Music "Pirating"

[Vbrook]

Update/Note---ideas below have been considerably fleshed out through the course of this thread, of which the main focus is major record labels and recording artists.




I'm sorry for probably the 1000th post on this topic, but I was just talking about this today with a friend of mine.

Solution:

Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music. Individuals are left to copy, trade, rip, mix, burn to their hearts' content, and they don't pay a dime. Never. It's dead simple, and I can't find anything wrong with the model.

Recent "tests", such as with Radiohead, are still focused on generating money from individual, private listeners. Give up that stream entirely, raise the fees for commercial use.

[Instrospection]

Not a bad idea, but you also have to be careful--while people now think that they own the right to do whatever they want to the recordings by stealing them, i'd also hate to think that if it was suddenly legal, that people thought that they could legally do whatever that they wanted with the music. In other words, it may cause some sort of issue with copyrights. For sure, there's lots of musicians losing out on this because it's illegal, but if you trade away too many of your rights, then I think it may really feel like one's sold their soul. Because really, what has to be done first, is set up a royalty system--you know, for every file traded or uploaded or downloaded. But honestly, the solution--if you're gonna go that far--is to offer the subscription method: for a certain amount per month, you get unlimited music. BUT ISP's have gotta be dinged for this, too.....IMHO, they've got off scot free while this theft is taking place.

[Vbrook]

No, there's still rights, there's just not any fees. No royalty system in place for music being copied or traded hands. Zero. I could email the latest hit to every one of my friends, no problem, or download it. Good/popular music would spread like wildfire.

Only when the music is being used as a leverage for profit do fees start to appear: played in cafes, malls, television, radio---the usual. But also, if a song is played on omeone's webpage or on a myspace page. Same principle---listen to the music to your heart's content, but if you're using it for further gain, then a royalty fee is imposed. The marketing companies (record companies) could then go after offenders and not have that nasty PR problem they do know, suing individuals who just want to listen to a song.

Commercial revenue sources are numerous and growing, and fees could probably easily be raised in some cases.

Also, companies like iTunes would be forced to offer real, value-added services, which if done well, would help to further enlarge the market and revenue streams. $100 for a one-hour group IM chat with your favourite artist...? JUust one basic idea.


legally[/i] do whatever that they wanted with the music. In other words, it may cause some sort of issue with copyrights. For sure, there's lots of musicians losing out on this because it's illegal, but if you trade away too many of your rights, then I think it may really feel like one's sold their soul. Because really, what has to be done first, is set up a royalty system--you know, for every file traded or uploaded or downloaded. But honestly, the solution--if you're gonna go that far--is to offer the subscription method: for a certain amount per month, you get unlimited music. BUT ISP's have gotta be dinged for this, too.....IMHO, they've got off scot free while this theft is taking place.

[Microwave Walrus]

yea whatever
selling cd's is kind of a joke nowadays, yea
it's alright by me
concert tickets is where it SHOULD and WILL always be at
you can NOT recreate the concert experience at home at your computer
and that's what people should be paying for
btw, there are tons of bands nowadays that sound fun on record, but probably suck live (IMO, anyhow)
i wish they were all out of business :lol:
long live (RIP) the grateful dead

[richardmac]

Good heavens!

I listen to music in my car and at home every day. I couldn't give a rat's ass what the artists I listen to sound like live. Because I'm not going to see them live, the majority of them. I care what they sound like in my car. If I AM going to see them live, THEN I'll care.

Regarding the idea - I think people want to collect and own music. Any mechanism that will let them do that will work.

[masterbuilt]

How do you decide what "royalty" they should get in your flat fee system. If all are equal, as the traditional communist way, then, huge success enjoyed by major performing groups would not be a benefit. Song popularity would make little or no difference. In socialist/communist societies, many people never grow beyond a certain level since they reap no reward for it. A static fee would be a burden for some and a boon for others.

So, how do you judge who gets what? Is that based on live performance popularity? What of "groups" like "Alan Parsons Project" that never toured... just a guy in a studio... doing his thing.

[Vbrook]

Well, the live performance idea is too style-centric, and your post is too rock-centric. This is an awful plague that is affecting everything from the design of online music shops to how music file "tags" are implemented. I agree, what about Alan Parsons Project? Or the Steely Dan of the late-70s? This could be a long list.

I didn't, however, notice anyone suggesting a fixed-price system?

I just think that big record companies should focus on collecting royalties from the public performance of recordings (e.g, when you hear a song at a cafe or at the supermarket, or on radio, etc). There should be no fee for private listening. including MP3s and non-physical formats.

That will make life a lot easier for everyone, including evil-music-pirate-mothers and the record companies themselves, not to mention the RIAA in the US.

The only times you would ever pay a record company or associate is if you bought physical media, such as a box set or promotional item. Starbucks might decide to charge an extra $0.02 for the privilege of listening to car-advert rock music in their stores, because their licensing expense would probably increase; but that's about it.

[gael.clemente]

Awesome! I completely agree. If the money went to the band directly, I wouldn't care and I would buy more CDs.

[BlueStrat]

I'm sorry for probably the 1000th post on this topic, but I was just talking about this today with a friend of mine.

Solution:

Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music. Individuals are left to copy, trade, rip, mix, burn to their hearts' content, and they don't pay a dime. Never. It's dead simple, and I can't find anything wrong with the model.

Recent "tests", such as with Radiohead, are still focused on generating money from individual, private listeners. Give up that stream entirely, raise the fees for commercial use.

You seem to be overlooking one simple fact: 99% of music being produced today doesn't have any commercial use. So basically, with your idea, bands making recordings have just found one more way to 'pay to play.' Unless of course you find some way to record, duplicate, and distribute music for free. Then they're just making records for shits and giggles.

[Poker99]

You seem to be overlooking one simple fact: 99% of music being produced today doesn't have any commercial use.

What do you mean Strat? That they are not a product that will sell because it is not pop or rock or any other format that is popular?

[strathound]

What do you mean Strat? That they are not a product that will sell because it is not pop or rock or any other format that is popular?

Ummm, it's a pretty simple idea to grasp. Do we only want to pay artists that produce music that CORPORATIONS like? Good God. Could we kill music more?

How about we produce music that individuals like? How's that for a concept? And hey, while were at it, why don't we pay those people that produce music we like so they can produce MORE music?

:facepalm:

Shoot me now.

[ermghoti II]

You seem to be overlooking one simple fact: 99% of music being produced today doesn't have any commercial use.


The other 1% will have no commercial use if there's a huge bill attached to it.

[Poker99]

Ummm, it's a pretty simple idea to grasp. Do we only want to pay artists that produce music that CORPORATIONS like? Good God. Could we kill music more?

How about we produce music that individuals like? How's that for a concept? And hey, while were at it, why don't we pay those people that produce music we like so they can produce MORE music?

:facepalm:

Shoot me now.

Wait a minute there... If you want to make music that only some individuals will love, don't expect to make money. Its this way right now, and I don't think that system is going to change that. Not that I am for that kind of system anyway...

[mstreck]

Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music. Individuals are left to copy, trade, rip, mix, burn to their hearts' content, and they don't pay a dime. Never.

Functionally speaking, how will the marketers know which musicians are going to attract customers? They're gonna need a way to determine what's popular, and how do you determine that without sales/download data? MySpace views????

So one problem is this... no music sales = no clue to what is popular = no marketing strategy. :idk:

[knobrock]

Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music.

It wouldn't work. Whilst record companies, when preparing marketing strategies, can predict (to an extent) what success a particular performer might generate, it's not a fool proof theory.

Take "Nevermind" by Nirvana. Their label established and hoped that Nevermind had the potential to sell a million copies globally. In their wildest dreams, they never foresaw the success of it.

Having said that, if the label or publicity team paid Nirvana a 'lump sum' before the album sold a gazillion copies (based on their sales forecast), how duped would Nirvana have felt when it went on to become one of the biggest selling albums ever?

[BlueStrat]

What do you mean Strat? That they are not a product that will sell because it is not pop or rock or any other format that is popular?


I mean 99% of music being produced today isn't selling anywhere in any real volume, let alone for commercial applications. This 'plan' would mean that only about 1% of people writing music would actually derive any real income from it. It also means, as strathound points out, that there will be even more people trying to write corporate music.

In addition, with this,
Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music.


you get pure socialism-the producers get to have their earnings distributed to non-producers. What kind of incentive is that?

[Vbrook]

Record companies can't make predictions well now, anyway. They could look at pirated/made-free downloads. If that data pool is expanded, it could be a source of much more accurate projections re. styles than methods used currently.

You've misunderstood my other point about payments and royalties, mainly because I wasn't very clear. The only change I propose is that big record companies stop looking to retail as a major source of revenue. It would only be a small source, e.g. special box sets. This would free up resources to focus upon other streams of revenue.


It wouldn't work. Whilst record companies, when preparing marketing strategies, can predict (to an extent) what success a particular performer might generate, it's not a fool proof theory.

Take "Nevermind" by Nirvana. Their label established and hoped that Nevermind had the potential to sell a million copies globally. In their wildest dreams, they never foresaw the success of it.

Having said that, if the label or publicity team paid Nirvana a 'lump sum' before the album sold a gazillion copies (based on their sales forecast), how duped would Nirvana have felt when it went on to become one of the biggest selling albums ever?

[Vbrook]

Piracy is really only a problem for the 1% of music that does have commercial potential.

Take a look at what gets pirated: in majority it's current, top hits you'd hear in a club or anywhere out and about. Although 'cash cows' do get pirated (classic rock), they nonetheless do still remain cash cows for record companies.

Retail sales, of pop music lately, is especially difficult as there is little sense of investment on the part of consumers. As an example, a teenager might buy a video game; somewhere in the back of his mind, he knows that a new games console is being designed, the resources for which come directly from his purchase. He knows that if sales for Vice Squad City III go well, a bigger and better Vice Squad City IV will be just around the corner.

I don't believe that feeling is quite there when people are buying pop music. What is the money going to? More bling and a new car for Timbaland? People don't see the investment value in current pop music, therefore they pirate. That was not always the case.

Sure, sales on iTune are going relatively OK, which shows that people don't mind paying money to get music---BUT they're not paying money FOR the music, in their mind, I would argue. They are paying TO Apple, in their mind, for a relatively good, well-designed software program.

You seem to be overlooking one simple fact: 99% of music being produced today doesn't have any commercial use.

[Vbrook]

I know lots of excellent touring musicians, and I've even studied under a few of them. I guarantee you, their paycheque is not affected by music piracy, except perhaps in some obtuse way.

I'm about to go into the other room, to my project studio, in order compose music for a film that will have a total viewing audience in the three figures. Why? Because I like doing it. If I knew the answer to what you're saying, I wouldn't have a day job these days.

What I CAN do, however, is tell big record companies how they should be running their businesses. :-)





I mean 99% of music being produced today isn't selling anywhere in any real volume, let alone for commercial applications. This 'plan' would mean that only about 1% of people writing music would actually derive any real income from it. It also means, as strathound points out, that there will be even more people trying to write corporate music.

[BlueStrat]

What I CAN do, however, is tell big record companies how they should be running their businesses. :-)Indeed.
I tend to look at discussions like this as masturbation-it feels good , doesn't hurt anything but doesn't really produce anything, either...:cop:


:wave:

[Vbrook]

I was being a bit light-hearted, however I am actually quite serious in my views and have in fact shared them with a few people at record companies, believe it or not. Outside of my professional experience in music, I've spent considerable time in the 'business world', having been a management consultant, as well as having led a number of private equity transactions on a few different continents. But surely I'm not here to present a paper on music business strategy?

What is it you look for in threads? You seem so bloody productivity orientated.

In my view, throwing round ideas and chatting about them is quite important--whether they eventually go anywhere or not. It's a creative process, and an important one at that.

Shall also think twice before inviting you to a party! :p

And sorry, none of this to derail the thread... Back to music, and revenues.



Indeed.
I tend to look at discussions like this as masturbation-it feels good , doesn't hurt anything but doesn't really produce anything, either...:cop:


:wave:

[the-good-way]

I know lots of excellent touring musicians, and I've even studied under a few of them. I guarantee you, their paycheque is not affected by music piracy, except perhaps in some obtuse way.


Like you were saying earlier to another
Well, the live performance idea is too style-centric, and your post is too rock-centric.


The above perspective may be a bit too tour and style- centric (as it addresses specifically the touring performer and mentions pop music specifically a number of times) and may not fit a model a non-touring operation (larger groups, musique concrete, etc)

[Vbrook]

Yes, you're right.

With regard to musique contrete, I am not suggesting some law or government action that imposes economic models to music. I'm only speaking towards big record companies that specialise in mass-market music, and how they should consider their revenue models.

I believe (but have no evidence, but nobody truly does) that music piracy most significantly affects big-name, popular acts. For the major record labels, it's a problem because they rely on revenue from CD/tape/record sales. I would recommend to them, that they focus on other sources of revenue rather than retail, because they do have several other good, potential sources of revenue.

I would not recommend such a strategy for more niche artists. The free-download model, of the sort I'm talking about, is very limited.

With regard to CD/recorded-music sales of more niche music, I really believe that the driver is fans supporting artists. People love your music, therefore they will pay to support you; and if you offer them CDs they'll buy them. It is small in scale, but important. Piracy would be a problem, but a small one, potentially insignificant.

If you're on a major record label, own homes in the centre of London, Los Angeles and the South of France; then, it is more difficult to convince people to give you money. The concept of retail music is really only applicable on a smaller scale. If you're a big-name like Madonna, then you need Live Nation to properly manage all of your revenue sources, such as commercial sales, concerts, promotions, et cetera.

Does that make sense?


Like you were saying earlier to another
Well, the live performance idea is too style-centric, and your post is too rock-centric.


The above perspective may be a bit too tour and style- centric (as it addresses specifically the touring performer and mentions pop music specifically a number of times) and may not fit a model a non-touring operation (larger groups, musique concrete, etc)

[marcellis]

Commercial revenue sources are numerous and growing, and fees could probably easily be raised in some cases.

Is the problem that fees for commercial use are too low? Or is the problem that commercial users are not paying any fees to begin with? If it's the latter, the question arises "why aren't they"?

Fees are already in place for commercial use. A huge number of commercial users aren't paying fees because it's not a business necessity. You can make it a business necessity by strong-arming businesses into paying. Who would do that? ASCAP & BMI have been doing it for a long time.

ASCAP cops strong-arming business owners might work for Starbucks or the Gap. It won't work for a Mom & Pop coffehouse. It won't work for the little boutique clothing stores in Saigon that blast techno music into the streets.

And that's all there is here, small shops. There ain't no GAP. There ain't no Wal-Marts.

Business owners, when faced with huge costs for playing music on premises, quite sensibly shrug and say,

"To Hell with it. We don't want to participate. Why should we when we can get it for free?"

That's what has happened in the Far East. There is rampant pirating of every conceivable Western product over here -- not just music. I cannot buy a DVD in Vietnam that is not bootlegged. As far as I know, it's impossible.

Pirated movies, pirated music, pirated designer labels, pirated Swiss watches made in China, pirated software, pirated video games, counterfeit pharmaceutical products, counterfeit whiskey, and the list goes on. The reality on the ground here is so overwhelming, that it's sad to watch musicians in the West who are still trying to figure out how to get paid for music. Those days are fast fading away.

Get used to it. Music is just a tiny part of the big picture of IP law breaking down. It's a systemic weakness. And it's spreading into the West. As a result, music will be free for a long time into the foreseeable future. The worldwide market conditions & the inability of IP rights owners to enforce their claims, make that an inescapable reality.

It's over. Game, set match.

[BlueStrat]

It's over. Game, set match.I tend to agree. What Marcellis has described in Asia is a cultural mindset. It's been so for at least 60 years. What's new is that it has taken hold and spread rapidly in the west, at least regarding intellectual property. I've personally experienced people I know who drive BMW cars asking me to autograph burned copies of my CDs. People who think nothing of shelling out good money for a Louis Vuitton handbag or a 60,000 dollar car curiously feel that anything you can get off the internet should be free.

As Marcellis pointed out, it happens because there are no or at best few, penalties for it. In short, people do things because they can. They don't steal 60k cars or Louis Vuitton handbags because the chances of getting caught are too high and the consequences too steep. Not so with burning digital information. As long as it remains easy and free of consequence it will be rampant, and as long as it's rampant, it will only increasingly solidify in the minds of the public that intellectual property has no real monetary value, nor should it.

As I said before, until you gain control of distribution, not just of IP but any product it won't be profitable to the producer. And once profitability is taken away, loss of production is sure to follow just as night follows day.

You wanna know why I'm "so bloody productivity orientated"? There's your answer.

[sventvkg]

I mean 99% of music being produced today isn't selling anywhere in any real volume, let alone for commercial applications. This 'plan' would mean that only about 1% of people writing music would actually derive any real income from it. It also means, as strathound points out, that there will be even more people trying to write corporate music.

In addition, with this,


you get pure socialism-the producers get to have their earnings distributed to non-producers. What kind of incentive is that?

So what the hell do we do Pat? I used to sell a few thousand CD's but i'm not selling many at all anymore since everyone can get everything for free. Hence, I have not made a CD in 4 years. I do have alot of new material that I would love to put out but my take is what the hell for? I'm very apathetic. The few fans I have that come see me play etc would love to get more music but my sense is that not too many other people really give a shit. The biggest bummer is that I'm growing so much as an artist and writing and it's so exciting to me but why should I even bother to put out an album? Should I just record it acoustic and throw it up on the web? A Couple weeks work in my studio to make it sound very good?...I just don't know man..I just don't know.

[Vbrook]

There's two different problems/issues here. One is smaller artists (who tend to be localised) trying to get money for their recorded music. I'm very, very sympathetic to that cause.

You're quote, "To Hell with it", I am also very sympathetic towards, BUT, in my view, it refers to something very different than above (the smaller, locaised artists trying to get paid).

There was study that pointed out, as people get more wealthy, they begin to legitimately buy the brands they once bought as counterfeit. It's very 'polite', but in truth my views are much more severe: I refuse to believe that a counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbag, being sold in small in a small village in India, affects LVMH (the corporation in Paris) in any meaningful way. I think the current philosophy behind IP is absurd in so many ways. I understand many won't agree with me or like my views. And, yes, I've spent a lot of time in India and have visited other parts of Asia as well.

Here's the latest news, Prince suing a mother who posted a YouTube video of her toddler son. In the video, one of his songs is playing in the background, on the radio. She's basically counter-suing, and I'm glad.

Again: Prince, a man who shits in a $500,000 bathroom, suing a mom in Pennsylvania for her home video. That's where things are today! And, that's what I'm really trying to address:

http://cbs5.com/business/youtube.copyright.lawsuit.2.774821.html

I believe that there really is a such thing as too much profit and too much income disparity. And no, it doesn't mean USSR socialism. It means running a company where you do not pay yourself 500 times more than your other staff. It means (in the US) that you take the same healthcare plan you're offering your staff. And it means no 'golden parachutes'. And...that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of actions that can be taken.

With regard to the other part of your quote, I would definitely advocate a more robust pricing policy towards commercially-played music-----in rich countries, where it might work.


ASCAP cops strong-arming business owners might work for Starbucks or the Gap. It won't work for a Mom & Pop coffehouse. It won't work for the little boutique clothing stores in Saigon that blast techno music into the streets.

And that's all there is here, small shops. There ain't no GAP. There ain't no Wal-Marts.

Business owners, when faced with huge costs for playing music on premises, quite sensibly shrug and say,

"To Hell with it. We don't want to participate. Why should we when we can get it for free?"

That's what has happened in the Far East. There is rampant pirating of every conceivable Western product over here -- not just music. I cannot buy a DVD in Vietnam that is not bootlegged. As far as I know, it's impossible.

Pirated movies, pirated music, pirated designer labels, pirated Swiss watches made in China, pirated software, pirated video games, counterfeit pharmaceutical products, counterfeit whiskey, and the list goes on. The reality on the ground here is so overwhelming, that it's sad to watch musicians in the West who are still trying to figure out how to get paid for music. Those days are fast fading away.

Get used to it. Music is just a tiny part of the big picture of IP law breaking down. It's a systemic weakness. And it's spreading into the West. As a result, music will be free for a long time into the foreseeable future. The worldwide market conditions & the inability of IP rights owners to enforce their claims, make that an inescapable reality.

It's over. Game, set match.

[Deeprig9]

My particular band might get lucky and sell a few thousand copies of the album. But the chances of getting a big-time licensing deal are very very slim. As soon as you remove any chance for a small time band to make any revenue from the album, you kill the little guy and the middle class musician. And as far as live shows, original music acts, even semi-nationally successful ones, pretty much break even on live shows. Although your intentions are to give away music from rich people like Prince, or someone else with 3 houses, the overall affect is going to hurt everyone. I agree, stuff is changing, but I'm still not willing to concede a musical free-for-all.

And if licensing becomes the #1 revenue for bands, then licensing fees will have to increase to offset the lost revenue from free album downloads. When licensing gets too high, ad firms will simply buy some studio time with some session players for a couple grand and "play something sexy and bluesy for this Cialis commercial" instead of paying the big licensing fee to Pat Coast that could cost them much much more, depending on how successful the ad is and how long they run it. They also save money on legal fees to sort licensing out.

[Deeprig9]

Vbrook, here's an idea:

If a band wants to give you their music for free, take it! If a band wants to charge you, either buy it or boycott. Bands don't force you to buy their music. If you don't want to pay for it, then don't! But don't bootleg it. Have some respect for the people who spend their time and effort to put something together.

What instrument do you play, may I ask?

[Deeprig9]

Tell these guys your plan. They tour 200 days out of the year, the guy on the right also picks up shifts at the local Chic-Fil-A from time to time. They all pretty much pay their bills and live 100% on the revenue from their music. No labels. Total Indy, with a booking agency. They just released their 3rd Full Length this year. They tour, they sell merch, and they sell albums.

Tell them that they shouldn't charge money for their songs and albums because Prince is rich. I'll make sure they get the message. Or you can share your ingenius plan with them directly at www.packwayhandle.com and maybe they'll be a sponsor for your cause, and you can leave me out of it completely.


Tell them to just get a licensing deal with Toyota or State Farm, because you shouldn't have to pay for their music.


HhYQZhbvLaI

[Vbrook]

I hate to break it to you, but it IS ALREADY going in the direction of wealthy artists giving their music away. Even Prince did so, not too long ago.

I'm saying that it's in big-record-company best interest to stop charging for retail sales. I don't think that piece of business advice would apply to anyone on this thread. Let me again underscore that I am advocating a business strategy for the likes of Sony, Warner, et cetera.

I think you're saying that if people get used to getting music for free from the likes of Prince or big rock bands, then they will not be accustomed to paying for music at all. Therefore, small artists/recording musicians will suffer, because people will casually pirate their music. I don't buy that argument at all.

What one must do, however, is make sure that your audience intimately understands that your album sales contribute directly to your well-being. It will take a lot of educating. The big guys have bad, bad PR. Don't follow their lead.

I am a classical pianist by training, and I am also trained as a jazz guitarist. I play a bit of sax and clarinet as well. I have a deep interest in modern (20/1th century) classical music, and my own (serious) compositions probably fall under that category. Years and years ago I used to do session work as a guitarist, for bands/solo artists and for ads----all relatively small, and probably nothing anyone would have heard of. I also had a chamber music group (quartet) that I would write music for and arrange 'gigs' for. Most all of this in England, which is where I'm from originally. I went on to do other things for a long time, got an MBA. Now, I'm working part time in a 'day job' and part time doing music, as slow as it does go sometimes.

My interest in popular music is mainly as that of a listener. My wife was in LA during the 'heydays' of punk in the late 70s, and I become a bit more familiar with that style. I bought an MF Doom (hip-hop) CD recently, which I'm enjoying. I like some of the rock and metal guitarists, whom I find absolutely amazing in their technique. I do actually buy a lot of music, and I've pirated none, outside of some 'mix tapes' from decades ago. It's strange, I am must more interested in keeping up with what's popular now, compared to when I was younger. I think Lupe Fiasco is catchy, and the Ting Tings. Anyway...me in a nutshell.




Vbrook, here's an idea:

If a band wants to give you their music for free, take it! If a band wants to charge you, either buy it or boycott. Bands don't force you to buy their music. If you don't want to pay for it, then don't! But don't bootleg it. Have some respect for the people who spend their time and effort to put something together.

What instrument do you play, may I ask?

[Vbrook]

You don't get it. Maybe my post just before cleared it up.

Unless the band below is signed with Sony Music and distributes millions of copies of their singles around the world, then my plan does not apply to them.


Tell these guys your plan. They tour 200 days out of the year, the guy on the right also picks up shifts at the local Chic-Fil-A from time to time. They all pretty much pay their bills and live 100% on the revenue from their music. No labels. Total Indy, with a booking agency. They just released their 3rd Full Length this year. They tour, they sell merch, and they sell albums.

Tell them that they shouldn't charge money for their songs and albums because Prince is rich. I'll make sure they get the message. Or you can share your ingenius plan with them directly at www.packwayhandle.com (http://www.packwayhandle.com) and maybe they'll be a sponsor for your cause, and you can leave me out of it completely.


Tell them to just get a licensing deal with Toyota or State Farm, because you shouldn't have to pay for their music.


HhYQZhbvLaI

[BlueStrat]

So what the hell do we do Pat? I used to sell a few thousand CD's but i'm not selling many at all anymore since everyone can get everything for free. Hence, I have not made a CD in 4 years. I do have alot of new material that I would love to put out but my take is what the hell for? I'm very apathetic. The few fans I have that come see me play etc would love to get more music but my sense is that not too many other people really give a shit. The biggest bummer is that I'm growing so much as an artist and writing and it's so exciting to me but why should I even bother to put out an album? Should I just record it acoustic and throw it up on the web? A Couple weeks work in my studio to make it sound very good?...I just don't know man..I just don't know.

I'm in the same boat you are, brutha, and I'm in agreement with you all the way. :confused::cry:

[marcellis]

VBrook:"With regard to the other part of your quote, I would definitely advocate a more robust pricing policy towards commercially-played music-----in rich countries, where it might work."

It won't work in poor countries. That ultimately means it won't work in rich countries. And fees are already in place. The law requires they be paid.
Businesses aren't paying them. Why would raising the fees yield a different result? People will be even less likely to pay them.

I think you're just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Moving them from one side to another.
The ship is sinking fast and you'd be well-advised to find a life raft, rather than worrying about how to enjoy the cruise a bit longer.
----

Now on a bright note, pirates are running into problems in one area - anti-virus software.
Since these require updates, and pirated software can't be updated, most people around here
have infected computers and USB flash drives. Symantec & McAfee won't sell in Vietnam. The only
available software is Kapersky. It's too expensive for most people to afford.

So there is an example of the cost of piracy - infected computers.
I don't know how one can build a music sales model from that.

[7sickstrings]

From what I've seen so far, there are relatively few artists who seem to be taking a "hands on" approach to piracy. In the case of Prince, I'm not at all surprised, considering the reasoning behind his "artist formerly known as" episode. The reason behind this is relatively simple. Most artists aren't making much money off of albums. The majority of the money there is made by the record companies. Sheet music sales go primarily to the publishers/mechanical rights holders. Ticket sales go to the artists to a degree, but there's also venue, promotions, crew, etc... The majority of the artists' income is in merchandise. Tshirts, posters, buttons, and all that sort of thing. There's also money to be made in endorsements, but even that is less than you'd think. What I find really amusing though, is that 15 years ago, you couldn't find a stereo that didn't have dual tape decks and high speed dubbing. Not to mention that most of the CD players at the time had some sort of synchronized recording function. All of those features were designed for one purpose, to copy cassettes and CDs. But not once did anyone call foul. Why not?

[BlueStrat]

Sheet music sales go primarily to the publishers/mechanical rights holders.

Which is primarily the artist, these days. Mechanical royalties are paid to the writers and most writers own a share, if not all, of publishing.

[Vbrook]

Thanks for the response. I'm not trying to play devils advocate, and I'm genuinely enjoying this discussion. I enjoy thinking about these issues.

I sort of think you're right, but I also think that there is more of an opportunity on the commercial side than is currently realised. Is it better the record companies aggressively go after their end-user (individuals) or their middle-men? I think the latter, and it will help to clear up their massive PR problems. In theory, there is much more money to recoup on the end-user side, I'll admit, but they've no chance, and they'll kill themselves trying.

I don't pay for anti-virus software. I run a programme called AntiVir. Part of their mission is in fact to take on the virus problem you mentioned. I find it also runs better than Symantec and others, takes up less resources, et cetera.

I wonder what Frank Zappa would think of all of this music pirating. He didn't care for bootlegs. Although he joked the main reason was because of the audio quality, I think the boots probably really pissed him off. Then again, he was very outside-the-box and anti-establishment in many ways.

To the below, I agree with you 200%. We're talking about saving what is an ultimately sinking ship. Maybe you're right about the life raft, but we've still got to somewhere in it.

Cheers,
VBrook

I think you're just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Moving them from one side to another.
The ship is sinking fast and you'd be well-advised to find a life raft, rather than worrying about how to enjoy the cruise a bit longer.

[Deeprig9]

From what I've seen so far, there are relatively few artists who seem to be taking a "hands on" approach to piracy. In the case of Prince, I'm not at all surprised, considering the reasoning behind his "artist formerly known as" episode. The reason behind this is relatively simple. Most artists aren't making much money off of albums. The majority of the money there is made by the record companies. Sheet music sales go primarily to the publishers/mechanical rights holders. Ticket sales go to the artists to a degree, but there's also venue, promotions, crew, etc... The majority of the artists' income is in merchandise. Tshirts, posters, buttons, and all that sort of thing. There's also money to be made in endorsements, but even that is less than you'd think. What I find really amusing though, is that 15 years ago, you couldn't find a stereo that didn't have dual tape decks and high speed dubbing. Not to mention that most of the CD players at the time had some sort of synchronized recording function. All of those features were designed for one purpose, to copy cassettes and CDs. But not once did anyone call foul. Why not?


That's a really general statement about where bands make their money. Some do it mostly through touring, while other bands break even on touring. Some make alot of money on merchandise, others make it mostly through licensing, other through album sales. Even if I concede that "most" big bands operate like your general statement, say 70%, that still leaves the other 30% up shit creek, for one ultimate reason: people invented a new "right" to take whatever they want for free.

Secondly, Sony did piss and moan about hi-speed tape dubbing, but ultimately, sony got into the blank tape and cd making business, and it's helped them stay in business. And the RIAA sued to get a tax on those to be paid out to publishers who lose revenue from the bootlegs.

Unfortunately, Sony can't get into the copper telecom business, the grid is already in place, and you don't need a new DSL line for each album you want to copy.

Thirdly, tape dubbing required an original or second generation tape. Cassettes didn't retain a high enough quality from dup to dup for the bootleggers to destroy the industry. With digital downloading, however, you can make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with nearly infinite numbers of copies from a single original that may have been legally aquired, and it can be done in a matter of seconds.

Fourthly, and in relation to the third point, you had to have a copy of a tape to make another copy. So if you wanted to copy BLood Sugar Sex Magic, you had to find someone who owned it, and beg them to let you borrow it. Now, you can spend about 30 seconds on your computer and have access to a million songs that can be digitally reproduced instantly.

These are the reasons that the industry is tanking now. It's not because the record companies are greedy. It's not because Prince is an asshole. It's not because artists are too lazy to tour. It's not because artists are too stupid to design a good looking T-shirt.

It's because the technology now exists for the freeloader generation to take whatever they want because they've convinced themselves that bands are rich and Prince is a bastard.

[Vbrook]

Yep. But who is responsible for the 'freeloader generation' thinking that all bands are rich and that Prince is an asshole? Shouldn't the record companies' PR machines be heavy at work on this? Instead, the keep pushing the message (true or not) that artists ARE rich, and they sue suburban moms in Pennsylvania. You've got to lay big blame to the record companies for not getting the message out.

I just bought a lot of CDs (well, Amazon mp3s and some CDs) from a number of young, jazz artists. They all rely heavily on sales and could not afford to give music away. Shouldn't there be a message on the CD, in big, bold print, "COPYING MUSIC FOR OTHERS DEPRIVES ARTISTS OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND MAKES FUTURE RELEASES FOR YOU TO ENJOY MORE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE", or something like that? All we now get is a label, telling parent that their kids may die because the word "fuck" appears in a lyric.

I love that Amazon.com has DRM-free music, and they have a good, and growing, collection of smaller artists. Given all that, should they not be doing more to COMMUNICATE with people, telling them not to copy, and why? All you get now is fine print somewhere in the terms and conditions, which absolutely no one bothers to look at.

Whoever it was who autographed a burned CD, I hope you charged them $15 or whatever the CD price was before you signed it!

... the freeloader generation [takes] whatever they want because they've convinced themselves that bands are rich and Prince is a bastard.

[Deeprig9]

Yep. But who is responsible for the 'freeloader generation' thinking that all bands are rich and that Prince is an asshole? Shouldn't the record companies' PR machines be heavy at work on this? Instead, the keep pushing the message (true or not) that artists ARE rich, and they sue suburban moms in Pennsylvania. You've got to lay big blame to the record companies for not getting the message out.

I just bought a lot of CDs (well, Amazon mp3s and some CDs) from a number of young, jazz artists. They all rely heavily on sales and could not afford to give music away. Shouldn't there be a message on the CD, in big, bold print, "COPYING MUSIC FOR OTHERS DEPRIVES ARTISTS OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND MAKES FUTURE RELEASES FOR YOU TO ENJOY MORE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE", or something like that? All we now get is a label, telling parent that their kids may die because the word "fuck" appears in a lyric.

I love that Amazon.com has DRM-free music, and they have a good, and growing, collection of smaller artists. Given all that, should they not be doing more to COMMUNICATE with people, telling them not to copy, and why? All you get now is fine print somewhere in the terms and conditions, which absolutely no one bothers to look at.

Whoever it was who autographed a burned CD, I hope you charged them $15 or whatever the CD price was before you signed it!

You are in direct contradiction with the timeline here. You are putting the cart in front of the horse. The reason record companies are suing people is because they are fighting for their life. The record companies didn't start suing poor innocent theives until the poor innocent theives started stealing music online by the millions every day. I'm not sure how old you are, but I was in college when Napster came out. I remember the sea change. I remember the rampant theft and total disregard for copyright law. The record companies were forced into this current behavior that you are actually trying to use to justify your theft. It's absolute insanity or stupidity to use that logic.

[Vbrook]

There is no "my theft". I'm way too old to have bothered with Napster, but I've seen it in action, in a demonstration, as well as something called eMule. I believe neither is around anymore, but I'm sure there's something similar.

So... according to Wikipedia, the RIAA sued Napster out of business in 1999. They then proceed to sue other such organisations, as well as individuals, which they continue to do to this day. Many people who are in the big-industry, or directly related to it, do hold the view that record companies took a very wrong turn at Albuquerque when they started suing individuals. Also, I am not saying anything new or profound by saying that the record companies should have moved more quickly in coming online.

The thing I'm saying, which is uttered far less often, is that record companies---actually, all musical artists big or small---need to communicate with their audience/customers about why they should buy music.

There are dozens upon dozens of ways to alter consumer behaviour, and I have books on my shelves about them. Suing customers is way, way far from being the only option. It's been 10 years, and the record companies still are not communicating. Instead, they sue customers and complain about being in dire straights; and----in direct contradiction----they heavily propagate the myth of the bling-covered, wealthy artist. (Have you seen MTV lately, or billboard ads, or...?) That is a schizophrenic marketing strategy.

You are in direct contradiction with the timeline here. You are putting the cart in front of the horse. The reason record companies are suing people is because they are fighting for their life. The record companies didn't start suing poor innocent theives until the poor innocent theives started stealing music online by the millions every day. I'm not sure how old you are, but I was in college when Napster came out. I remember the sea change. I remember the rampant theft and total disregard for copyright law. The record companies were forced into this current behavior that you are actually trying to use to justify your theft. It's absolute insanity or stupidity to use that logic.

[marcellis]

I think V-Brook is just being realistic in the part of his argument that says "Lay off the little guys,.

I think he's being unrealistic in thinking raising fees for commercial performances will solve the problem.

DR9: "It's because the technology now exists for the freeloader generation to take whatever they want because
they've convinced themselves that bands are rich and Prince is a bastard."

Apparently you'd view all generations in this part of the world as "free-loaders".

Based on my experience, it is impossible to buy a new DVD in Vietnam that has not been bootlegged. Think about that for awhile.
Let it sink in. It's not just that people want to freeload. It's that they have no choice! It's a necessity.

It ain't about music. It's about an abstract concept, Intellectual Property Rights. That idea has utterly failed
in this part of the world and it's fast failing in the West. Music is just an infinitesmally small part of that gigantic failure.

The RIAA can sue poor hapless Americans all it wants. It won't make any difference on the ground over here.
And because it has already failed here -- the whole racket will ultimately collapse in the West. And it should, IMO.

It's time for a reality check. Digital music is gonna be free on the web. It's gonna be pirated.
Build your business model around that - and you might make some money.

Keep re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and you're going down with the rest of the suckers
who are all hoping to set the ship right.

[BlueStrat]

Shouldn't there be a message on the CD, in big, bold print, "COPYING MUSIC FOR OTHERS DEPRIVES ARTISTS OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND MAKES FUTURE RELEASES FOR YOU TO ENJOY MORE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE", or something like that?

There is on mine!

[Deeprig9]

There is no "my theft". I'm way too old to have bothered with Napster, but I've seen it in action, in a demonstration, as well as something called eMule. I believe neither is around anymore, but I'm sure there's something similar.

So... according to Wikipedia, the RIAA sued Napster out of business in 1999. They then proceed to sue other such organisations, as well as individuals, which they continue to do to this day. Many people who are in the big-industry, or directly related to it, do hold the view that record companies took a very wrong turn at Albuquerque when they started suing individuals. Also, I am not saying anything new or profound by saying that the record companies should have moved more quickly in coming online.

The thing I'm saying, which is uttered far less often, is that record companies---actually, all musical artists big or small---need to communicate with their audience/customers about why they should buy music.

There are dozens upon dozens of ways to alter consumer behaviour, and I have books on my shelves about them. Suing customers is way, way far from being the only option. It's been 10 years, and the record companies still are not communicating. Instead, they sue customers and complain about being in dire straights; and----in direct contradiction----they heavily propagate the myth of the bling-covered, wealthy artist. (Have you seen MTV lately, or billboard ads, or...?) That is a schizophrenic marketing strategy.

On the contrary, I see the record companies putting out PR everyday, like the recent one with Kid Rock. I see the messages on just about every DVD I rent during the previews.

Particularly disturbing to me is the comment I emboldened in your quote. Are you suggesting that it's our job to convince people not to steal our material, or we otherwise deserve to have it stolen? If I don't install a security system in my house, or put signs on my doors saying "Please don't steal from me," then I just have to expect that I'll be robbed? And I'd just be a big bully if I sued someone who robbed me? Sure, that's a big stretch isn't it. Somehow the freeloaders justify their theft under the idea that it's ok to steal just $1 from a thousand different people, because they aren't stealing a thousand dollars from 1 person. But that's the exact same mentality that gets white collar criminals and dirty CEO's very lengthy prison sentences.

Regardless of what steps or mis-steps the record companies may have taken, that doesn't justify music theft in my opinion.

[Vbrook]

What is the view of artists domestically, in Vietnam? Surely, in the pirated music shops, their music is all there for the taking. What are they doing about it, if anything?

This Asia sub-thread is extremely interesting to me, and I was thinking about it this afternoon. I can speak most intelligently about India: There are a lot of US-based, small but signed-to-label artists (country and jazz) that cannot be found in shops there, pirate shops or legitimate ones. Yet, I know a lot of people who have the music in their homes. How? They're rich. They flew to the US on holiday and bought a bunch of CDs to take home.

Some of them might eventually find their way to pirate shops. Make a friendly copy for the guy who cleans your home for US$5 a day, and that copy might eventually find its way to a pirate shop---where, a a bunch of other people earning US$5 might buy a copy for $US0.50. Now, is there actually 'lost potential revenue', considering that those people would have never bought the actual CD in the first place? I only mean to point out that there is in fact some (small, I give you) legitimate buying that happens in India; and, a large portion of pirating is people who in their lifetimes would never be able to afford the actual CD. Of course, that's only India, and situations will vary a lot between different countries and sub-markets.

To your other point, I also believe that a lot of music will be free via web in the future---but not all. I am sure a clever musician in a town somewhere will find a way to convince people to pay money to fund his music-recording.

Vbrook
I think V-Brook is just being realistic in the part of his argument that says "Lay off the little guys,.

I think he's being unrealistic in thinking raising fees for commercial performances will solve the problem.

DR9:

Apparently you'd view all generations in this part of the world as "free-loaders".

Based on my experience, it is impossible to buy a new DVD in Vietnam that has not been bootlegged. Think about that for awhile.
Let it sink in. It's not just that people want to freeload. It's that they have no choice! It's a necessity.

It ain't about music. It's about an abstract concept, Intellectual Property Rights. That idea has utterly failed
in this part of the world and it's fast failing in the West. Music is just an infinitesmally small part of that gigantic failure.

The RIAA can sue poor hapless Americans all it wants. It won't make any difference on the ground over here.
And because it has already failed here -- the whole racket will ultimately collapse in the West. And it should, IMO.

It's time for a reality check. Digital music is gonna be free on the web. Build your business model around that - and you might make some money.
Keep re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and you're going down with the rest of the suckers who are trying to set the ship right.

[Deeprig9]

I think V-Brook is just being realistic in the part of his argument that says "Lay off the little guys,.

I think he's being unrealistic in thinking raising fees for commercial performances will solve the problem.

DR9:

Apparently you'd view all generations in this part of the world as "free-loaders".

Based on my experience, it is impossible to buy a new DVD in Vietnam that has not been bootlegged. Think about that for awhile.
Let it sink in. It's not just that people want to freeload. It's that they have no choice! It's a necessity.

It ain't about music. It's about an abstract concept, Intellectual Property Rights. That idea has utterly failed
in this part of the world and it's fast failing in the West. Music is just an infinitesmally small part of that gigantic failure.

The RIAA can sue poor hapless Americans all it wants. It won't make any difference on the ground over here.
And because it has already failed here -- the whole racket will ultimately collapse in the West. And it should, IMO.

It's time for a reality check. Digital music is gonna be free on the web. It's gonna be pirated.
Build your business model around that - and you might make some money.

Keep re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and you're going down with the rest of the suckers
who are all hoping to set the ship right.

If you want to try and suggest to me that I can't download a DVD or CD in Vietnam because intellectual property law has failed, knock yourself out.

I don't suppose the communist government's censorship of the net and other imported media (as well as domestic media) has anything to do with it.

That's as much as I'll say about your Vietnamese Theory on why all music should be free in America.

But I would like to take this opportunity to sum up what we've got so far.

All music should be free because:

1: Big Corporations can license music.

2: It's hard to get good quality media in Vietnam.

3: Tape decks came with high speed dubbing in the 80s and 90s.

4: Record Companies have bad PR.

5: Record Companies sue people.

6: Prince is an asshole.

7: Prince is rich.

8: Not enough albums beg you not to steal them on the cover.

Am I leaving anything out, or is that basically it?

[Vbrook]

In all honesty, I can imagine a Powerpoint presentation to industry people, where the headlines on each page are your 8 reasons below. I actually rather like the idea.

Also, to me, I think we all agree stealing is bad. What I'm trying to understand better is WHY people steal, WHAT can be done to stop/negate it, and WHERE things may be headed. I realise that copiers are asshole thieves, but I think there's a lot more nuance to it than that.

If you want to try and suggest to me that I can't download a DVD or CD in Vietnam because intellectual property law has failed, knock yourself out.

I don't suppose the communist government's censorship of the net and other imported media (as well as domestic media) has anything to do with it.

That's as much as I'll say about your Vietnamese Theory on why all music should be free in America.

But I would like to take this opportunity to sum up what we've got so far.

[marcellis]

DR9:

If you want to try and suggest to me that I can't download a DVD or CD in Vietnam because intellectual property law has failed, knock yourself out.

I already suggested it. I certainly don't want to try to persuade you. I suspect you'll need to see it with your own eyes.

DR9:

I don't suppose the communist government's censorship of the net and other imported media (as well as domestic media) has anything to do with it.

Now that's funny! :lol:
:thu:

"That's as much as I'll say about your Vietnamese Theory on why all music should be free in America."

Most music already is free in America. Good luck trying to change that.

Now that I've gotten old, I understand that the big things tend to take care of themselves.
It's the little stuff that kills you. You can fight and flail away all you want against market reality.
Ultimately, the market is gonna sort itself out. Those who adapt will succeed. Those who
don't, won't.

Good luck to you in restoring Camelot though. :thu: I hope you get rich as Paul McCartney off your music.

[marcellis]

VBrook: What is the view of artists domestically, in Vietnam? Surely, in the pirated music shops, their music is all there for the taking. What are they doing about it, if anything?

Interesting question. Just last week, I read a story about Vietnamese musicians suing the state-owned TV networks over royalties.

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2DoXm5eL7_Q): "Vietnam's Musicians Say They're Not Being Compensated for Music

A musician's organization in Vietnam has petitioned government authorities for better protection of the Viet Nam Centre for the Protection of Music Copyrights, Vietnam News reported June 11.

The Viet Nam Centre for the Protection of Music Copyrights, a group representing 1,500 musicians, complained copyrights have been ignored for years, according to Vietnam News.

Most television studios don't compensate musicians for using their songs, according to Vietnam News.

The musicians group hopes to collect 12 billion Vietnamese dong ($722,000) in royalties for members, Vietnam News reported. "

CD's of Vietnamese music in shops are all pirated too. I honestly don't think you can buy music or movies that haven't been pirated here.

As they do in the States, Performers leverage CD sales, for which they're rarely compensated, for merchandise sales
and live show receipts. There are a lot of live shows around. It's a pretty big industry here.

The lawsuits raise some strange contradictions in a Communist country where the state owns all the media
and all TV entertainers are employees of the state.

I don't know how it all will play out. But I doubt seriously if the artists will
see much money out of their lawsuits.

[Vbrook]

Interesting. Shame about the reality of it.

Incidentally, The Economist this week (July 19-25) published two articles on piracy that touch on some of the issues we've been discussing. They appear to be free-to-view over the web:

1) "Piracy - Look for the silver lining"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750492

2) "Thanks, me hearties"
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751035


I don't know how it all will play out. But I doubt seriously if the artists will
see much money out of their lawsuits.

[marcellis]

This is my point exactly.
From the first Economist article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750492):

"That principle is worth defending. Yet companies have to deal with the real world—and, despite the best efforts of recorded-music companies, luxury-goods firms and software-industry associations, piracy has proved very hard to stop. Given that a certain amount of stealing is going to happen anyway, some companies are turning it to their advantage."

Amen. People can flail around and try to resist the incoming tide. They can curse at it. But it's wasted effort if you ask me. A better approach is use that tide to your benefit. Surf on it, fish in it, divert a little tidepool from it.

"...For example, around 20 times as many music tracks are exchanged over the internet on “peer to peer” file-sharing networks as are legitimately sold online or in shops. Statistics about the traffic on file-sharing networks can be useful. They can reveal, for example, the countries where a new singer is most popular, even before his album has been released there. Having initially been reluctant to be seen exploiting this information, record companies are now making use of it (see article). This month BigChampagne, the main music-data analyser, is extending its monitoring service to pirated video, too. Knowing which TV programmes are being most widely passed around online can help broadcasters when negotiating with advertisers or planning schedules.

In other industries, piracy can help to open up new markets. Take software, for instance. Microsoft’s Windows operating system is used on 90% of PCs in China, but most copies are pirated. Officially, the software giant has taken a firm line against piracy. But unofficially, it admits that tolerating piracy of its products has given it huge market share and will boost revenues in the long term, because users stick with Microsoft’s products when they go legit. Clamping down too hard on pirates may also encourage people to switch to free, open-source alternatives. “It’s easier for our software to compete with Linux when there’s piracy than when there’s not,” Microsoft’s chairman, Bill Gates, told Fortune magazine last year.

Another example, from agriculture, shows how piracy can literally seed a new market. Farmers in Brazil wanted to use genetically modified (GM) soyabean seeds that had been engineered by Monsanto to be herbicide-tolerant. The government, under pressure from green groups opposed to GM technology, held back. Unable to obtain the GM seeds legitimately, the farmers turned to pirated versions, many of them “Maradona” seeds brought in from Argentina. Eventually the pirated seeds accounted for over a third of Brazil’s soyabean plantings, and in 2005 the government relented and granted approval for the use of GM seeds. Monsanto could then start selling its seeds legitimately in Brazil...".

That's the future. Piracy is good for R&D. It's the best kind of market research, because it's real world on a vast scale.
And it can help you open a market to your goods.

There are millions of counterfeit Louis Vuitton, Versacci & Burberry hand bags over here. But the brand names have been exposed.
And a rising middle class will want the real things when they can afford them. Ditto for all the counterfeit Rolex, Longines & Omega watches.

Piracy is about bigger things than just American Pop music. Trying to make it go away is like trying to make the wind go away when
you're in a sailboat at sea. A better approach is to acknowledge it, tack your sails off it and use it to help you in your voyage.

It's common sense.

From the same article: "That this silver lining exists should not obscure the cloud. Most of the time, companies will decide to combat piracy of their products by sending in the lawyers with all guns blazing. And most of the time that is the right thing to do. But before they rush into action companies should check to see if there is a way for them to turn piracy to their advantage."

[Vbrook]

I don't know whether you drink, but I'll raise my glass to that.

Cheers.



That's the future. Piracy is good for R&D. It's the best kind of market research, because it's real world on a vast scale.
And it can help you open a market to your goods.

There are millions of counterfeit Louis Vuitton, Versacci & Burberry hand bags over here. But the brand names have been exposed.
And a rising middle class will want the real things when they can afford them. Ditto for all the counterfeit Rolex, Longines & Omega watches.

Piracy is about bigger things than just American Pop music. Trying to make it go away is like trying to make the wind go away when
you're in a sailboat at sea. A better approach is to acknowledge it, tack your sails off it and use it to help you in your voyage.

It's common sense.

[richardmac]

File sharing is and will always be. But it's not the whole issue. Another important factor is that people have always been willing to make copies for their friends. In the past, those copies were inferior, and people would often end up going out and buying the real thing. But now, those copies can be identical if desired, or good enough.

So even if I sell a CD at a gig, and even if the person who buys it likes it, and even if they play it for their friends, they're not going to say "Go see this guy play and you can buy a CD at his show." They're going to say "Do you want me to burn you a copy?"

You can still sell music in this day and age, but you're going to be selling less of it. And I'm with some of the other folks here - you can bitch about it, or you can understand it and try to use it.

[Uma Floresta]

I'm sorry for probably the 1000th post on this topic, but I was just talking about this today with a friend of mine.

Solution:

Musicians/songwriters get a lump fee from a marketing company, and then they all divide up the royalties resulting from the commercial use of the music. Individuals are left to copy, trade, rip, mix, burn to their hearts' content, and they don't pay a dime. Never. It's dead simple, and I can't find anything wrong with the model.

Recent "tests", such as with Radiohead, are still focused on generating money from individual, private listeners. Give up that stream entirely, raise the fees for commercial use.

Kind of a Creative Commons agreement, then?