8 Logical Rebuttals of Anti-Piracy Arguments
The fight over music piracy has become increasingly brutal in recent months, with heated debate turning to outright culture-clash. A large segment of the population would readily agree that pirated music is stolen music, because that’s what they’ve read in the newspapers. Arguably, many of these law-abiding citizens don’t own (or often use) a computer, much less a digital copy of a song. Yet they make claims and argue points just as the RIAA’s lawyers do in court, daily. Here are eight rebuttals to such arguments.
It’s Not That Expensive to Just Pay For It
The argument that the cost to pay for all your music, whether it be via online sources such as iTunes or from the local music store is often cited as common sense, but only by those who can afford it. Rarely will you find a person who is living in studio apartment the size of a shoebox extolling the virtues of paying for music, because it’s super affordable. In the climate of recession and even outright global, financial failure, this argument is used less and less, but still used. If the average cost of an album is set at $15, then buying just three such albums a month could mean spending over $500 yearly on music. In more severe cases, that money can make the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on someone’s couch. It is in this writer’s humble opinion that, if you fall into this demographic – you are totally justified in listening to music you did not pay to listen to.
Music Piracy Causes Huge Amounts of Economic Damage
According to the RIAA, not only does music piracy alone cause $12.5 billion in losses every year, but this crime results in 71,060 lost jobs per annum. These figures are amazing, especially considering the failure sof General Motors and Chrysler are estimated to have cost approximately 40,000 jobs; according to these statistics, music industry losses alone due to music piracy is a sum greater than the Gross Domestic Products many of the world’s developing countries. Arguments such as this are hard to swallow when the supposed “data” to back them up is furnished by the plaintiff party.
The RIAA Will Get Better if Piracy Stops
The logic behind this argument is nothing short of naivete. A tyrannical, overly powerful organization with government backing that is concerned only about profits will not suddenly decide to change their business practices if they have no reason to do so. While the RIAA has sued 30,000 people on charges of copyright infringement, countless others are defying the laws that they wield as weapons. If not for piracy, the RIAA would have no discussions of lowering the price of music, and no reason at all to start treating artists better. They would hold all the cards in a world without piracy. In the world we live in, that’s known as a monopoly.
It’s So Much Easier to Use a Pay Service
Any user worth their salt can tell you that nothing short of a typhoon is going to stop them from getting any album in less than 20 minutes. While someone who is completely computer-illiterate may think their only option is to use the streamlined pay-services for their digital music, they’re mistaken. Last year the Times Online reported a study that showed the average teenager in the UK has 800 pirated songs on his or her digital music player of choice. If that’s the average, then the overwhelming odds are that anybody can navigate their way to pirated music quickly and easily.
Pirated Music Is Lower Quality
This is simply a myth. Inexperienced users who don’t know what they’re doing may inadvertently download lower quality data at first. But they may also quickly learn the terminology surrounding digital music and learn from their nascent stage mistakes. The fact is, most digital music available online for legitimate download, while of high enough quality to satisfy listeners, is not the highest bit-rate available. As piracy communities have grown and matured, the quality of data being offered has risen drastically from the ancient history of the 90’s. The music you find on The Pirate Bay may well be of higher quality than that of Rhapsody.Imagine that?
Pirate Music Libraries Are Messy
Going hand-in-hand with the issue of bit-rates, meta-data is often thought to be something only available from stores like iTunes. Again, just as with the quality of data, the completeness of that data has risen as well among piracy communities. In fact, supplying more complete, higher quality data is seen as virtuous and respected greatly. As such, many albums include more complete meta-data, note files with extra information, along with several versions of album covers, and even import versions of songs along with domestic. Open-source mentality reigns in piracy communities, and that means quality or banishment.
You Don’t Support the Bands By Pirating Their Music
This might be true if record labels paid bands all the money from their album sales – but they don’t. Artists make the overwhelming majority of their revenue from live concerts and special engagement tickets, and merchandise sales. Record companies make money off album sales. They effectively buy the artist’s work, and act as though they own the rights to distribute it, but they don’t own the artist or their ability to perform their own music. Music piracy doesn’t pirate concert tickets, that’s the job of the growing ticket-sales racket both on and off-line, which has sparked its own controversies lately as more fans (including pirates) try to support their favorite bands by paying to see them. This argument could even be taken a step further by poising a rhetorical questions: “How many people have gone to pay for tickets at a concert featuring a band that they first discovered due to pirated/redistributed material?”
Piracy is Breaking the Law
So was the Boston Tea Party. So are the protests in Iran. Many things are illegal, that doesn’t make them wrong or even immoral. Using this argument as a blanket explanation why “music pirates” are wrong, will only incense them, and rightfully so. Most people who cite this claim are completely unaware of the RIAA’s very existence, much less its remarkable penchant for evil. People who listen to pirated music don’t feel guilty when they press play, and they certainly don’t lose any sleep over what they’ve done simply because it happens to be illegal. They know that despite the RIAA’s claims that downloading a pirated song is equal to stealing a car (a really nice car, at $80,000 per song) are ridiculous, and they know that their own Internet Service Providers don’t even agree with the claim either.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:59PM
Totally agree with almost all of the points of this article (except if you can't afford, then pirate) – I long ago ditched iTunes purchases due to the DRM shenanigans and inability to play on devices like Sonos (and don't get me started on iTunes making me "re-buy" the same track in a non-DRM format). I do believe in supporting artists and will purchase albums on Amazon (256 mp3), but recognize the real value is in the concert ticket. I have always been partial to "taper-friendly" artists anyway, so getting legal concert recordings has never been an issue (in pristine FLAC format no less).
Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:40PM
I have a few comments about this article. Some statements are legit, while others I feel are not (in my opinion) and sadly lead people in the same direction chanting "MORE FREE THIS, MORE FREE THAT!". Albums are no longer 'about 15 dollars' – most albums fall into the 8 to 12 dollar range, with certain titles near the 14 dollar range. Take a gander at titles on Amazon.com or Best Buy – albums are NOT expensive any more! Quite the opposite! We finally got what we asked for; cheap records. Fat Wreck is moving all titles to the 8 dollar range, and most new albums from indie artists are about 10 dollars. This was the number one reason for people not buying records, and still remains to be the reason even though costs have decreased!
Secondly, I too live in a shoebox apartment and cannot afford pretty much anything in life, let alone CD's. However, if an artist truly inspires me and I've been a long time fan, I will make the effort to pay for the CD. It's logical. Who are we to draw the line as to how we support our favorite artist? The logic behind "only supporting an artist through concert tickets" is flawed. A lot of bands do not make money on concerts. A lot of bands DO make money off CDs. Whether it's an indie label, major label, or self released album, the band is making money off of advances and royalties.
If we don't buy the CD, that means they wont get an advance big enough for their next record. If they don't get money from the advance, that means the record wont be made, because they can't afford it. Solution? Touring. Problem? Most bands can't afford to tour. See where I'm going with this? It circles around and fucks over the artist.
Truth is, labels are NOT the enemy any more. I question whether they ever were. Labels put the time and energy into pushing an album, supporting a tour, booking advertisements, and most of all, getting your record in to retail stores. How is this 'fucking over' the artist?
Everything a band does is related to album sales. If a small band hasn't sold enough CDs, they wont get added to big tours or have any attention on them.
I leave you with this thought… People who live in shoebox apartments still go out to see movies in the theatre. That's the cost of one CD. We still buy DVDs, which is the cost of two CDs. We buy alcohol, which is probably 5 CDs, and we go out to fancy restaurants, which is 8 CDs. Are we pirating all of the above instead of paying for it, since we live in a shoebox apartment? No, because it's illegal and wrong. The mere fact that you can 'get away with downloading' is a horrible way of looking at it. You are, literally, hurting a band from hitting big if you don't buy their record.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:15PM
In an ideal world, artists wouldn't have to worry about making money off their music, they'd be revered for their contribution to society and have their basic needs and more provided by society, as will every other human being in such society. Their compositions would be free, as would all conceivable forms of information, for public consumption.
Since that is unlikely to happen, money will continue to make the world go around. In the meantime, artists probably shouldn't quit their day job until they get a strong enough following to get rich off their music, because if their music isn't great or if they don't get enough help to promote it, it will find its way onto bittorrent and usenet and DC++ and eMule and shared USB flash drives and private encrypted file-sharing networks and be enjoyed "silently" without tangible benefit to the artist other than popularity and a hearty "cool tunes, artist, thanks, buh-bye!"
Sharing music is inevitable, as it is with pretty much any digitally encodable media, whether video or text or presentations. Regardless of DRM, in spite of RIAA and anyone else who pitches a fit, the trickle of artists' product will continue to find its way into the mainstream. Music afficianados will share tracks with their friends, friends will share them with acquaintances, the music and the artist's work will spread, but not necessarily with any financial benefit to the artist or the producers.
C'est la vie.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:18PM
I agree with most of these (being a seasoned pirate myself), but there is one thing that I wholly disagree with. I'm a metal fanatic, so let's take that as an example.
You can hurt an artist by pirating their music.
Let's take three metal bands from relatively similar styles: Megadeth, Annihilator (Canada), and Warbringer. Megadeth is established as a popular act; they tour relentlessly, even hosting their own festival series called Gigantour. Their profits are barely affected by pirates, and in some cases (depending if the new record is great) a pirate will actually buy the record after downloading it. Warbringer, just 3 years ago, were an unknown act; through the power of piracy, they have been on tours with other metal giants like Exodus, Kreator, and many more.
Annihilator is a band that, while established, doesn't have the fan base of Megadeth. Therefore, being a Canadian band, they use sales stats to determine which ( if any) markets would be viable for a tour. They won't spend their money in the vain hope of a successful tour if they can't justify it with sales. That;s why I haven't been able to see Annihilator state-side yet- they haven't done a large-scale tour in some time. The fewer record sales they have in a given area, the less likely they are to tour, because they don't want to guess whether the shows will sell out or be absolute flops and wind up costing them money.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:24PM
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what Jon. H says. This 'article' presents no convincing arguments, whatsoever, though it does present a number of weak self-serving positions that I suppose might make the writer believe he's not really stealing anything. I'm a musician. My work (and that of all musicians and artists) requires considerable investment in both time and expense. The logical result, down the road, of nobody paying for music, is that fewer and fewer people will make it as it won't be feasible to support oneself doing so. Sure, some artists get by, and even do well, selling concert tix and merchandise. But not all can or do. And it shouldn't be necessary. Good music has value.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:27PM
Reading this, it occurred to me that any recording artist who hums one of his/her tunes in a public place where non-paying listeners might hear…. is stealing from the record companies! -And that might throw people out of work, and leave children shoeless and hungry. It never before occurred to me that whistling somebody's happy tune might spark the next great depression.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:28PM
Say all you wish but not buying the album doesn't directly hurt the artist as long as you believe (however evil or not) that record companies are an outmoded fashion of delivering music. I would wager that it is. Think about it this way, in order to earn more profit, companies must reduce overhead, increase sales and reduce useless costs.
I would say that current record companies fall under the first and the latter. The muscian today now has his or her own means of increasing sales while producing their own product (effectively cutting out the middleman). However music distribution of a purely digital variety (i.e. completely digital releases without a physical counterpart) haven't been nearly as profitable or reached the kind of crowd that the record companies can by placing the artists products in the aisles of our major retailers.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:32PM
This article looks and smells of the "Straw Man" fallacy to me. It picks only the easiest arguments to rebutt, and what does it do? Proceed to rebutt them, as many have done before.
Arguments 1 through 8–oh, I'm sorry, that's the entire article–reeks of the early 21st century thinking where piracy was all the rage and bane. We're already almost a decade in the 21st century, and we're no longer at the stage where people are worried about "sound quality" or "messy libraries". And nobody, not even the anti-piracy sympathizers, are idiotic enough to believe the RIAA would ever change.
Please stop with the rethorics, especially ones aimed at a "straw man".
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:33PM
Try rebutting that downloading pirated software/music is property theft.
People can dispose of their property in an manner they choose. You have the option to buy or not. If you choose not to buy because you dont like the price or the company thats fine. But its IMMORAL to go and steal something because you disagree with the terms.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:35PM
Wow, nice straw man arguments here. Why is it that the only people pirates consider supporting are "bands"? What about record producers? Without the people who actually know how to engineer sound, you wouldn't get music recordings, period. They get paid a certain amount by the eeeeevil music companies to provide their services to record the album, often paying most of the budget to use a third party's studio, and get a large portion of their income through album sales. They don't have concerts to fall back on for profit.
What you pirates blissfully ignore is that record companies don't willfully gouge prices on CDs. There's more to producing them than the costs involved in burning the albums. They have to pay for the cost of the production of the album, the printing of the CD jackets, and other organizational functions such as promotions, talent scouting, market research, and the like. They lose money on some albums and make money on others; thus, the price of all albums are generally higher so that the losses of some albums are made up for by the profits from another. Businesses cannot change prices without changing costs, and you're an ignorant child if you believe that you deserve to own something that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars without paying for it.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:42PM
So my argument is: "It's illegal, and you're taking an artist's work without compensation."
Your rebuttal is: "Of course it's illegal, but I enjoy it, and you can't really stop me."
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:47PM
Ohhhh…. and though my apartment is not a shoebox (I found the darkness, with the lid closed, was really quite scary), I do not go to see movies in the theatre, or films in the cinema, as we say in my country, I like to see them on bootlegged dvds.
My seeing them thus, costs the industry nothing, as I was not going to buy a ticket anyway, I'd wait until it turned up on television.
And of course, if I like a movie, or a piece of music, and I enthuse about it, then my enthusiasm might cause friends or acquaintances, or even low-life eavesdroppers, to go see the movie, buy the album.
Should this happen, then I fear it is unlikely that the recording industry would offer to pay me so much as a single penny of commission, or even thank me, where's the fairness in that, I ask you?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:55PM
Listen to music made by your friends. I don;t know why people think that money paid to artists actually makes their music "better" – that is just what marketers want you to believe. If people need money to make their music then they probably don;t love it enough to be doing it and you will hear that in most of all commercial music.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:55PM
My small no-name band gives our music away for free online. Believe it or not, we still sell a crapload and are embarking on our first euro tour at the end of the month. We're no where near the first to do this… So please- don't generalize
Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:57PM
@ Ezra,
Nice. So everyone that downloads music illegally is a child now?
No. It's available so I'm going to download it. Enough said. The fact that you act like you do is what fuels people to download more. The fact that in the 20 + years that CD's are available, absolutely nobody at the record companies have ever decided to change the format of CD's to something a little more protection based, tells me that they have no problem just suing the pants off of almost everyone that they want to.
When actual recording artists speak out in support of Piracy, and you have bands like Nine Inch Nails giving away their music on a regular basis, it's hard for me to take your argument seriously. Do you expect people to "grow up" and buy music when they simply can't afford it? And what about the recent ruling that a minnesota woman has to pay 85,000 per song? Can you justify to me what exactly that 80,000 goes towards?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:01PM
Good article. Another point is that many record companies (Sony, comes to mind) profits from piracy as well. They sell blank CDs. For a company to condemn music piracy out of one side of its mouth, and then turn around and advertise its blank CDs is hypocritical.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:12PM
I liked the point about lower quality data. That is a completely baseless argument these days, since full lossless audio (FLAC) can be downloaded. If the lawyers can't understand lossless compression, they lose.
My collection in amarok is anything BUT messy. I have most every song rated from 1-5 stars. I can quickly access any song I want in seconds.
As far as artist revenues, all artists should sign onto something like AmieStreet as soon as possible, or distribute their music through Amazon.com's MP3 service. The artists will make more, no one will have to sue anyone, and the only loser will be the record label.
Many great things in history have started off on the wrong side of the law. Yet, that's simply how things work, and the market can embrace that beautifully. Again, look at AmieStreet and TheSixtyOne. They are both great ways for artists to get their songs to paying customers (provided they don't suck
)
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:15PM
I make my living creating art on the computer. I'd be furious if people started copying my art and not paying me for it. I pay for my music because I would expect the same in return. The creative world doesn't owe the listener anything just because the RIAA is a bunch of dicks. Grow up, find a job, make some money and pay for the things you want..
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:17PM
Nazi appeaser. I suppose we shouldn't have fought WWII because Hitler would cause the jews to suffer more! If the record companies are going to hold our artists hostage then we are going to have to accept a few casualties for the greater good.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:33PM
Being both an avid pirate and a seasoned musician, I can say with confidence paying for music does so much less for an artist than it does for their label. In my last full time band we grossed about $250,000 from merchandise and ticket sales over the course of about 3 years. We had two albums released worldwide in every major music retailer and on every pay for download service imaginable, and saw about $1,500 from the label for cd sales.
One other thing that I saw another reader comment on – bands don't get big tours without cd sales to back them up – I would also have to say that's just not true 100% of the time. For many bands, myspace play counts play just as big of a role, which costs nothing to the musician or consumer.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:39PM
the deal is, in case you had not noticed before, that cd's are a thing of the past. furthermore the internet offers a great opportunity to promote an album online for relative low costs. and its arguably going to reach more people.
now we can buy songs online, at a price of 1.50 bux a song, a regular 16 track cd would end up costing you 24 bux.
without such high costs for cd production, booklet printing, infrastructure and the like, why is it that the songs are so damn expensive? furthermore why cant the record companies realise that an album is merely to support an artist. get his music out there. in this day and age the money is in merchandise, public appearance, tours and the like. one could even imagine a live show over the internet, ticketed like any other gig, and make money out of that.
we should be able to download an artists music for free from the source. just like radio in the past, only now we get to have a say to what we want to listen to.
great musicians will still sell cds since people are interested in supporting them and having a physical object. however unlike before people have the option to try an album first, thus making it possible for them to make a decision about quality before investing in a cd. this means the open market principle of supply and demand is enhanced, therefore ensuring the quality of music will rise dramatically.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 2:41PM
hey, how about, as mentioned above, eliminating the middle man? Last I heard, artist make a buck or so for an album (0.10/tune), and the distributors make (15-1=14bucks/album). Plastic is no longer the medium. Sony/EMI etc lost it.
It is now the “tubes” that are the medium.
I will pay the buck or so to the artist if I could. But unfortunately I have to support those oil consuming plastic companies.
When they get it right, I will buy in.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:48PM
I'm a songwriter. I'm successful. If I don't get paid for my work I can't write songs that people like. Pirating my songs hurts me personally. Isn't that enough of an argument?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:03PM
William Barnes, werd brother! This was a great article and one written by one who knows both sides of the fence. Drop the "Straw Man" counter-argument as it is irrelevant in sight of what the RIAA is saying today, right now, just a few minutes ago. The recognition one should have after reading a detailed rebuttal as good as William's should be that the times are-a-changing. In the roaring 20's when people heard great music it was shared via "hey come with me to this speak easy the band is fantastic" and now when someone hears great music they put a link to youtube on their twitter and their 400 online friends see it and say "this sucked" or "wow it's my new fav" whatever. The main point here is that great music is shared. It is not for the privileged in anyway. The RIAA can say they stand for the artist all day long but in the end they are a business and business only stands for the bottom dollar – and more over it knows nothing about the joys of music or art in any form. In the 90's one of the highest paid bands was The Grateful Dead… not because of record sales… no because of an insane tour. Bands make money off merch and concerts. Most concerts are accompanied by smaller bands giving away free cd's and cigarettes because smoking is "good" and so is free music because music is liberating – it makes us feel better than any drug we could ever get legally or illegally and with that liberation comes free actions. The only bands standing with the RIAA are the ones who are actually getting paid by them. That's why there are so few in the vast world of music. That's also why many indie bands would rather remain indie. They're with a real record label that actually takes care of them and the albums are sold at the concert/festival. All in all, William already knocked this as good as it could be done and if you can't see that you don't know the scene. The phrase has been around for a while but "if you don't know the scene, it's because the scene doesn't want to know you…" and no, you can't buy into the scene. The best things in life are free.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:53PM
@Mike
It's only theft if the original is missing
Otherwise it's unauthorized duplication which is totally different.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:22PM
(Most) small or even somewhat popular artists lose money on tours. The reason artists do tours or shows is to sell albums. If someone does a show and loses 80$, they consider it a success because word will be spread and albums will be sold. This falls apart when everyone who hears about it pirates the music. On another note, if you live in a tiny apartment and 500$ annually could make this difference between home and homeless, your high speed probably costs about that much. Not really an argument, more of a note.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:24PM
I believe that music should be affordable, but based on some basic principles you have very flawed arguments.
Firstly you make the assumption that access to music is a basic human right that everyone should be afforded; it is not.
Secondly, you skip around the fact that if someone owns something and wishes to sell it for a fair market value, that by you pirating it you are stealing something that was meant to be purchased by the person producing it. Yes ticket sales and concerts are where many bands make their money, but it's still fundamentally stealing from them by downloading something without permission, and thus fundamentally wrong morally and legally (depending on your country). You can't get around it being morally wrong regardless of your economic situation.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:27PM
i love in your article how you say that people regurgitate arguments they hear on TV and other medias. it's pretty ironic seeing as you seem to be doing the same thing.
i think your first and last arguments were probably your worst. Just because i, or a set of a group of people can't afford something doesn't make something not affordable. For something to be defined as 'affordable' there must be a set of things which are defined as unaffordable right? A $14,000 Yaris might be considered affordable compared to a more expensive car like a Lotus which is around $60,000. I don't know how you were able to conclude because you can't afford something it makes it ok to take it without the permission of the owner.
With your last argument, you seem to have committed the fallacy of weak analogy. sure, BTP(Boston Tea Party) was illegal, and so are the protests in Iran, but both of those things were protests. you could call piracy protesting the riaa, but if you really wanted to make that argument, wouldn't it make more sense to not download the music in the first place?
Friday, July 3, 2009 12:50AM
I don't even know where to begin.
There's countless independent labels and artists out there who keep day jobs to support their art, and if that art makes a difference to your life and you don't pay for it, feel free to dress it up any way you like, but you're a fucking leech.
To draw a parallel between music publishing and web publishing, there should be nothing wrong with every person visiting this site using an ad blocker, or taking these words and publishing them elsewhere without attribution – because no physical product is actually being stolen, and some of them might buy you a beer, or pay to see you speak somewhere in the future? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Friday, July 3, 2009 4:35AM
you are dumb.
we dont need production of albums in today's society. we dont need a physical product. all of what you said is total bullshit. Engineering sound? yes its expensive, but guess what? this isnt the 1970s anymore, the engineering of sound effects in a good production album has way lower costs in todays society. go rent a sound booth and you will see what i mean. Some 16 year old high school band could record their songs at a studio at a pretty damn affordable rate these days. And wouldn't it be nice for sound producers to work for themselves rather then have to be hired by a record company? ever think about that?
Keep in mind that this is a time and age where people can listen to music from around the world without shipping physical products to distant places. The old market structure that put such a high cost on producing albums was because yea, the costs in the past were pretty high, compare to the past these days its almost nothing you are being lied to if you have been told otherwise.
talent will find its way to the top, you dont need market researchers and talent scouts to do so. A good internet meme can reach millions of people at zero cost, you dont think good music can do the same?
why does the music industry rely on promotions? its about music, not about who-can-market-themselves on MTV better. SO again, idiot:
"Business cannot change prices without changing costs". Guess what? the costs are changing. Those business aren't supposed to change, they are making less sales because their prices dont warrant the product. If they can't embrace lowering of album prices in proportion to their lowered costs, they will just die
Friday, July 3, 2009 5:02AM
These are hardly logical rebuttals, and equating your theft of copyrighted materials to the Boston Tea Party or the revolution in Iran right now is simply wrong.
Friday, July 3, 2009 5:51AM
Thank you, that was well put!
I believe a song is really worth between 2 dollars and 5 dollars depending on how much it cost to produce it.
Each song is different. Sound companies for live shows, equipment upgrades, road crews and travel expenses can easily cost a fortune to the artist. Lucky are those who can break even after taxes.
EP (BV3)
Friday, July 3, 2009 6:37AM
…I forgot to mention that if a beer is 3 to 7 dollars in a bar and a tip is 2 dollars, you pirates are cheap people. Really cheap by comparison.That is if you relentlessly refuse to pay for music, or give bad tips. In either case, I wouldn't ever want to have to sing or DJ at your wedding, let alone have a beer with you. If you're really cute or funny, I may make an exception. Hard core pirates deserve a 40 dollar fine per song, like getting a ticket for j-walking. Society needs to flow a bit more. We're not talking about evil greed here. Lately I agree that the fines have been way too steep, a change is much needed. For those who disagree, remember we don't live in communist China yet, so get cultured and download Atlas Shrugged (the e-book) from Amazon , it'll be good for you.
John Galt was like a hero. He got tired of people expecting a free ride.
For those of you who are new at this debate, or simply confused ,or listen to Girl Talk,
RIAA should just change their abusive strategy. Definately! Nevertheless, rich or poor, I'll still keep on making music or paintings like there's no tomorrow, but that's beside the point. Next time a robber breaks in and steals your computer with your assignment on it, and you fail or get fired, be happy! I'll be on the corner either playing guitar or applying for a Mc job in your neighborhood.
Peace.
Friday, July 3, 2009 6:43AM
"The logical result, down the road, of nobody paying for music, is that fewer and fewer people will make it as it won't be feasible to support oneself doing so."
This is obviously not panning out. More and more people are making music, and more and more people are listening to it for free. This is the way it should be and the way it was for centuries- any one could be a musician, and music you introduced was a contribution to the collective, unquanitifiable wealth of humanity. Recording music diverted us from that for a while (because the recording became more imporant than the words and music which anyone could play), but now filesharing is showing the way back
Friday, July 3, 2009 9:47AM
“How many people have gone to pay for tickets at a concert featuring a band that they first discovered due to pirated/redistributed material?”
Case in point: on the strength of 2 downloaded songs by one band, I have since purchased 10 albums of theirs, 2 DVDs, seen them 16 times in concert and bought 5 t-shirts. Not to mention all the friends of mine who have accompanied me to those gigs, also bought t-shirts and albums, and spread the love to their friends in turn. Or the fact that I buy, and will always buy, everything they release, when it's released.
Without me "stealing" those 2 songs, I'd never have bothered with them. And nor would dozens of others I know.
Friday, July 3, 2009 10:18AM
@Andy – It sounds like you racked up HUGE amounts of debt with the label recording/producing/promoting your release or you're full of shit.
If it was the former, spending the labels money, then you should be grateful that they LENT you that LOAN to do pay for all of that at THEIR risk. Given that you've allegedly make $250,000 I can't see what your problem is, most bands make fuck all from tours and merchandise.
Friday, July 3, 2009 11:14AM
Yea, I'm getting so sick of people who doesn't understand the difference between copying and stealing.
I don't know how they expect to be taken seriously when they cannot understand simple concepts.
Friday, July 3, 2009 2:07PM
That doesnt make sense either.
If I manufacture a new chair and preserve the original design in my office and someone starts stealing all of the manufactured "copies" of that chair that is theft.
Just because technology has allowed allowed us easily copy property does not mean its moral to do so. I could care less if the government deems it legal or not. Its wrong.
Friday, July 3, 2009 5:49PM
The greater good?! Labels are NOT evil. They give you money for an album, and help push you. Much like any business, once you stop making THEM money, they release you from your job (IE, drop you from the label) – I know MANY, MANY bands that simply can't afford to record their own album, release their own album, and tour on their own album. Does that mean they don't have talent? Not at all. Some of the best music ever made will never be heard because no one could afford to push it.
I'm curious what 'holding an artist hostage' even means? If you need a loan, you go to a bank, or look for money from a third party. Labels are the bank, and a third party is releasing it yourself. Neither is wrong, but through piracy, it's making both options almost impossible.
Friday, July 3, 2009 5:52PM
It honestly saddens me that anyone is dumb enough to think this way.
Friday, July 3, 2009 5:56PM
Stupidity must be your middle name. Ezra is 100% correct.
Friday, July 3, 2009 6:01PM
1,500 from CD sales, now tell me how big was your advance?
Don't try to hide behind big numbers from touring and merchandise and justify 1,500 as a low number for CD sales… Truth is you probably got a nice advance for those two albums.
Friday, July 3, 2009 6:07PM
@ Tim H
I LOVE your arguement. What if we all decided to block every advertisement on Beatcrave and cut/copy/paste someone elses articles into our blog? How would all the writers of beatcrave feel about that?
Someone else mentioned something earlier in the comments about digital art. Another amazing example. If you make digital artwork and someone steals it, that is time lost, that is money lost. Whether all percentage goes to bands or not isnt the point; it's still money lost. Beatcrave needs advertisement money to remain a website. Artists need it too.
Friday, July 3, 2009 8:05PM
Yep have to agree. Sisters of Mercy dumped their record company about 15 years ago and they no longer release any music, yet they continue to tour and have fans turning up and know the numbers by heart.
That crap about artists losing out, bullshit! Artists I think get something like a penny in every pound that is sold, so they are lucky if they get 1% back from their sales. All the other greedy scumbags up the chain taking the profit. No way I am paying for an album is complete crap, I want to check it out first, then if it's good stuff I will buy it, else it goes in the bin.
When I go to metal gigs here in the UK I always try to buy a few bits of merchandise as I know the money will go straight into the artists pockets. A bit of the ticket sales will keep the artists on the road, not much of the ticket sales I know, but it's something. When I buy music and merch online I always try to buy direct from the artist's website, recently having got into Bloodbath ( Sweden ), bought their back catalog and some shirts from their website. Same with Evile (UK), bought their demos and shirts from their website. It's also kind of cool to get emails from the artists themselves. When I bought stuff from Onslaught's (UK) website, the drummer was actually sending out the emails and handling the sales himself, which really makes you feel like you have an extra special connection with that band, something you won't get buying from TESCO or Amazon!
Technology has really empowered the underdog niche music scenes like metal, giving the artists a chance to use websites to sell stuff and ProTools to professionally record in their spare rooms.
The days of the fat cat record companies are drawing to a close, they know it but are in serious denial about it.
Friday, July 3, 2009 8:24PM
I am a musician and songwriter. I'm just a little confused by two of your arguments…
You say that bands and artists make their income in concerts and tours, but you also say that the average teenager in the UK has 800 downloaded songs.
Let's be possitive here and think that it means the average teenager has what, songs from I dunno, 50 different artists?
So, the average teens, to support the bands and artists they like should have been to 50 different concerts, right? Does anybody here is so naive to think that is realistic?
And pardon me, you can't afford the 1.50 or so bucks for the song you want, but yet you have a high-speed connection to internet to download as much as you want?
Friday, July 3, 2009 9:22PM
I'm a screw major labels, corporate radio, and the RIAA type of guy. I'm also small studio owner. I produce local – regional bands. While some of these arguments hold in the case of major corporate music, they do a huge disservice to people like myself and the artists I try to help. Studio time is not free. Regardless of the home recording hype it costs thousands to make a full length recording or even a really good EP. Not to mention manufacturing or web site maintenance. And most importantly ADVERTISING. You can't even give the stuff away for free without advertising because no one will know you're there. My bands play for free or a big night anymore is $200. Doesn't even pay for gas, strings, drum heads, PA rental etc. Selling 5 or 10 T-shirts a night is not going to cut it. Hell I've even got a web site selling downloads where bands get 100% of their money. The time and cost of maintaining it is a loss.
Some of these other bands that have or have had deals are really playing both sides of the fence. They signed the contract. Idiots. The benefitted from the label advertising and promotional budget. That's where their fan base (in large number) came from. Now their getting screwed and crying.
You want to listen for free. Great. Check out a stream and maybe click on a banner or two even if you're not interested to help. You want a private copy for yourself. Great. Show some respect for the work it took to create it and throw some pennies the artists direction.
Friday, July 3, 2009 9:52PM
The Internet is a library for all forms of media. I will continue to sign out music via bittorrent and spread the word via Last.fm. I'm not doing anything morally wrong even if the law disagrees with me. When I like something enough, I buy it. If I really like it, I go to a show as well.
Just because the artificially-inflated value of music is dropping and jobs are becoming irrelevant, doesn't make it wrong, either. It just means that the industry is failing to keep up with the times. That's just how things go.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:07AM
The rebuttal: it is not theft. Period. It is copyright infringement.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:12AM
They are stealing real, physical, chairs. Wrong analogy.
Right analogy: someone looks at one of your chairs, takes pictures from all directions, then goes home and makes up drawings from that. They have *copied* your design. This could be an infringement of copyright on your design plans, but the did not *steal* your plans—your still have them.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:17AM
The basic issue is that the business model is changing (reverting). To make laws and extend "rights" simply to shore up a *particular* business model (selling copies of recorded works) is never going to work. Artists, or rather the recording industry leeches that prey on artists, are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to have to earn their primary living via live performances. This, in my opinion, is a Good Thing for artists and consumers—it's just bad for record execs.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:20AM
There is no theft. Period. That is a meme propagated by the record execs who are losing their way of life as a way to scare politicians into making more restrictive copyright rules. Life+90 years is an absurdity when you consider that NO artist creates in a vacuum—without society, there is no art. The "limited time" that copyright was supposed to last was a recognition that society has rights to the art it helped create as well.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:16AM
Piracy is wrong! That is what all people think all over the world.But how about over pricing those mp3's and other digital products? Is it ethical? I think piracy came to make balance, to let those super rich & corporations know that they cannot exploit everything all the time. Piracy has made its contributions to balance the poor & rich. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti rich or pro piracy but that is just my own observation and I believe it's true.
With the internet technology plays a big part of individual's daily life there is no way on stopping piracy. Plus having a large number of company emerging to develop such as cd writer hardware and software it make more impossible to put an end the empire of piracy unless they will shut it down. Will people all over the world permit this to happen?
Saturday, July 4, 2009 7:15AM
Just become a believer at sellaband.com
Saturday, July 4, 2009 7:24AM
The fight is really brutal. But I guess it is justified in a way that people have to right to cash in on their work. On the other side I don't think anyone in entertainment industry is any poorer now. Just the opposite.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 9:18AM
While putting data online, releasing a cd or a movie I must count with the fact I'm losing control over it. If I don't like this fact I should keep it locked. By still putting it out I undergo a high risk. Common sense. Hari
Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:32PM
Tracy, that's a non-sequitur. Not getting paid for your work does not take away the ability to write songs that people like, merely the cash basis for your motivation. Many great songs have been written by people who were not at the time, being paid for writing them.
If you are successful, as you say, then might we not assume that either piracy does not hurt you significantly, or that perhaps, for some reason, your songs are not being pirated?
Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:41PM
Jon H, It saddens me that you can't understand satire.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:54PM
The recording industry, that bastion of good taste, honesty, and fair distribution of costs and profits thinks file sharing is a crime, as was home-taping, oh yes, I remember the sixties and seventies, when they told us that tape-recording and cassette decks would kill the music industry, and I confess, I was one of those evil people who would listen to a friend's new bought vinyl, and ask them to tape it for me, I'd give back a tape of one of mine, all this passing of cassettes is why the Beatles were doomed never to make it big. I personally, by allowing taping of my copy of "Dark Side of the Moon", was reponsible for that album's lack of sales and the ensuing poverty of Pink Floyd.
But let's look a little further….
The book industry.
Once, nobody outside a monastery had the skills to make a book. Then along came that damned Gutenberg, inventing printing presses, and any fool could duplicate books.
Even more worrying. peasants eventually learned to read and write, putting literally dozens of scribes out of work.
What really worries me though, is libraries, and the growing trend of book owners to lend books to others to read, thus depriving the publishing industry of profits and throwing the families of jobless monks into the street.
A further trouble is the open availability of pencils and pens. Using these, it is possible for criminals to copy whole sentences, and, with that other medium, whose posession we'd like to see controlled, or restricted, paper, these people can pin up illegally copied words, sentences, even whole paragraphs in public places for all to see.
In a recent visit to an academic establishment I was horrified to find students being encouraged to learn and memorise, for instance, whole poems- even formulae, and songs. I saw plays performed where actors and actresses had memorised the lines, not a single one carrying an authorised text.
I tell you, unless the perpetrators are given punitive fines and prison sentences, the book publishing industry is doomed.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:13PM
I think commenter Thomas gets right to the point, very elegantly when he posted
"So my argument is: "It's illegal, and you're taking an artist's work without compensation."
Your rebuttal is: "Of course it's illegal, but I enjoy it, and you can't really stop me."
These arguments are not compelling, not logically sound and really are rationalizations for an unsubstantiated point of view. Sorry.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:40PM
Jon H. and anyone who agrees with him/her are seriously being led down the wrong path. Artists, i.e. musicians (like myself) make money from concerts, t-shirt sales, and cd's we sell AT THE SHOW. Online music download companies like Amazon and iTunes take a large enough split it's not worth it. I would rather have my music downloaded for FREE online and traded, passed arouned, whatever, then sign with the suits at RIAA. They represent NOTHING in the realm of the internet and the new DIY method of recording, distribution, and sales.
Most importantly Jon, while prices may have dropped so has the QUALITY of the music. IT IS EXPENSIVE when you drop a hard earned $15 on a CD and it has one, maybe (if you're lucky) two good tracks on it. That equates to $7.50 per song. And, most CD's now barely hit the 13 track mark. At least when I download, I can preview, and toss the crap in the trash.
Lastly Jon, what say you about 2nd hand retail shops. How am I helping the artist and/or the RIAA by buying a new CD in a used CD shop? I'm not at all am I? Is THAT stealing too?
Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:25AM
I only download what I already have or can get for free elsewhere. For example, a cd doesn't work for me because my computer's cd drive is on the fritz and I see no point in paying 100 bucks to fix it when I plan on getting a new computer within a year or so. I don't have an I-pod, so that kicks out buying from I-Tunes. So, I just download and torrent. I see it this way, if I didn't buy it, I never would have bought it. Half the music I have I got for free from the local library. When the drive broke, I downloaded the rest. Am I breaking the law? I hardly think so. I haven't stolen a thing and I definitely have not redistributed anything for profit or otherwise. I simply listen to my music when I do my homework.
As for, it doesn't cost much…yes it does. If the average teenager has downloaded 800 songs, multiply that by 1.50, or even 0.99 cents. Yeah, I don't think the average teenager as 800 dollars to spare on music. There are more important things they can do with that money. So the music industry will have to suck it up. They weren't going to buy that music period. Not even if it was a penny. Eventually, we downloaders will just have to learn to do without once the restriction of downloading get tighter. However, where there's a will there's a way. Already there is software to breech the security measures in place that is still cheaper than buying the music. As soon as that price goes up, another path will most likely open.
As a fan of supporting struggling artist, I'm quite willing to dish out $5 for the top five songs I like of their cd…but they'll get no more out of me. And if there are 20 artist I like that come out at the same time, well the odds of me getting to all of them are very slim. I think the downloading age as just made the music industry that more competitive and you have to damn good to succeed. If people are downloading your music, it means your good, but not good enough. If they're buying your music, it means they love you above all the others. Simple.
So the FBI or whoever can check my computer and confiscate my materials. I wouldn't pay a dime for some of the music in my computer. I didn't pay, that's the reason I have it in the first place. Wouldn't have gotten it otherwise. So the industry really hasn't lost any money from me. In fact, if I come to really like the artist, then I may be inclined to buy their next album or even go to their concert instead of simply ignoring they exist had I not downloaded.
Highspeed internet only cost me $30. Much better deal than almost $1000. But hell, eventually I'll get an I-pod or I-phone or whatever, because 10 gigs of music really does take up too much space. So does 50 different cds for that matter. Lets face it, buying music in cd form is inconvenient now, mp3s are only useful if you have an mp3 player, and downloading will eventually get you a virus or a full memory.
Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:39AM
Oh…just to note, I'm not saying it's not wrong to steal music. But I think we should define stealing better. Stealing and redistributing for one's own personal gain is definitely wrong. "Stealing" something you already have…well you get the picture? It's not stealing. Its more like re-assigning. Last week I downloaded Ferngully. Haven't seen the movie in years. I have it on VHS somewhere in the house, but I didn't feel like looking for it. So I figured I'd download it. Faster, easier, and why the hell would I buy something I already owned? From my perspective, instead of even paying a dollar for it, I'd just go without.
I love the fact that you can buy mp3's now for only $1, and sometimes I do just that, or even sign up for a year's subscription to a sight and have unlimited downloads, LEGALLY. That's great…if I had $69.99 to spare on music. Let's just face it, the current economy doesn't allow everyone to make such frivolous expenditures. I'd simply do without the music to meet the means of more pressing payments like medical bills.
So is it stealing when you download something you wouldn't take unless it was free? To some people, most definitely. To others…it's debatable. Of course, some hardliners would thing if a hungry poor child took bread it's best to cut off their hand so they won't steal again. But downloading music is not nearly as pressing as feeding hungry children. I'm just pointing out that the reason you can't really argue with people about downloading music by calling it stealing is because people have different lines they'd set to cross. I treat torrents like those "Take One" free penny canisters at a restaurant. I won't download something I'd pay for (i.e. the latest Red Hot Chili Pepper album or bootleg "Public Enemies.) I can't predict what I'd pay for really. I just see something and think, "only if it was free" or "oh I gotta go see that in theaters!"
Sunday, July 5, 2009 6:25PM
unless you are stealing your neighbors wifi to download songs…
Sunday, July 5, 2009 6:53PM
Roger that!
Sunday, July 5, 2009 10:28PM
How can anyone write what essentially boils down to "if you can't afford it, you're allowed to steal it" without their common sense starting to tingle?
Monday, July 6, 2009 12:32AM
How about adding a #9 to your list of arguments … it's just not polite to take stuff that you did not pay for. I would like to think that maybe your mama taught you better than that, but I guess not.
The part that gets me is, if a lot of these people (with high speed Internet connections) are so poor that they can't afford to purchase the music they consume, how the fuck are they going to afford going to concerts to support the artists???
I swear… these pirates and their bullshit excuses are astounding to me. At first, they pirated because the legal music they were selling online came wrapped with draconian DRM. Then when the DRM came off, they said the music is just too expensive. And when the music drops in price, they'll make up some other bullshit excuse, instead of stating the REAL reason that they pirate is because they'd just rather not pay for something they can get for free. I mean, that's fine if you want to live that way, but at least be HONEST about it and stop acting like a bunch of goddamn crusaders who are somehow entitled to free shit.
Monday, July 6, 2009 2:33AM
Better that YOU have a bed to sleep in than us musicians.
What's your job? How would you feel if you were told you'd no longer be paid for your work? You'd have to get a new one.
Not everyone's Radiohead. Not everyone's Nine Inch Nails. The great bands of the future will never exist if you don't support music as it exists now, like it or not.
Rethink your stance, man.
Monday, July 6, 2009 3:15PM
Who wouldn't want to be a big-shot artist; famous, making millions, adored? I suggest that if musicians are finding it is too difficult to support themselves solely by creating music; they get a real job, like everyone else in the population. That is the way it has always been. That's why most people don't rely on music as their primary source of income. Downloading may be unethical, but there is no way to stop it. If musicians are short on cash, they should get a job at McDonald's in order to support themselves in further musical endeavours. It's the same today as it was in 1950, 1960, and 2000. Don't count on going into the music business to get rich or even support yourself – some do it, the majority do not. The new phenomenon of people downloading music hasn't changed any of that.
Monday, July 6, 2009 10:56PM
Apart from the fact that stealing is always wrong and taking possession of a copy of someone's music without paying for it is, quite simply, stealing (regardless of the spin one may try and put on it) I can tell you that, unless things have changed dramatically since I was a tour manager, the vast majority of live concerts do not make money in themselves!
Concerts, and concert tours, cost an enormous amount of money to put on (lighting, sound, costumes, spare instruments and stage amplification, crew salaries, hotels, transport etc., etc.,) and it is the merchandising (i.e. sales of copies of the music, t-shirts etc) that bring in any profit.
In my opinion, you do musicians, songwriters, music technicians and, therefore, music as a whole, a huge disservice in promulgating this erroneous thinking.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 1:20PM
How do you think about it's a fresh start?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 8:22PM
Recreating someone's work for profit is pretty evil and wrong. But so are stringent copyright laws that allow record companies to profit for dead artists work long after they have departed. Come to think of it, I'd say the way Paul McCartney and MJ went around buying rights to songs in music catalogs to make money is pretty underhanded to. So when do non-tangible works of art become public domain or are they forever to be owned by own person or another purely for the sake of profit.
I think this is the crux of the piracy argument and it is in no way new. Piracy for profit and not for profit has existed for quite sometime. But we must make the critical distinction between those that harm the profitability of the item in question or those that increase its value. In your case chris, your not going to profit from either as you create tangible media. The record companies as well aren't going to profit from either. Yet the musician is in the unique position, unlike most creative industries, to profit from free trading amongst its fans.
Unfortunately, copyright enforcement on the internet comes with two extremes. Either we let the internet be the wild west for expression (minus piracy for profit) or we allow the internet to be controlled by various interests (much like our governments and cable television) and let them decide the flow of content.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:13AM
To Jon H: Your sheer brilliance blinds me. Have you even read over what you just wrote? The author of this article just got done describing a CD priced at $15 as too expensive, and your defense is that most of them are now $12 or $14? God in heaven, a savings of THREE DOLLARS!! My god, man. Of that $14 dollars the record company makes off that CD, the band that recorded it gets probably a quarter. Much less, if they're a new act on the national scene. You want to try and tell us that Labels aren't the enemy any more (if they ever were)? Read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html and then try and lay that load of crap on my face just one more time. Moron.
CD prices are damned criminal, that's what they are, and trying to argue that they're "way cheaper" now is ridiculous when the best you can trumpet is a savings of a few dollars. Why don't you show me a savings of TEN dollars on the price of a CD, and then I'll demonstrate how loyal I am to those record companies, and will buy CD's again. Until such a day, the RIAA can get stuffed, and I'll be on Pirate Bay.
By the way, Jon, which record label has you on their payroll?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:51PM
So if i go to work on monday and record the work, then play that recording back for my boss on tuesday, wednesday, thursday, and friday, I should get a pay check for five days, correct? If not then why should musicians be able to do the same?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:20PM
This is a great article. Just for the note though, I'd like you to know, that in Denmark a single album costs what's equal to 25-30$. It's ridiculous.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:15PM
Music companies have always charged too much for music. Simple.
Unlike a car, washing machine or suit, manufacturers can produce thousands of copies with the push of a button. The true value of a song is therefore about 5pence.
Charge a fair rate and you will stop 'piracy'
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:19PM
I would personally be fine with a pay download service if it included all the music labels instead of the piecemeal crap that exists now. Even if it did exist they would have to charge less than they do to account for the fact that the digital distribution method for music now is far cheaper. Also I wouldn't cry too much for musicians considering that if they choose to they can produce their own music and start a website for very little money and if they're talented they can make plenty of money charging for downloads. Maybe they'll never be super rich and famous but so what?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:48PM
Heh..that's pretty good.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:53PM
It'd because he cannot write songs people want unless he gets paid. When he was an up and coming song writer that did not get paid he could not get that edge that makes for good songwriting…Wait..That's a little…Yeah…The big money is what makes it better. That's why so many one hit wonders litter music history. They get a taste of the good life and forget why they got into the music to begin with.
It seems that only the musicians that have made it to the point that they actually are not in the red anymore make the loudest noise. Those that are still hungry will give it away just to play. I know many musicians like that. I used ot be one of them.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:17PM
When are all the Muppets going to accept that music has changed FOREVER. Bands now make there money for appearing. Spent well over $2500 this year on going to gigs, the rest is deserved.
Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:00AM
There is no way at the moment that i could survive on paid downloads from a website. The only thing i spend the money i do earn is more Equipment and music. I keep my rent and expenses low so i can still do what i love, i have been making music for 20 years and have worked on average 12-14 hr days. I have been pretty successful over the years never financially but in critical acclaim.
Im not moaning that i want loads of money as thats not why i make music but now it is getting very difficult to make enough out of music as a lot if people have these attitudes above. Yes record companies have been very bad over the years and rinsed artists and the buying public but there has also been some great record labels that have support artists and let there careers build.
As for playing live – not all musicians play live, there are lots of different types of jobs in the music industry and all these aspects of the industry have suffered.
All of the arguements above could be applied to most things that you would want to buy ie The electricity company have been making loads of money so im not paying for my electricity anymore, im going to run a wire up to the electric pole.
I personally dont mind if someone who is maybe skint and lives in a area of the world that is tough going downloads my music, but id say that the majority of illegal downloads isnt just by these people, if they were that poor how did they afford the nice apple laptop they are downloading it on.
The – this is how it is now except it arguement is %ucking annoying. Musicians have been losing out for 6/7 years to illegal downloads. Trust me i know a lot of great talented musicians that are now in big trouble financially and some great labels that have gone that were not just about making money, they were in it to put out great music as that was theyre passion.
If i came to your work place and just took what ever you earnt that week or just took what you produced for free after you had worked hard on it, how would you feel??
Friday, July 10, 2009 7:32PM
Alright you may be right about the cost of cd's but still take ten dollars times three cd's a month times twelve moths thats $360 a year, and you are some what correct about cd's sales, a band's label does monitor it's popularity which at one point was souly cd sales, but its not anymore, now a record company can look at how many people become a fan of a band on facebook, look at how many hits a music video on youtube get's. it's not all about cd's anymore. And if the band is too small or doesn't have enough money to go on tour, then there probably not popular enough to be easily found on the internet and if they are it's because they want to atleast get there music out there for People to listen to, to become well know to be able to go on concert because people do buy there cd's when they can. And to make myself clear, i'm not say that music piracy should completely replace buying cd's because with out the cd's to burn to the computer, or companies like itunes and Rhapsody, and then post on a website there wouldn't be any music piracy at all. And yes you and many other may live in shoe box appartments and still go do somewhat expensive things but first off there is a big sycological difference between pirating music and stealingn something you can see and feel. People don't see it as moraly wrong, is that right i don't know prabably not, but thats how it is.
Friday, July 10, 2009 9:14PM
Is it bad to buy a cd. Copy it, then sell it on ebay?
Sunday, July 12, 2009 10:58AM
what a fantastic article and the comments have been really interesting as well. as a recording artist who plays gigs, has merchandise and creates music, i personally couldnt care less if people were torrenting the music or not, i dont do this for financial gain, i have a full time job as well, i do this for the love of music and the creation of that music, i get to spend time with good friends, i purchased my own recording equipment and have learned a whole skill set that wouldnt have been open to me otherwise.
music is cheaper to produce now than ever before. music has been reduced because of this but there are still bands out there who are passionate about what they do. and this is where torrenting comes in. how many times have you been to your local CD store picked up a few CD's on recommendations from friends or reviews in a magazine and then got home and the CD you bought was a pile of junk. this simply isnt viable anymore, not with current financial situations across the globe
so torrenting is good – try before you buy, if you dont like it – DELETE. if you like it buy something from the artist, the album, a shirt from their website, go see them.
Friday, July 17, 2009 3:42PM
Yeah they did that and then everyone raged because it wouldn't work on their computers and they took it out. There is no easy way to implement DRM.
Friday, July 17, 2009 3:58PM
Hey you! Want to not support big business but still support the artist? Go to an INDEPENDENT RECORD STORE instead of large chain stores! More of your money goes to the artist AND you're supporting your community. Does your town not have an indie record store? Yes it does! Look harder!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:08PM
Amazon's royalty rate per album is higher than any major label ever charged for a single CD purchase… Remind me how this is better for us as artists to pay another middleman even more?
If you don't know the exact numbers then STFU.
Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:30AM
Nick, it seems to me that you are a supporter of piracy, saying that they shouldn't have to charge for it.
But you're right, it doesn't make it better. The fact is though, a lot of great bands have record labels and charge for songs.
800 pirated songs on average? Thats over 4 times my library.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:39PM
Disagree. Access to music is a basic human right.
Sunday, August 2, 2009 11:23AM
@John H.
Actually, bookings are based on request, not album sales. The more people who hear the music, the more requests there are for that person. The cheaper the music (i.e. free), the more people that hear it, the more requests there are for that person.
If you’re talking about how artists for the top-selling albums in the country book more, no duh. But you need to ask yourself how, with music piracy, they even became the top-selling artist. People are still going to buy albums. If 50% of all albums were pirated for all artists, their rankings would still be exactly the same, and therefore – by your own logic – so would their bookings.
But, alas, it doesn’t even work that way, so who cares?
I saw an article once (wish I saved the link) that literally proved that music piracy was good for the artists. It led to so many discoveries of new artists, which in turn led to the booking of their new concerts and even more album sales. I’ve honestly never downloaded an album that I would have otherwise paid for. But I have bought albums of artists whom I discovered from pirated music.
Had I never downloaded A Perfect Circle, The Used, Silversun Pickups, The Postal Service, etc., I would have NEVER bought their albums, NEVER listened to their music, and NEVER gone to a concert by them. Yay piracy.
Sunday, August 2, 2009 11:25AM
@Pen Name Here
800 songs is about one fourth my library. And I know people with over four times my library. So 800 pirated songs on average makes perfect sense to me.
Sunday, August 2, 2009 8:24PM
It is not property theft, because information is not property.
There. Rebuttal posted.
Monday, August 3, 2009 1:05AM
Write music we like ad we will buy it. But… Dont just write one good song on an album.
Sunday, August 2, 2009 7:01PM
You are right, I don't feel bad when I go over the speed limit, which is breaking the law, I do however feel bad when I get pulled over and ticketed, especially if it is an $80,000 ticket for just one mile an hour over the speed limit. There are plenty of ways to fight the RIAA without doing anything illegal.
Monday, August 3, 2009 5:06AM
Wow, seriously? Many people have said it and i'll say it again. there are some laws that exist for the good of a few people, not the common good or the well being of the innocent… not even for any good reason at all actually. So with laws like these, bottom line, you do what you feel convicted to do, if you feel its wrong, then stop, if you dont care, then do it. laws like 'do not murder' and 'do not steal' (actual merchandise, mind you) are in place because A) they make sense, our world would be chaotic and hell without them, and B) because anyone will tell you they are morally WRONG. "Sharing" music isnt however. What if i rip my best friends CD onto my computer? Or my moms cd, hm? is that stealing too???????
Get owned, n00bs
Monday, August 3, 2009 5:09AM
Oh and what about mtv, internet radio, radio and other sources such as these? In the end, this arguement is all about filling RIAAs fricken fat pocket, greedy and annoying bastards
Monday, August 3, 2009 6:59AM
I found a few of these to be 'legit' in a sense but for the most part it seemed a weak attempt.
I think the biggest point I might bring to the table is the inevitability of free information and the cost of losing freedoms on the internet being one of the biggest threats to an evolving civilization. Even many artists have already caught on to the ideal that censorship of any kind should be left to the individual. People like Radiohead and Trent Reznor to begin with already understand what is happening and give much of their music away now and in fact it helps promote their albums and their concerts!
People want to claim that it is illegal but progress regardless of intention cannot be contained, especially one such as free information in a digital communication age. People can play it off all they want but the biggest evidence of this is the fact that it isn't just music that is being shared. It is all information of the human species. ALL OF IT!!!
So somebody please PLEASE explain how you keep the confined world as it is and yet let the internet be a viable and free source of knowledge. Our species ha the right to access any information it desires in this new age.
Monday, August 3, 2009 1:44AM
Here is a 100% accurate truism, music piracy is evil because it allows some truly worthless music to continue to exist. Some of that stuff marketed as the best music ever or greatest artist is so bad it really is a criminal waste of bandwidth.
Monday, August 3, 2009 8:47AM
The RIAA screwed the pooch a long time ago.
We no longer live in a world where A&R people choose exclusively who gets signed and who gets radio-play, just so the company can get rich while the artist starves.
It no longer costs $75,000-$140,000 to record an album – which the company used to put up, only to recoup from sales, prior to the artist seeing a penny.
If the RIAA hadn't adopted a 'screw the artist' attitude, and maybe kept up with current events, they would have developed a new model a long time ago – avoiding all this mess.
They're fighting a losing battle, and they're doing it with mid-evil tools.
Having been through the grinder of major-label 'support', I can tell you, indie is the future – good bye majors, hello true audience to artist support.
Monday, August 3, 2009 2:40PM
I Would buy music if it would be cheaper and in MP3 format. Ihave nothing to do with the cd either, I only use USB-Flash and external hard drives because they are faster and more reliable. 500$ per year is little too much for me, because i earn this sum in a month, and the prices of the CD-s in the Eastern-Europe are far more expensive than in America.
I think we should restructure RIAA, and make the laws like that so they could be applied in 21 century.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:11AM
In 'Piracy is Breaking the Law', you say: "Many things are illegal, that doesn’t make them wrong or even immoral."
That's a very poor argument. You could just as easily say:
"Many things are illegal, and they are wrong and immoral."
In other words, just as you might think that certain illegal activities are neither right nor immoral, many illegal acts ARE both wrong AND immoral. So, merely stating that being illegal does not make an activity wrong or immoral doesn't do anything to prove that piracy is not wrong and immoral.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 11:56AM
I have gotten my everything through torrents etc. os, apps, console games, tv shows, movies, but I can see no logical arguement that can truly justify it is not wrong and even though I would not be able to live in a world without piracy.
I think Eric William Warnke has got it in his post.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 1:42PM
While the RIAA is probably the closest thing to Satan since the invention of lawyers (and I agree with most points on the list) there is just one issue which one should consider:
The music is not yours. It is not free and is not produced as 'freeware' by the artist (though they could probably benefit by doing so through increased ticket sales to their concerts – but that's another issue).
The first point on the list is the most salient: "It’s Not That Expensive to Just Pay For It". If you do not have the money to pay for something – then you don't get it. This is something that is not being taught to kids often enough. Somehow people think they are 'entitled to free stuff' despite the intentions of anyone in the pipe who creates/distributes the music. Not so.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 5:44PM
WOW!
Where to begin??
Well, Ms Linnet, things have NOT changed that much- Touring is a wash (IF you're lucky)
VERY FEW BANDS 'PROFIT' FROM TOURING. And they're not the bands you'd think. I.e. anyone who's made the 'largest concert gross' list, etc.
At the risk of sidetracking myself, is download piracy DIFFERENT from the guys who make bootleg T-Shirts and sell them outside the gig?
If you're lucky (and DON'T have Tshirt bootleggers out front) your merch money MIGHT help you offset tour costs. And yes, sometimes even a profit. But rarely is that profit a 'fortune' enough to eschew your record sales.
I have worked in the concert industry for 18 years- Touring is there to promote the album. Some bands (REALLY SMART bands, anyway) CAN make money on the road, most do NOT. To cite touring or even merchandise revenue as an artists PRIMARY (or even a major chunk of the pie) is just plain wrong.
It would appear that Mr. Barnes has never read a recording contract. If he HAS, then he should find a lawyer or artist manager to read it TO him.
On the whole, the label fronts some money (or picks up the tab) for recording/production. After the expenses are recouped, the artist and label split the proceeds. Mr.Barnes' article paints us the image that EVERY album a record label releases is a 'work made for hire' and the artist in not entitled to ANY benefit after release if said album.
This, also, is NOT true.
Now, I know record labels (and their contracts) can be deceitful. I also know that LOTS and lots and lots of bands SIGN those contracts. Sometimes with, sometimes withOUT advisement. But I don't see that as very pertinent to piracy or unauthorized duplication. To make an analogy; You don't get to not pay for a house simply because you THINK the developer isn't paying the contractor…..
Further, I believe that ; yes, the recording industry is a lumbering beast that hasn't proven very 'agile' throughout the past couple decades and, as a business model, will not survive the next 10 years in the form it is now.
Regardless, if an artist enters an agreement with a label to offer ones music for a given price (whether it's zero dollars, $1.5 or $12-$15)- then THAT is your option, Pay it or live without it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 5:44PM
(part 2)
But it seems that the pro-piracy folks apparently would have us believe that all the unauthorized music downloads ONLY happens to signed artists and/or major label artists. Right? Otherwise the 'argument' that piracy doesn't affect the artist goes out the window.
I am also a musician. My dream would be to be able to continue to make and share my music, and hope that folks would like it. I was actually writing a song before I found this article to distract me. Creating music (or any art) is often all-consuming. If I could generate enough money to live on from my music, I would- If only to be in the position to focus fully on creating and not have to contend with a day job interfering with my 'flow'. If I make fortunes, awesome. If I still have to have a side job, well, that's fine. It WOULD make it harder to tour, but I'm pretty crafty. I'm sure I could work it.
As it sits now, when we finish recording ourselves (for the record, I have around $5grand dumped into recording gear, so I guess technically that's an expense. Though I can't BEGIN to calculate dollar numbers for guitars amps etc…), we will 'self-release' ourselves. If it's appealing enough, maybe we can sell enough to gas up the van to go up and down I-5 and play some shows. And maybe it'll grow bigger than THAT, which would be MORE gas which would allow us to entertain the notion of going east/west as well.
Now, if you find our music, like it and download it for free- how is that NOT effecting me or NOT stealing from me? If I choose to charge for it and don't like the price, don't buy it. Or buy it when you can afford it. But if you want to get it 'on lay-away' by taking it for for free now, then maybe buying something later-Well, you should talk to me about that to see if we can come to some terms on that. If we don't, then it IS stealing. Regardless of whether you like/dislike the price, like/dislike where you THINK the money is going or the fact that there's no 'physical' element to it, it's still theft.
If I'm desperate enough to sign a horrible recording contract, unauthorized downloads STILL effect me directly, in that it would take longer for the 'album' to recoup costs (because less people are 'buying' it), which means it takes longer for my band to start getting a cut of the album sales.
I have a lot of respect for NIN, Radiohead and the Dead, but it is totally up to them to set their price. As it is for any artist. If you don't like the price, don't listen. Don't go to the show.
It is irrelevant how much money you make or how big your apartment is. People mis-spend their money all the time. If you're a responsible individual and DON'T 'mis-spend' it on my (or ANYONES) album, you do not get rewarded for said responsiblity by declaring yourself entitled to steal.
If I'm making and selling cookies and you can't afford them, then you don't get any cookies. You are not ENTITLED to have to cookies. Cookies are a luxury. If you can't afford to buy them, make your own (if you can bake). And, if you like, you can give as many away for free as you'd like
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:20AM
annihilator are pussies, because real artists tour jsut for the sake of touring, even if it goes bad. learn from punk attitude, stupid metalhead
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:27PM
balls
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 5:10PM
I see albums costing 20 dollars around here… wut basterds
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:51PM
CDs are plastic does anyone care about the environment anymore? Steal music! Save the environment! Stop paying for CDs!
Thursday, August 6, 2009 8:53PM
"People who live in shoebox apartments still go out to see movies in the theatre. That's the cost of one CD. We still buy DVDs, which is the cost of two CDs. We buy alcohol, which is probably 5 CDs, and we go out to fancy restaurants, which is 8 CDs"
You obviously live in a higher shoebox neighborhood than I do…
Saturday, August 8, 2009 3:26PM
Your arguments are a combination of ad hominum and emotion. Please explain to the public why something I created is NOT my property, and why I have no right to control my own property, or transfer it to others (such as a record company)? If I wish to offer up my songs to be copied by anyone, then that is my perogative. But it is not your perogative to steal my property from me.
Saturday, August 8, 2009 9:15PM
I love it when a poster tries to sound intelligent by writing a long drawn out message that does nothing more than show their lack of knowledge of the entertainment industry as Jon obviously does. Jon, take it from someone in the entertainment industry. You're 100% wrong. Now go get a life.
Sunday, August 9, 2009 2:16AM
Boston Tea Party, anyone? Sure, the tea was thrown away rather than stolen, but the point is the same; the delivers' way of doing business was wrong. In that case, the British ridiculously overtaxed the u.s. colonies to make up losses, just like the RIAA and others justify by railing against pirates. But just because we break the law doesn't make us any more wrong than those idiotic bastards; they'll have to change, or those customers they keep punishing (ridiculous album prices, stupid excess overhead fees in record labels, lawyers, RIAA, drm, low quality music you cant do much with, virus' (sony, spore, ect), reduction in funcionality in games (lan, internet connection, install number limit), will simply keep moving to the easier, better, and highly available services of torrents. If they continue to ignore their constituents, its very clear where they will end up; with the same amount of power in the music industry that Britain has in the U.S. today.
Sunday, August 9, 2009 12:38PM
Why can't you select the text in your article? Are you worried someone is going to "steal" it?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:22PM
You are, literally, a complete douchebag.
So what you're saying, is people should go out and buy hanna montana and jonas brothers cd's because of all the skill they have and the record companies TOTALLY aren't whoring them out or ANYTHING like that.
Eat a dick
Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:31AM
Jon H works for a record label
Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:09AM
I downloaded an artists album for free, and it was a great album. When they toured in my city, I bought tickets, then bought a shirt, vinyl copy of the album, and a DVD. I wouldn't have heard the artist at all in the first place if I hadn't downloaded the album. I certainly wasn't going to go out and buy a CD by someone I didn't know. Artists make MUCH more money off merch than actual album sales, and I'd rather have something tangible besides a CD. It all works out.
Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:02PM
8 Logical Rebuttals of Anti-Piracy Arguments, by William Barnes, is a tirade againt the labels based on the idea that if you don’t like someone (the labels) and you want something they have (music) its OK to just take it, especially if you can’t afford it.
http://beatcrave.com/2009-07-02/digital-music-pir...
1.It’s Not That Expensive to Just Pay For It.
I can’t afford to pay for music, thus in the author’s humble opinion – you are totally justified in listening to music you did not pay to listen to. Does this rationale apply to music only, or to any property for sale? Just trying to understand the social ethic being applied here.
2.Music Piracy Causes Huge Amounts of Economic Damage.
This is probably false and certainly irrelevant.
3.The RIAA Will Get Better if Piracy Stops.
Another false and irrelevant argument.
4.It’s So Much Easier to Use a Pay Service.
Another false and irrelevant argument.
5.Pirated Music Is Lower Quality.
Another false and irrelevant argument.
6.Pirate Music Libraries Are Messy.
So what, and this is also false and irrelevant argument.
7.You Don’t Support the Bands By Pirating Their Music.
This might be true if record labels paid bands all the money from their album sales – This argument assumes the labels, who have “effectively [bought] the artist’s work,” are irrelevant to the creator of the music (there is another assumption discussed below). So this argument is, in essence, the artist has already profited by selling his/her work to the label, and its OK to screw the label. The whole discussion about concert tickets, etc., is irrelevant to the anti-piracy of music question. This reveals further the author’s ethic…in essence if I can’t afford something, and if I want it, I can just take.
8.Piracy is Breaking the Law.
So was the Boston Tea Party. – This is an admission that piracy is wrong but, the argument goes, justified as civil disobedience as a protest against having to pay for music. This is the only argument with any merit. It is important to remember that the tea dumpers went to jail and a war with real people dying was necessary to accomplish the goals of the tea dumpers. The civil disobedience as protest is understood. However, one of the principles behind civil disobedience is the intent of the actor to suffer the punishment and use the unjust law and its punishment as the moral argument for changing the law. So if the law requiring payment for music is unjust or the punishment not proportioned to the offense, then the protestor or those in concert with the protestor must also make serious efforts to change the law. But civil disobedience without an organized effort to change the law is nothing more than criminal activity. The whole “RIAA’s penchant for evil” comment shows Barnes’ underlying assumption throughout, belies any legitimacy to his arguments, and reveals fully his social ethic…he hates labels and thinks they are evil…therefore its OK to steal from them. In this author’s humble opinion that is no reason to steal artist’s hard work.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:49AM
[...] category.” This is very true, except we’re not sure how steady the rate of legal or illegal downloads will [...]
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:56PM
This doesn't make a single rational argument for piracy or against these arguments. How about the fact that it's fucking illegal and it STILL doesn't cost that much to pay for media.
Look. pirates, I'll put it in simple terms so your limited intelligence can grasp it:
Its one thing when they're trying to prevent you from getting your fair use rights. It's a whole other fucking truckload if they're actually protecting from unauthorized redistribution.
The pirates love to rationalize it as fighting against the fair use revocation… by doing something not even remotely within the bounds of fair use. You can rip a CD, but you can't put it on your web site.
Are pirates too stupid to tell the difference between fair use and copyright infringement? I think so.
Look, I'm against DRM. It doesn't stop copyright infringement and tramples fair use rights. But I'm not about to think I'm suddenly some justified vigilante by actually assuming I have the right to infringe copyright.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:06PM
You just summed up the entire piracy "movement." Bad rationalization and copyright infringement being confused as fair use.
I pay for my media, and I'm fucking PROUD of it.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:16PM
Its just pirates trying to morally justify something that was morally wrong to begin with. It's one of their many flawed rationalizations for copyright infringement and taking it to the MAFIAA by screwing over everyone else but.
My theory is those who are pro-piracy don't have real jobs, never really earned anything in their life.
I'm a programmer. If I create something I want to be compensated for, the "righteous" pirates are my worst enemy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:29PM
Don't waste your time trying to get a rational argument why piracy is right. They're no crusaders. They're not doing anything morally, ethically, or legally justified.
The RIAA is cum. DRM sucks and I think its more used as a way to get lock-in than piracy prevention. But piracy just hurts the honest folks, people. If I write a program and expect to get paid for it, I sure as hell don't want to see it on dirtbag sites like the Pirate Bay.
This is why TPB got convicted was all the "moral" and "ethical" justification they tried was bullcrap.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:33PM
The pirate "movement" never once gave a solid argument for piracy. So they wrapped themselves up in horror stories about the RIAA and acted like all the labels and artists as scam artists trying to gouge innocent people.
The reality is they're a bunch of punks who probably never ONCE created something copyrightable. Perhaps they'd rather spend a lot of time, money, and energy into a medium and go ahead and not be compensated.
But I think the reality is they're a bunch of non-producing losers who never actually earned anything in their life.
Monday, September 21, 2009 8:30AM
I really like what this guy has to say, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I started out my interest in music from stuff I borrowed from my cousin, which I guess is technically pirating, but because he let me into the stuff he liked, I became a huge fan of a lot of those bands and bought other albums. While I think it's stupid to totally legalize piracy, I think it should be eased up on, because I think it's one of the best advertising techniques a really good band could have. The more people your music reaches, even if it's from one or two free songs on a website, the faster your fanbase spreads, leading to sold out concerts and merchandise that actually pay the artists for their work. Skip the greedy middleman, and give it all to the creator, what a great way to go!
Monday, September 21, 2009 8:54AM
I find it hilarious that the piracy revolution has become so well connected with the boston tea party. The point of it all is that piracy really isn't that big of a deal, and in a world of facebook, myspace, and a million other networks, controlled piracy could actually be the best advertising a band could have. Offer one or two songs for free from an album, and suddenly your music gets a hundred times more attention, and guess what – albums get sold, shows sell out, a band that starts from nothing gets a chance to really show his art. And so what if a few albums sneak through the cracks, as your fanbase grows, so does the general amount of selling anything related to that band! The complete attack and destruction of piracy is a stupid and futile move, the wise use of 'legal' piracy could do more for a band (and record label, even though I don't want to give them any more money than I have to) than any brute squad campaign to fight the pirates.
Friday, September 25, 2009 5:03PM
I see this crap all the time. It's another "I like to steal so let me tell you why stealing is OK" rant. First I pirate everything under the sun. Music, movies, software, anything. The RIAA says it's as bad as stealing a car. Now if I could download a car I sure as hell would! What I don't do is try to fool myself into thinking it's not stealing. It is, we all know it is, but some of us decide to kid ourselves and say it's OK. This is no Boston tea party. They didn't steal the tea. They tossed it. Piracy is not noble it's just shoplifting with no balls. That said, does anyone know of a good torrent for the Star Trek movie yet?
Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:42AM
I think you made some good points in your post.
Sunday, October 4, 2009 10:46AM
I agree with you on some counts here, but saying that it's alright to download music if you can't afford it? That just strikes me as immoral – if you can't afford a new car, you deal with it, you don't go and steal one, just because you want it. Also, you tend to get all kinds of viruses from some, and I'm not saying all, file-sharing sites – I guess that comes down to how experienced you are at downloading music. On the other hand, artists out there have far too much money to notice if a few people download their single, and in some cases, downloading can benefit a new band, offering it widescale publicity. But much like Lily Allen said last week – a new band needs all the money it can scrape together; that's harder to do if more people are downloading their songs than buying them.
Personally, I can't stand having a song on my iPod that doesn't have the correct picture with it, or if the title looks_like_this06.
But I'm just really OCD like that
Good article, and it's provided some strong arguments, but I'm gonna keep on using iTunes, in my opinion, downloading is still stealing.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:53AM
there are likely many more than just 8 logical rebuttals to anti-piracy, maybe dozens. however there is one overriding rebuttal to piracy:: it's stealing……………………
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:05AM
No, it's not enough
Friday, November 13, 2009 5:24AM
Information is free,share it as thou wilt………greed only wills greed.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:08PM
The arguments presented in this article aren't logical because they ignore one fact: The content owner is the only one who has the right to choose how the content is distributed. No arguments about the RIAA, prices, economics or Boston tea parties (seriously? lol) will change that. They spent the time and money on creating something, and whether they were driven by money or real desire to publish music, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to choose how they distribute it.
You don't have a divine right to things other people have created. There's only one legitimate way to show that you dislike the cost of music and think you should pay less/none, and that's by boycotting it. By not consuming it. If you cannot go without then you have issues!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:47PM
Uh, look away from the teaser rack at Best Buy or Target–music is even more expensive now than ever. $18.99? Really? No need…
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:00PM
Its amazing the hoops people will go thru to justify behavior that they know is inheriently wrong. By barne's logic if he has something (anything) and I don't have it or can't afford it I should be allowed to take it from him without any worry of compensating him for the item. The mere fact that something is available and I don't have it or can't afford it means that I have the right to take it, which of course is pure BS.
A
Monday, December 14, 2009 4:05AM
The great artists don't stop making music because there's no financial incentive. You're not a true musician if money is why you're in it my man.
Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:33PM
I agree; the one tv show that doesn´t make me feel bad about pirated music: mtv cribs XD
Saturday, December 19, 2009 10:25PM
I would be lying if I said I pirated for more altruistic reasons. The music is free, which is the #1 reason I download.
However, I'm also love (love love love) concerts. If a band I know and like is playing within 100 miles of me, I'm getting tickets and dragging my friends along. Luckily, I have friends who listen to the same kind of music.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:32PM
No, that's not what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man fallacy is one where an argument is made against a misrepresentation of the opponents argument, which may or may not be easier to refute. You're close, though, good try.
Friday, January 1, 2010 5:29PM
hate to break it to you but if we aren't paying for our music, we're not paying for our movies either..
we don't prevent bands from hitting big either, if the band isn't well known the tracks are generally very hard to find. if we like a band and they're new out, of course we'll buy the album, they're just getting started and need a hand, we're not bad people!
the amount of money big artists make is ridiculous, and they spend it on what? cars? houses? crap? All i know is that real artists are about the music, not the money, and as long as they're on stage performing they'll be happy.
which brings me to another point, we are not stopping them from becoming famous. if you look at the amount of bands that have been discovered by illegal downloading and that have now become extremely successful.
they also have other means of making money, merchandise etc. plus the odd ones who decide to make even more money from perfume and clothes.
so we are not literally hurting the band by not buying their records, we support them in many other ways =]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:29AM
this article is just stupid. now i download plenty of music, but there is some bad logic here:
1. i dont know of anybody who wants to buy 3 albums a month. not that much new music comes out (except for bullcrap like miley sirus and jonas brothers, who deserve to be stolen from)
2. saying another's data is false is a useless arguement, as anybody can come up with a statistic, or turn a number into something they want. everyone does it, including this article, where it says the auto company is the cause of 40,000 layoffs, where in the same article it says that ford recently got rid of 54,000 employees. (not to mention the economic fall out from those job losses (i live near detroit, it's pretty bad here)
3. yes, itunes is easier and better quality than file sharing. although there are many high quality files out there, there is also alot of crap that i've downloaded. and viruses are always possible.
4. the arguement that bands should be in it solely for the music is stupid. if millions of people are going to enjoy something that they made, they damn well better get good money out of it. and the only bands making money on tours are the ones charging $100 a ticket. plus your argument is like saying hookers should be in their business for the sex.
5. this is on the internet. people can say whatever they want on here, just take a look at wikipedia. i also feel sorry for anyone who gripes on a blog under the illusion that people actually care what they think.
i'm not trying to preach, just trying to expose bullcrap for what it is.
(ps the huge fines for getting caught pirating music are there because of how many people dont get caught)