Martin Orford August 2009

I know how you manipulate studies and statistics, BigBoss. What you haven't addressed is why Harvard University, scientists, government agencies and others would want to falsify results. Paranoid much?

Hey, if you want to redefine terminology, you can do that, but don't expect to be taken seriously in any debate (the idea of multi-year sentences for what is at best a misdemeanor doesn't help, of course). I don't see why you don't go all out and just call it murder - or rape, that packs an even higher visceral punch and would be sure to make people think you're well-reasoned, rational and right.

Oh wait...I remember now, you were part of that group blog that suggested cutting off hands of file sharers. You may want to look into anger management clases, because that kind of overreaction is the sign of a seriously troubled mind. How about reintroducing the stocks for parking tickets and drawing and quartering for not filling out your tax forms, while you're at it? That's going to make for a lovely society, that is.

Finnforest wrote: And it does hurt the artists despite your studies.

They're not my studies. They are studies made by government agencies, universities and schools.

Harvard in 2004: "File sharing may boost CD sales"

BI Norwegian School of Management: File sharers buy 10 times more music than those who don't download for free.

Dutch Government: the economic effects of filesharing are positive.

Canadian Government: positive correlation between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchasing.

Swedish Royal Technical College study 'Music Lessons': File sharing increases sales.

Please tell me what the incentive is for any of these people to lie.

And I repeat this because reading comprehension doesn't seem to be some people's strong suit when they get all black-eyed about file sharing: I in no way condone not paying artists whose works you enjoy. I find immoral file sharing reprehensible and spend quite a bit of effort to make sure that those I know that file share illegally make sure that they do their best to renumerate the artists whose work they enjoy.

But I also know that, even if we were to assume that the damages claimed by the music industry were true, the price you would have to pay to stop file sharing simply isn't worth it. It would mean basically closing down the internet or turning it into an apparatus under Stasi-like control, where everybody's online activity is watched, recorded and catalogued. If you trust anyone, government agency or business concern, with that kind of information and think that there won't be mission creep and it will start to get used for other, more sinister purposes, then you are naive enough to have been born yesterday.

Since file sharing is inevitable as long as the internet is a free channel of communication for every person, it makes much more sense to adapt to it and try to leverage its advantages to make money, rather than railing against it and helping authoritarians turn it into an electronic police state (then again, I'm sure some people wouldn't be too bothered by that - order, obedience and straight lines are very pleasing to a certain mind set).


Edited by Teaflax - September 29 2009 at 11:07

I've written extensively on the topic of piracy and don't intend to reproduce it here, but as someone who is in this business, piracy is killing it, and the arguments of the pro-piracy groups are just silly.  There is some mystical economic model that musicians should adopt according to them, but none can articulate it.  I'm serious about multi-year prison sentences though, I'd start with a '3 strikes' where you loose internet for a year, you do it again, then prison.  I really think it wouldn't take long to see a huge difference.  People who aren't breaking the law have nothing to worry about.

I don't understand this reverence you seem to hold about making music though.  How is it different than someone who is really good at working on car engines for example?  I'm a musician myself and I don't really understand his position of not playing at all, I like to pick up a guitar or sit at the piano regularly and just play, but that's me.

Sure, if you don't want to have the debate because you have absolutely no arguments, then bow out. Fine by me.

Hey, I know. How about if someone gets caught file sharing we just turn off their electricity for a year? Then they can't even listen to the songs they got caught raping. That'll learn 'em, the sumbitches.

Man, you're a riot, Shawn. You should take that act on the road.

teaflax, I've had this argument for 2 years, feel free to go to progagainstpirates.blogspot.com and www.myspace.com/progagainstpirates and you can read some of my writings and other labels and artists writings.  I've heard and refuted all the arguments you're going to make a hundred times, I don't feel the need to regurgitate it again.  I'm just surprised that your are pro stealing.  I guess if I just electronically transfer money out of your bank account, that would be ok with you since I didn't actually take physical dollars out of your pocket?

um, yes he is breaking the law, he's stealing the CD's, the penalty in the US is up to $150,000 per download, I've seen fines at $9,000 per file so far, so yes, he is in real legal jeopardy with what he is doing.

ok, to continue why I know.  When you have a release from an established artist that has historically sold well (this is also true for IQ for example) and the new release is universally hailed as their best yet, distribution is better than it ever has been and promotion is higher than ever, yet sales are down and you see these huge download counts, it is pretty obvious what is happening.  I don't pretend to claim that each download is a lost sale as many people do, I understand it's a percentage, but it's a much much higher percentage than the ones that turned in to a sale.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: EDIT: It's true that file sharers buy more music, but this is bad news, they will probably buy the 2 or 3 srtists they really love, and download the music from the rest of the artists.   So the file sharers buy exactly the same as they did before the p2p existed, but they also download a hell lot more of music from artists that won't receive a dime.

So explain to me how that is a loss for anyone, especially if that music (as shown in my link above) is more likely to be from smaller, more obscure artists.

as long as you refuse to understand that piracy has a negative effect on sales, this conversation is pointless. Downloading is wrong both morally and legally, that isn't freedom, that is anarchy, unless of course you consider anarchy to be the ultimate expression of freedom.  There is no other market segment that consumers insist that they get the product for free.

Yes, IQ is selling an order of magnitude less than they did even with the previous album and far less than the album before that, why do you think Martin retired?  He can't make a living any more.

Your other quote about downloads versus purchases is old and doesn't apply any more, I told you, this problem gets worse every day.  I'm in the trenches on this, every day I'm tracking and removing my catalog from pirate sites, every time I do, I see an increase in sales on my site and on Mindawn.  I'm in this, I live it, I breathe it, this isn't an abstract conversation to me, this is my livelihood as well, so when I see people talk about 'freedom' for my investments, I get really ticked off.

I appreciate you having an open mind on this.

I'm not at liberty to share other peoples sales figures, but I do know what they are.  The same is true of most of the Inside Out label.  It's not a matter of dismantling the internet, but it is a matter of some accountability of the companies that perpetuate the problem like Google, Rapidshare and the like (who have almost no legitimate purpose).  You can track the rapid rise in piracy in recent years to the availability of low cost, high speed internet in eastern europe, south america and china.  It was bad enough when I got perfect copies of our CD's sent to me from Russia that were knock offs, but now it's digital, it's free for someone to give away.  Without getting seriously hard core about it, you can't do a whole lot.  One way to slow it down as Rachel said is to just not send out promo's.

I designed Mindawn to combat every argument that pirates use, yet it still isn't enough for them, there is always another excuse around the corner.  My main thing now is education, I tell 2 people, they tell 2 people, etc.  I just fixed my nephews laptop the other day, the problem was he had Limewire on it and was downloading tons of music, I talked to his mom, she didn't realize that wasn't legal, she says to me "how can they do that if it is illegal?" she just assumed that because it was there, it was legal, and this is the other side of the problem, education.  If we can't make it unavailable, we have to educate and prosecute.  

As a thought exercise, if your best friend got thrown in jail for a year because he had downloaded some albums illegally, would YOU still download?  I don't think so.

BigBoss wrote: I appreciate you having an open mind on this.

Thank you. I do try to pay attention to facts - and this to me, is a very worrying fact, not least because it's IQ, a band I have followed since day one and have a bit of a history with. They deserve better, much better.

BigBoss wrote: I'm not at liberty to share other peoples sales figures, but I do know what they are.

I absolutely understand that. Is there any way you could mention the proportions? I.e, Dark Matter sold X% less than 7th House and Frequency sold X% less than that?

BigBoss wrote: It's not a matter of dismantling the internet, but it is a matter of some accountability of the companies that perpetuate the problem like Google, Rapidshare and the like (who have almost no legitimate purpose).

I agree that RapidShare and the like should be busted, because they're obviously making money off of what is probably 95% illegal content. I don't have quite the same issue with the file-sharing that goes on on a non-profit basis, however.

BigBoss wrote: I designed Mindawn to combat every argument that pirates use, yet it still isn't enough for them, there is always another excuse around the corner.

The main issue with Mindawn is probably lack of marketing. I didn't know about it until I saw your link here (and it's worth noting that Brighteye Brison - whose latest brilliant album I was trying to find as a purchasable download a few weeks ago after having gotten it on MP3 from a friend - do not even link to the site nor to any other download sources). Other than that, it looks great, I think.

BigBoss wrote: As a thought exercise, if your best friend got thrown in jail for a year because he had downloaded some albums illegally, would YOU still download?  I don't think so.

As a thought exercise, I would leave any country that was turning that much into a police state. I'm sorry, but however much you hate it, and however much it impacts you directly, I really have to take issue with your desire to impose such harsh penalties on non-commercial file sharing (now if anyone else makes a profit your stuff, that's something entirely different to me). Again, that's not saying I condone it, just that I think your wish overreaches. I mean, you wouldn't catch many people speeding if you implemented the death penalty for it, yet in a civilized society we don't do that, even though many people die from that each year.

Theoretically, you could get almost everyone to fall in line and behave very nicely if you have harsh punishments for even the most minor infraction, but that kind of hostile society really isn't very pleasant.

I still think that artists have to be proactive and try to figure out how to connect with fans and give them incentive to buy. Our drummer just paid 70 Euro for the special edition of The Incident and I paid a princely sum for the MST3K 20th anniversary boxed set even though all of those episodes are easy enough to find online (and I was introduced to MST3K entirely through downloads).

Maybe IQ should try to prepay the next album, the way Marillion and the Blow Monkeys  (and probably others) have done. Figure out what how many you need to sell, sell them beforehand and only release it once the money has been made.

BigBoss wrote: You're ignoring the thought excersize, you already live in a country that is making it impossible for you to publish your book for example, but you still live there.

What? My country isn't making it impossible for me to publish a book. What are you talking about?

BigBoss wrote: the label that has Brighteye links to it, but we probably could do some new advertising.

A bare minimum would be for the band to have it prominently featured on their web site, especially in this day and age.

BigBoss wrote: Here is my problem with everyone saying musicians should come up with a new model.  They are musicians, that's what they do, they make music, it isn't beholden on them to come up with some groundbreaking technology or economic model so they can sell their product, these guys mostly can barely understand their royalty reports, not that they are stupid, but because accounting isn't their focus.  Do we ask a rancher to give us the beef and just put advertising on the side of the cow to support it?  I don't understand why musicians are the only ones being demanded that they find some method other than selling their goods to be able to continue to do it.

Maybe because the internet has changed the model, and the model only works with physical copies in bricks-and-mortar stores? As technologies change, the people whose livelihood depends on those technologies have to adapt. I understand what you're saying about bands maybe not being internet savvy enough to figure out what to do, but that's where labels and promotors have a great niche to fill.

I understand that you think you're doing what you can to maximize your sales by hunting down RapidShare links etc., but maybe if you spent more time actually coming up with ways to promote the site - such as making sure that Brighteye Brison (and other featured bands) actually have a link to Mindawn right there on their front page, then maybe you could counter that effect in positive, rewarding ways, rather than negative and aggressive ones.

BigBoss wrote: You think one of my bands like Invisigoth could get people to pony up 10k to support them recording another album?

If they don't have enough fans to pay it up front, why would you think they would be able to sell enough to cover it once it's released?

But a fifth is a staggeringly bad number for IQ to sell of their latest venture. I don't really know what to make of it and I wish I had a magic bullet or a strong theory that vindicates what I've been saying even in the light of this, but I'm going to have to do some thinking. Thanks for the info, it's been eye-opening.


Edited by Teaflax - September 29 2009 at 13:45