Piracy

TheGazzardian wrote: topographicbroadways wrote: less albums are being sold obviously but the problem is the people that are doing all the complaining as somebody has already mentioned are big bands like Metallica who earned and still earn plenty from album sales but happen to have lost maybe 20% of their vast record sales and to a band like this it has no effect.  The fact is smaller bands who would be effected by downloads don't tend to rely on album sales anyway Live Performance is where all their money is and they gain a larger audience from word of mouth (some possibly coming from downloads) and sell enough merchandise, including albums at the concert to survive and make a profit Not 100% true, there are some bands in the industry who aren't able to perform live at all or very little but still release albums. Bands that make music in their free time (around work schedules) have a much harder time getting the time to perform with all the different band members schedule. Deluge Grander is one such band and Dan Britton talks about this difficulty in the "Romantic Warriors" DVD that was released earlier this year.

topographicbroadways wrote: less albums are being sold obviously but the problem is the people that are doing all the complaining as somebody has already mentioned are big bands like Metallica who earned and still earn plenty from album sales but happen to have lost maybe 20% of their vast record sales and to a band like this it has no effect.

harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.

Nice point!

But still, as Dean said, we cannot apply this to every artist.

Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.  Nice point! But still, as Dean said, we cannot apply this to every artist.

You cannot even apply it to Steven Wilson.

harmonium.ro wrote: Dean wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.  Nice point! But still, as Dean said, we cannot apply this to every artist. You cannot even apply it to Steven Wilson. I was curious whether someone notices that

Whaaaaaaa?

But he said it. What...

Is he like, a different Steven Wilson?

Or are you just pointing out the difference between "listening" and "downloading"?

harmonium.ro wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Dean wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.  Nice point! But still, as Dean said, we cannot apply this to every artist. You cannot even apply it to Steven Wilson. I was curious whether someone notices that Whaaaaaaa? But he said it. What... Is he like, a different Steven Wilson? Or are you just pointing out the difference between "listening" and "downloading"? Steven Wilson and his label are doing some of the most intensive "internet police" actions I know about, trying quite successfully to take down as much as possible of their (illegaly shared) music.

So he's a massive flaming hypocrite? Well... even if this article was not supposed to be taken completely literally, it still seems like a REALLY weird thing to say in an article while doing what he's doing...

harmonium.ro wrote: Maybe he has come to terms with the phenomenon but still tries to limit its financial implications.

Well, yeah. And I suppose if you take the quote entirely literally, he says "given the choice..." so maybe he'd just much rather we bought it.

Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Dean wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.  Nice point! But still, as Dean said, we cannot apply this to every artist. You cannot even apply it to Steven Wilson. I was curious whether someone notices that Whaaaaaaa? But he said it. What... Is he like, a different Steven Wilson? Or are you just pointing out the difference between "listening" and "downloading"? Steven Wilson and his label are doing some of the most intensive "internet police" actions I know about, trying quite successfully to take down as much as possible of their (illegaly shared) music. So he's a massive flaming hypocrite? Well... even if this article was not supposed to be taken completely literally, it still seems like a REALLY weird thing to say in an article while doing what he's doing...

There is no hypocracy in anything he wrote if you read the sentence in context:

Nathaniel607 wrote: Dean wrote: Sorry? Don't recall implying you were an idiot - quite the reverse - you are using fairly reasonable argument to justify your position, but I just think it is flawed that's all.   I never claimed that the seller of the CD would buy another CD - he is free to use the cash to buy whatever he likes - toothpaste, food, a pair of socks. The artist sold a CD, he got paid for it - it doesn't matter how many consecutive owners it has after that - what it doesn't have is two or more simultaneous owners.    I never said secondhand sales were good for the artist, they are neither good nor bad. But surely, it follows that it's bad. Imagine if they somehow completely outlawed second-hand selling of CDs (obviously this is impossible - just a theoretical situation). People who would normally have bought the CD second hand would now have to buy it first hand - which would definitely mean more money for the artist, right? I can't see how second hand selling has any positive side-effects not equivalent to those caused by illegal downloaded (albeit on a far more inflated level with downloading, which means it is worse).

Dean wrote: Well, it's not. So let's move on.

Alright then.

Dean wrote: see above, above.   You cannot equate watching a film with listening to an album - it doesn't work. Unless your interst in music is superficial and transitory of course, but no one reacts to music like that.

But they are sort of similar... in that, if you watch a movie, you're less likely to want to see is again, unless it's AMAZING, but yeah.

And yes, if an album isn't that great, my interest in it might only be transitory... I might listen to an album 3 or 4 times before I decide it's crap, or maybe go through a "phase".

Dean wrote: Ah, you've lost me.

What I mean is, if an artist puts his albums up for free download, as part of a business plan, he'll get much less sales that if he passively allows illegal downloading while still condoning buying his albums, but not actively punishing illegal downloaders.

Dean wrote: I've read one of those studies and read about others - none of them are as conclusive as they appear and none of them are "scientific". Even if you believe what the downloaders answered to the surveys and that they gave truthful answers, you cannot extrapolate those conclusions to the whole population of downloaders. Actual figures are not available to anyone, even to downloaders, everything is a biased guess. I don't believe the industry figures either. The reality is no one can make any claims and back them up with hard facts, so it is all supposition and guesswork. My guess is that the reality is not as "bad" as the industry paints it, and not as "good" as the downloaders claim it is. No conclusions can be made from any of this, but there is no economic model that supports the claim that illegal downloading can or will increase legal sales. If there was suddenly a world shortage of acrylic and aluminium that made the production of CDs impossibe then we would only be talking about legal downloads vs illegal downloads and there is nothing anyone can say that would convince me that anyone who illegally downloaded an album would then go to iTunes and pay for a legal copy of the same album if they really liked it.

Well, this was a pointless paragraph...

Nathaniel607 wrote: Like I said, you simply cannot prove the album would have sold less were it not for illegal downloading. I can't prove the opposite.

I addressed that it cannot be proven either way. There are just so many other variables in the world (overall interest in music).

That particular study was pretty scientific though, as they got each downloaded to give proof of purchase for each claimed purchase.

Yeah - I agree with you that it's not as bad as the industry says and not as good as downloaders say! I don't think it's very likely artists make more sales from the advertisement of downloaders than the amound of sales they would make without illegal downloading - I just think it helps even it out a little bit. I'm not in the position of "illegal downloading is good" by the way. Just don't think it's as bad as some people say.

Dean wrote: He records albums how he likes and if that means putting an Elvis influenced track on an album like "Ki" that people don't like then he's not forcing people to buy the album. He then says that he knows he cannot force people to buy his album because if they want it they can download it. He is not telling you to download the album - he is just stating a fact of (modern) life. Ulrich and Hetfield can make the same statement about Metallica albums and that certainly wouldn't be them giving you permission to download their albums for free - it would just be an observation that their albums are being made available illegally. Townsend then emphasises this by adding - if you want him to tour then buy his stuff [don't steal it] and he's not saying that just to make a point - he means it. If people download his albums and won't pay for them then he will not tour to promote them. (and why should he).

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant. I know he's not going to mean "go download them". But he's just sort of saying "it happens". And yeah, it's not good for him.

Dean wrote: There is no concrete evidence of any artist doing this. They either make (some of) their stuff available for free, or they don't. I do not know of any artist who openly support illegal downloading of their music.

Yeah... there never will be really... so I absolutely cannot even begin to prove this exists unless I go ask somebody lol.

Also, some artists give all of there stuff away for free, though. Some examples;

The Minibosses
http://www.minibosses.com/

C418
http://c418.org/

Stuff like that.

But yeah, overall, illegal downloading is bad for music/artists. I just don't see there being no music in 2020 due to all the pirates stealing it all .

If all pirates bought 10x they pirated, it'd probably be fine - but that was just a study of Sweden (I think) and I don't think the sample size was huge, so it can't apply to everywhere... but in my view, if you buy 10x you download, you're doing pretty well. Obviously it'd be better if you bought the other 1/11 as well... but still...