The anti-piracy brigade is out again in the government

[MK-2]

This discussion is always full of the same arguments, and no-one is ever moved to "change sides" (so I don't actually know why I'm bothering to post this) but:

 

Yes, some people "try before they buy" or wouldn't have bought anyway, but huge amounts never buy and may well have bought if it hadn't been available for free. For instance, I'm fairly sure that someone I know with an HDD full of torrented movies could afford the DVDs and would be a bit less free with doling them out to all and sundry if she'd have to pay to replace them should they fail to be returned. My personal observations are that very few people who download via illegal channels later buy - why would they when they can just keep what they have on increasingly cheap hard or optical disk?

 

The "why should I pay for something that might be rubbish?" argument annoys me a bit. Why not either wait until it's cheap, or not buy? Would you demand your money back if (say) a footie match turned out not to be as epic as you hoped?

 

to be honest this is completely sidetracking from the original point anyway. its not about should you buy or not, its should we be giving groups of people the ability to just kill parts of the internet because they "feel" that area is illegally spreading music files?

its in the same sense that i can go on google, type in BOMB MAKING and get links to sites that show how to make a bomb, i can also use google to go to various sites to buy the equipment needed to make the bomb, i can probably also use google to find out a specific bus/train route, etc. so by all intents google has aided in terrorism. i already wanted to be the terrorist but it has aided in terrorism.

 

so if i already want to download an illegal mp3, this site is just aiding in it. so by fairness if you shut down a site for telling you where to go to get illegal movies, you must shut down sites that can tell you where to get other things illegally.

[MK-2]

If I bought a computer, or a TV and found out it was rubbish, I'd take it back...

 

and also using that example, how would a store such as hmv cope if you went in and said "i bought this cd, its rubbish, i want my money back and no longer want to own it" i guess they will refuse, probably on grounds you could have copied it.

[andyturpie]

What hacks me off is that why the government are hell bent on protecting musicians, software developers and film distributors - but have let coal mining, metal workers,ship builders and car manufacturers go to the wall. Why can't they understand that most of these goods are grossly overpriced (just like the services I had quoted) and people in their millions, wether rightly or wrongly are looking to other methods to obtain these goods cheaper or for free (cough).

[LeMarchand]

to be honest this is completely sidetracking from the original point anyway. its not about should you buy or not, its should we be giving groups of people the ability to just kill parts of the internet because they "feel" that area is illegally spreading music files?

 

There's no "feel" about it; we all know that the prime function of a torrent site or similar is that you can get free media. Yes, you can also get legitimately free stuff (eg Linux distros) but I'm betting that such files are a tiny percentage of the bandwidth used.

 

I'm not saying it's good that the media companies are exerting such influence over the governments; I just get a bit tired over the righteous indignation and tired old arguments (by the way, do people really think that if the artists got a fair share of the income, people would stop downloading illegitimately? I guess that everyone who likes Trent Reznor dutifully sends him some cash, then) when what it REALLY amounts to is "WAAAHHH!!!! They're taking my free stuff away!"

[Earthling]

Would you demand your money back if (say) a footie match turned out not to be as epic as you hoped?

 

Uhh........yes, I would, actually.

 

BBC Sport - Arsenal offer free tickets to fans after Man Utd thrashing

 

I'm not a Gooner, but fair play to the Arse.

 

Not exactly giving the money back, but close enough.

[MK-2]

There's no "feel" about it; we all know that the prime function of a torrent site or similar is that you can get free media. Yes, you can also get legitimately free stuff (eg Linux distros) but I'm betting that such files are a tiny percentage of the bandwidth used.

 

But a torrent/usenet indexing site doesn't host the files, they provide a list of what is available. if a torrent site were to go, there are still other ways to get the torrents, so you aren't doing anything to actually stop torrent sharing by stopping access to a site that indexes what is available.

the problem is, does it stop at torrent sites. as i said, if a big company doesn't like a smaller company doing something, will they be able to force a court order through shutting that site down because it "infringes copyright".

 

- i go to a torrent site, i type in "harry potter" and it gives me a link to someone sharing the harry potter movie. i then need another means (torrent software etc) to actually get the movie and have moved completely away from the torrent site

- i go to a search engine, i type in "bomb making" and it gives me a link to a website showing me how to make a bomb. i then need another means (buying the equipment) to actually make the bomb and have completely moved away from the search engine.

 

both are a means to an end, but how can you justify shutting one site down because of it and leaving another operational?

[difinity]

Nobody is potentially loosing money when you search for 'bomb making'

 

I think the government wants to be seen to be doing something, but as it doesn't seem to fully understand how it works it's not quite sure what.

Lots of money was spent ensuting BT blocked access to Newzbin2, but already there is a way round it. Newzbin2 pirates prepare to sink BT web block ? The Register

 

Using new and old legislation might stop the occasional downloader, but i doubt it will do anything to stop the hardcore pirate.

[LeMarchand]

both are a means to an end, but how can you justify shutting one site down because of it and leaving another operational?

 

One has one major purpose: enabling the distribution of copyright infringing files; the other can be used in many ways and the illegal possibilities are far outweighed by the legal ones. Your argument is similar to "we don't let people wander around with swords because they can be used to kill people, so why don't we ban all knives?"

[Fatmas]

This has probably been said already but here is my opinion:

 

The key flaw in copyright/piracy law is that the Government believes 1 "illegal" download = 1 lost sale. That's simply not the case. If I downloaded US TV shows and then found I couldn't anymore I wouldn't go out and buy them all on DVD, I would probably just not watch them. The creators are not losing anything.

 

Another Example: I like NOFX. I have bought many of their albums (Approx £10 each for sake of argument) and have seem them live maybe 4 times (£25 each). Yet if I were to download an old album or maybe their latest one I would be considered a thief and could be prosecuted. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

I cannot find the source but many studies have shown that people who so called "pirate" music/films/games etc... actually spend more money purchasing this media legally than people who don't. The pricing system and structure of the entire media industry is broken.

 

Almost to the end of my scattered thoughts:

 

Why should I risk paying between £10-15 for an album I might not like? If I like it I will generally buy it or at least buy the other albums and/or future albums by that artist.

 

 

I really don't think "Piracy" is hurting the music/film/TV/game industry. For musicians: Get out there and play gigs, distribute your music for very cheap or use Trent Reznor's model; let people pay what they want for your music. If it's too tough for you I'm not being funny but maybe you are in the wrong business?

 

 

/End Rant :-)

[Fatmas]

But a torrent/usenet indexing site doesn't host the files, they provide a list of what is available. if a torrent site were to go, there are still other ways to get the torrents, so you aren't doing anything to actually stop torrent sharing by stopping access to a site that indexes what is available.

the problem is, does it stop at torrent sites. as i said, if a big company doesn't like a smaller company doing something, will they be able to force a court order through shutting that site down because it "infringes copyright".

 

- i go to a torrent site, i type in "harry potter" and it gives me a link to someone sharing the harry potter movie. i then need another means (torrent software etc) to actually get the movie and have moved completely away from the torrent site

- i go to a search engine, i type in "bomb making" and it gives me a link to a website showing me how to make a bomb. i then need another means (buying the equipment) to actually make the bomb and have completely moved away from the search engine.

 

both are a means to an end, but how can you justify shutting one site down because of it and leaving another operational?

 

 

 

Agreed, the logic of shutting down Torrent searching sites is similar to shutting down Google because you can search for illegal pornography. You can even search for Torrents in Google!

[localzuk]

I guess that everyone who likes Trent Reznor dutifully sends him some cash, then) when what it REALLY amounts to is "WAAAHHH!!!! They're taking my free stuff away!"

 

I remember reading an interview with Trent Reznor saying that since he started selling his music independently, whilst offering the free downloads, his income had shot up compared to when he was with his label. I know I've paid for several albums of his since he did that.

[LeMarchand]

I remember reading an interview with Trent Reznor saying that since he started selling his music independently, whilst offering the free downloads, his income had shot up compared to when he was with his label. I know I've paid for several albums of his since he did that.

 

Missing the point, or I wasn't clear: people often trot out the "if the nasty media corps weren't ripping off artists, there'd be less piracy" argument. My point was that (at least on the stuff he owns the copyright to) no-one is ripping TR off, and yet I'm fairly sure there's plenty of his stuff on torrent sites and that the majority of folk don't download it and think "yeah, that was good - I'll send Trent some money for that".

[MK-2]

One has one major purpose: enabling the distribution of copyright infringing files; the other can be used in many ways and the illegal possibilities are far outweighed by the legal ones. Your argument is similar to "we don't let people wander around with swords because they can be used to kill people, so why don't we ban all knives?"

 

but you are missing the point. if i set up a site that will search usenet for whatever the user types in, i am not enabling the distribution of illegal files any differently than if i went to google and typed "download X mp3". both will show you where the file is, but won't host it themselves.

a usenet indexer and google do nothing differently, they give you an answer, how you use that answer is up to you. if you choose to go on a usenet site and download illegal files, that's you, not the site at fault. you have the choice to say "no wait, i wont do that"....again much in the same way if you search for illegal files in google, you still have the choice NOT to click the result and download it.

[Earthling]

Bottom line is that this argument will go on and on and on until we either can't log-on to any but Government and Multi-National approved web-sites or the film and recording industries join us all in the 21st century and evolve their business models accordingly.

 

I know which I'd prefer.

[localzuk]

Missing the point, or I wasn't clear: people often trot out the "if the nasty media corps weren't ripping off artists, there'd be less piracy" argument. My point was that (at least on the stuff he owns the copyright to) no-one is ripping TR off, and yet I'm fairly sure there's plenty of his stuff on torrent sites and that the majority of folk don't download it and think "yeah, that was good - I'll send Trent some money for that".

 

Along with the point MK-2 makes, you missed one of my points with Trent Reznor. He makes his music available for free download, yet still makes a lot of money. You don't have to rip people off to make money.

[Domino]

Another Example: I like NOFX. I have bought many of their albums (Approx £10 each for sake of argument) and have seem them live maybe 4 times (£25 each). Yet if I were to download an old album or maybe their latest one I would be considered a thief and could be prosecuted. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Really?

 

I've bought a car before, but I might like a better one so I'll just go take it...

 

 

The current Model is broken, and things are gonna be awful until there's a major overhaul.

 

And as for 'just distribute your stuff cheaply or for free' look at my band, paid £1000 all in for recording our new ep. then we've distribution to pay, etc, etc

 

We made the money for recording that from t-shirt sales, sales of the last ep and gigging. We've taken NOTHING for ourselves. and only actually put money in.

 

The release for free model works if you're established...but what about if you need more exposure? and I'd love to just take off and gig 24x7 to do that, but I can't, cause there's no money in it at this level, so how do I pay my rent etc...?

Edited September 16, 2011 by Domino

[LeMarchand]

but you are missing the point.

 

Not at all. If I go to an indexer and type in "how to cook an egg" or "how to perform mouth-to-mouth", it's unlikely that I'll get anything useful; if I go to Google chances are I will. The primary purpose of an indexer is to make it easy to find copyrighted files. If someone made one that only indexed child pornography people would quite rightly want it taken offline. They wouldn't be using your argument that people could use Google to try to find the stuff and besides which, the indexer isn't hosting the files and it's up to the downloader to make their choice. Just because a "standard" indexer can help people find files they feel it is their right to be able to download, they find arguments to justify their existence.

[sted]

Bottom line is that this argument will go on and on and on until we either can't log-on to any but Government and Multi-National approved web-sites or the film and recording industries join us all in the 21st century and evolve their business models accordingly.

 

I know which I'd prefer.

 

but its not a technological problem before the internet you just used a twin tape deck and voila another copy. Granted the internet makes it easier but companies dont help themselves. Technically if i lend someone one of my xbox 360 games im breaking copyright law in the real world wheres the harm in that and in some cases it can be so much harder to find certain music tracks say in hmv/itunes and again with tv progs what if it dosent air in the uk and isnt released on dvd who am i causing a problem for?

[LeMarchand]

The release for free model works if you're established...but what about if you need more exposure? and I'd love to just take off and gig 24x7 to do that, but I can't, cause there's no money in it at this level, so how to I pay my rent etc...?

 

Good point. I've often wondered just how well Trent Reznor (he always gets mentioned in these discussions, doesn't he?) would be doing if he hadn't had his initial exposure via a record company.

[Fatmas]

Really?

 

I've bought a car before, but I might like a better one so I'll just go take it...

 

 

The current Model is broken, and things are gonna be awful until there's a major overhaul.

 

And as for 'just distribute your stuff cheaply or for free' look at my band, paid £1000 all in for recording our new ep. then we've distribution to pay, etc, etc

 

We made the money for recording that from t-shirt sales, sales of the last ep and gigging. We've taken NOTHING for ourselves. and only actually put money in.

 

The release for free model works if you're established...but what about if you need more exposure? and I'd love to just take off and gig 24x7 to do that, but I can't, cause there's no money in it at this level, so how do I pay my rent etc...?

 

 

The car example is completely different. I've put hundreds of pounds into NoFX and many other bands over the years, I don't think I should be considered a "thief" for downloading one of their albums. Granted they are well established.

 

 

For you guys gigging just so you know, I'm the guy who will go to a gig and buy EP's and Tshirts from the lesser known support bands, because let's be honest, you guys usually need the cash more than the headliners! If I like the EP, chances are I'll buy the album when it's released.

[localzuk]

Really?

 

I've bought a car before, but I might like a better one so I'll just go take it...

 

 

The current Model is broken, and things are gonna be awful until there's a major overhaul.

 

And as for 'just distribute your stuff cheaply or for free' look at my band, paid £1000 all in for recording our new ep. then we've distribution to pay, etc, etc

 

We made the money for recording that from t-shirt sales, sales of the last ep and gigging. We've taken NOTHING for ourselves. and only actually put money in.

 

The release for free model works if you're established...but what about if you need more exposure? and I'd love to just take off and gig 24x7 to do that, but I can't, cause there's no money in it at this level, so how do I pay my rent etc...?

 

I don't know, there's plenty of weird little bands/artists I've paid money towards even though I can listen to their money for free through bandcamp. (A) in Mono is one such artist - i've bought all the albums on there. Or dB Soundworks. In my experience, people are willing to reward people who deserve it. I like music like that, so I give them money for it.

[MK-2]

Not at all. If I go to an indexer and type in "how to cook an egg" or "how to perform mouth-to-mouth", it's unlikely that I'll get anything useful; if I go to Google chances are I will. The primary purpose of an indexer is to make it easy to find copyrighted files. If someone made one that only indexed child pornography people would quite rightly want it taken offline. They wouldn't be using your argument that people could use Google to try to find the stuff and besides which, the indexer isn't hosting the files and it's up to the downloader to make their choice. Just because a "standard" indexer can help people find files they feel it is their right to be able to download, they find arguments to justify their existence.

 

the indexer indexes usenet or torrents. the content of that torrent is outside of their control.

this is my point, im not justifying piracy or not, i'm saying that if a website says "if you go over there you will find X" and you go over there and find X, its not the indexers fault. you were the one who typed in X, you are the one using the software to download X.

using your example, its like saying you google "how to cook an egg" and you follow the link, cook the egg and then blame google for the egg not coming out right. it was your decision to follow the link, it was your decision to do what the link provided, so you can't then blame someone else for just showing you where to go.

[ZeroHour]

From my own personal perspective:

 

Spotify, even though it pays so little to artists, has killed the need to get music through other means. I use it all day every day and pay premium for it, I love it tbh and my friends love it. The only faults it really has are not everything is on it which sucks and also they appear to pay so little. I am curious why they pay so little but when you consider that major labels own major shares in it the % going to artists is always going to suck as no doubt share holders will take their % first.

 

The problem facing the music industry is the genie is out of the bottle, its sad to say it but there is no real going back and this route wont fix anything, its literally wasting time/money. Music has been getting devalued greatly over the years and piracy is not the sole cause, the industry has in part done it to themselves. I know plenty who dont have a clue about torrents so instead they just watch the videos on youtube on demand when they want. These are videos put (certainly a lot now) there by the music industry themselves who will no doubt receive very little and even less goes to the artist. Youtube etc has helped greatly devalue music as people know its on youtube for free before you even get to the piracy angle, people see the cd/mp3 for sale for £8-12 and think well I could just watch it on youtube for free (mobile youtube too) which gives the perception that cd/mp3's are a rip off which stalls sales. Youtube is used by the industry to promote music which is good but in a age when everyone is permanently connected to the net there must be a realisation that unlike the old promo methods of mtv/radio which are not play when you want they have helped negate one of the benefits of paying cash for music, to listen to it when you want. Piracy gets blamed for pretty much everything and although it will no doubt have an effect the industry has not helped themselves with other tactics.

 

In this age people consume more music then ever before and there is more out there then ever before which that means all music must go down in price for all to enjoy more of it to give more a chance to make it bigger. If I had to buy every track I listened to on spotify I would be spending easily £100 a month of music as now I listen to more then I ever did thanks to the flat rate charge of spotify. If spotify/piracy/youtube was gone tomorrow I would not start spending £100 a month, I would just find something else cheap to do which music boss's need to understand, right now music is big entertainment because its available. More artists get more shots at getting big but many wont, its a hard fact but thinking that getting rid of piracy/youtube etc would give you a better shot is madness, no one will even give you a chance unlike now where you have a shot to make it big because so much is listened too. Cesil I wish your son all the best but you really need to see the metrics working against him breaking through, saying piracy prevents him making cash in the future is sadly a little short sighted, piracy/youtube/spotify that pay nothing/practically nothing to him is actually giving him the best chance to make it big, you can charge £10 a cd and have them all order direct with DRM that can be broken on the cd but sadly if no one has heard of you or heard your music no one will pay. He is also going into a very crowded market where there are more artists then ever before thanks to home production getting far better then it was before and the fact so many want to *make it big* as it were. Sadly as well, many need to realise they never will make it big and thinking they deserve too or blaming everything else other then the quality of the music being produced is a hard lesson needing to be learned. Its not an easy game and for some reason too many think its easy street money, you have to be really good to make it big generally (although exceptions exist on both sides of that) and many who try simply are not. If it was easy we would all be making a mint off it.

 

All these things need to be seen as what they are, tools for driving other revenue streams. Gigs etc (when you make it big) can give a far higher payout rate then sales nowadays, also direct sales too cut out the middle man but both of these need you to break through and become big, piracy/youtube/spotify/free is the best chance you have of making it big without a major label promoting you and even then with major label promotion you wont necessarily make it big and you have just sold a lot of rights to them in the process in case you ever do.

I dont want to aggravate anyone but truly piracy needs to be seen as an opportunity rather then hated like it is, promotion is needed and thats one way to do it, certainly thinking getting rid of it will mean more artists will succeed is madness imho as far less will break through as people wont risk the cash blindly. The old cd model is slowly dying and more other approaches need to be thought of rather then holding on to the past, its sad but true right now its a consumers market, dont try to break the consumer.

 

To flip this around, we at edugeek make money from ad banners, which helps pay for BETT for our members and our conferences etc and the running costs of the site, not to line our own pockets with huge revenue. I know many run ad blockers (really its REALLY easy to detect and ban) and I also know some LEA's block them for all browsing (really really bad) but rather then focusing on that % and banning/blocking we have to accept it and try and encourage you to not use ad blockers on edugeek as so much money is pumped back into the members. Would you prefer we took a *piracy* stance and blocked access/banned because we receive nothing from the users traffic but actually have costs associated with the visiting? in the lightest way ad blocking could be seen as theft in the same way piracy has been, technically your paying nothing for the content/costs etc but we dont, we accept there is a % that wont and we see the other benefits associated with the visitor and dont focus on the fact they ad block (although please dont ).

 

Regarding Trent, he gave away his last album himself on the pirate bay, he then sold direct flac/high quality versions as well as 1000 limited edition boxes and he said he made more money from the 1000 limited editions then he made from a previous album through the labels but yes he is famous, the point is more there are other possible sources and they do work. The flac was £5 and after listening to the album I bought it direct myself, £5 for flac is a great deal and thats a good price point for me myself, £8 for 256k on itunes is not so I use spotify so at least something is paid.

 

This has been another coffee fuelled binge of text so please excuse the poor typing, I will probably edit later.

Edited September 16, 2011 by ZeroHour

[Dos_Box]

There is also 'The Marillion Model' which prompted a lot of other bands with stong followings yet poor industry backing to follow: The fans' band - Features, Music - The Independent

[localzuk]

The reason Spotify pay so little is determined via labels - the price paid is set by the various licensing agencies, who are controlled by the labels. Artists basically don't get a say for the majority of artists on there.

 

Also, remember the amount is 'per play', which is difficult to compare to 'per disc/album sold'. To compare - each person playing a song would need to play it about 345 times over its lifetime to have the same use from it. Sounds a lot, but it isn't.