is something no music pirate can take away from me.

In the meantime, as a writer struggling to get noticed, I think I'd view the piracy of my stuff as a promotional expense. Yep, they're making money, and it's cost me money in terms of foregone revenue--but the pirates are (theoretically--ain't happened yet, remember) making my name a Household Word in Russia, or Nigeria, or whatnot, and what's that worth?

Now, if I were already famous, and making money off record sales in sufficient amount to support my fambly, I might feel different, and I accordingly understand the folks who are, and who feel differently about it. I ain't there yet, and I frankly could use all the exposure I can get.

Which is why I usually preface comments about piracy with "alas." Alas, no one is stealing my stuff. Maybe someday...

Joe

Easier said than done, but yes, that's what some of us are currently doing. It will take off eventually.

File sharing is double-edged. It works for new artists who want to get their material out and give them exposure, but once they have a following, wouldn't it be nice to get paid once in a while?

Not that it is too much of a concern right now, getting paid. My music is available as MP3 streams. Everyone who wants to listen can listen to them. It's a different matter if they want to download.

I have been thinking of making it "donation-ware," which is something like what you have been doing.

Yes. But people have to love your music before they'll give you money - that holds true for the "old" music industry as well as the new. The only difference is that the old guys used to be able to buy the love using advertising dollars.

As we have discussed via chat, we can't really rely on people who will download our stuff to give us money even if they think the material is good.

There is only a very small percentage of people who can appreciate good music and see the effort made behind it to shell out a few bucks. That's why most of them would rather wait for a torrent to come out rather than buy an "official" copy (as opposed to original copy).

Unless they are established the only way a musician can make an income is by playing to an audience live or doing session stuff. People who record music and then sit back waiting on a paycheck will wait a long time.

The entire concept of intellectual property is silly. Property is a thing. If the concept of intellectual property was valid then Ford would still be paying the guy who invented the wheel. Time doesn't make anything wrong right or anything right wrong. So if the concept was legitimate then there would be no such thing as out of copyright or traditional (someone wrote it) and if you can't find out who to pay then you can't do it.

Silly concept.

So I guess it's okay with you when someone steals your song, right?

The guy who invented the wheel's copyright ran out long before Ford came along

Should someone be able to own the copyright to a book? How about the design of a new solar powered engine? Should someone be able to own the copyright of that? If you copy that book at Kinko's and start giving it away, or if you make those engines and start giving them away, you are violating their right to copy.

The ownership of the right to copy a design, of a body of work, of a song, is a good thing. It gives people a reward and an incentive to write books and songs, and to design new engines. It can make a living for them so they spend their time making more designs, books and songs. I don't think that's silly at all.

I do, however, think that the idea of it being ok to take someone's music against their will and without paying for it is a silly concept.

Copyrights and Patents are not silly. Both have a limited life before they go into Public Domain. Maybe only people without brains go on forever.