Piracy Slashed, Sales Fall?!?

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I just love the way you keep avoiding your own point. You stated right in the beginning that all this stuff should be made available to even the people whom cannot afford it (as if entertainment was some sort of divine right), but you draw some sort of weird distinction between physical and non physical object. If you need the physical object to play all that free pirated music and TV on then your whole argument falls flat on it's face and it becomes an issue of copying just because you can not because of some noble concept that art and music should be for all.

1) A physical object means extra costs seller for every object produced, every single tv is a unique investment which means losses if no-one buys it.

2) A digital copy involves no extra cost to the producer whats so ever. If you cannot reasonably afford to purchase a digital copy of media and you pirate it the creator has lost nothing. They just haven't gained anything.

As for what is right "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As much as you would like to be reductionist about this issue the rights and abilities of individuals in America are being degraded by a capitalistic system run amok. Piracy while not a solution is at least a bit of a stop loss to continued wealth destabilization.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

As for what is right "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Oh man...now you are equating piracy with the Declaration of Independence? You've really gone off the deep end if you think that. Your pursuit of happiness should not involve stealing. And if there is a price put on something, and you aren't paying for it but instead pirating it, then you ARE in fact stealing. Doesn't matter if it's digital or not.

If you cannot reasonably afford to purchase a digital copy of media and you pirate it the creator has lost nothing

99 cents a song is too much a burden to afford? Please. Now you're just making excuses for bad behavior. If they can afford the computer or iPod to play it on, they can afford the music too. A creator is entitled to get paid for the music you are listening to and enjoying.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

99 cents a song is too much a burden to afford? Please. Now you're just making excuses for bad behavior. If they can afford the computer or iPod to play it on, they can afford the music too. A creator is entitled to get paid for the music you are listening to and enjoying.

You realize music isn't the only type of media right? Textbooks are an example of media, they are ruinously overpriced currently. Not because of production costs or even the need for new textbooks but because the companies which produce them have rigged the system so they can charge whatever they want.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Oh man...now you are equating piracy with the Declaration of Independence? You've really gone off the deep end if you think that. Your pursuit of happiness should not involve stealing. And if there is a price put on something, and you aren't paying for it but instead pirating it, then you ARE in fact stealing. Doesn't matter if it's digital or not.

Piracy might be wrong to some degree but this:

http://crooksandliars.com/node/56426/print

Is why I'm ok with it, anything that lets the middle class keep its head above water is ok with me at the moment.

[IntelliUser]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

99 cents a song is too much a burden to afford? Please. Now you're just making excuses for bad behavior. If they can afford the computer or iPod to play it on, they can afford the music too. A creator is entitled to get paid for the music you are listening to and enjoying.

The average "music listener" has thousands of songs in their library. So it's much more than $1. Especially considering the singer only gets $.1 of that dollar.
Do you really think so many people would be buying iPods were it not for piracy?

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Piracy might be wrong to some degree but this:

http://crooksandliars.com/node/56426/print

Is why I'm ok with it, anything that lets the middle class keep its head above water is ok with me at the moment.

I don't get it. Because one industry did a DM and killed something that would be good for consumers, we can steal from another industry? And is the middle class going broke cause they need to have music? I would say the problem is gas/food prices. Not the cost of a dvd that you don't need.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Piracy might be wrong to some degree but this:

http://crooksandliars.com/node/56426/print

Is why I'm ok with it, anything that lets the middle class keep its head above water is ok with me at the moment.

Ridiculous. Music is optional. It's entertainment. It's not like food. You will not die if you don't have it. You're trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by IntelliUser

The average "music listener" has thousands of songs in their library. So it's much more than $1. Especially considering the singer only gets $.1 of that dollar.
Do you really think so many people would be buying iPods were it not for piracy?

Yeah, it might be more then $1 but life is what you make of it. You don't HAVE to have thousands of songs anymore then you have to travel to 100 different countries. When you can't afford something (like a vacation or that iPod) what do you do? You do what everyone else does...you save your money from each paycheck and spend it when you CAN afford it. You don't go into the store and swipe the iPod. That singer might only get .1 of that dollar but you know how much they get if you pirate their song? ZERO.

[IntelliUser]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Yeah, it might be more then $1 but life is what you make of it. You don't HAVE to have thousands of songs anymore then you have to travel to 100 different countries. When you can't afford something (like a vacation or that iPod) what do you do? You do what everyone else does...you save your money from each paycheck and spend it when you CAN afford it.

Do you realize what the economic consequences of that would be? If teenagers stopped buying iPods? Because that's what would happen. You're delusional if you really think they are going to "save" to buy music.
Music sales are not going to increase, and iPod sales are going to drop. I'm sure that's very good for the economy.

That singer might only get .1 of that dollar but you know how much they get if you pirate their song? ZERO.

BS. With today's technology, singers don't NEED labels anymore. Piracy will simply push them to do just this. Singers can sell their songs for $.20 and get $.20 instead of $1 to get $.10. More people will buy songs at prices like this.

They can sell their songs without them online and get all the profit, so that they have much more power in negotiations.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by IntelliUser

....BS. With today's technology, singers don't NEED labels anymore. Piracy will simply push them to do just this. Singers can sell their songs for $.20 and get $.20 instead of $1 to get $.10. More people will buy songs at prices like this.

They can sell their songs without them online and get all the profit, so that they have much more power in negotiations.

since the technology is there, and has been for a decade, what per cent of your collection have you actually bought direct from the musicians?

[localoid]

Originally Posted by IntelliUser

BS. With today's technology, singers don't NEED labels anymore. ...

I can see one big problem with your very simplified theory from the get go... A "singer" needs a song, which needs a song writer, and people called "musicians" to actually play the song's accompaniment. Also needed would be instruments and various pieces of sound equipment, a functional recording studio, etc.

But then there's the problem of not being able to collect royalties and licensing fees associated with publishing rights, synchronization rights, mechanical rights, master use rights, performance rights, etc.

The business of music is far more complex than most might imagine.

Please post some actual numbers... some real world financials showing the typical amount of money a "singer" might expect to make off a song via the method you suggested.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by localoid

The business of music is far more complex than most might imagine.

Only because Lables make it so. As a musician who has made money from his talents I can tell you the Music does not need to be complicated as it is now. All it does filter our the medicore from the truly talented. Guess who stays in cultural oblivion?

[localoid]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Only because Lables make it so. As a musician who has made money from his talents I can tell you the Music does not need to be complicated as it is now. All it does filter our the medicore from the truly talented. Guess who stays in cultural oblivion?

There's a bigger, well entrenched system in play as well... Life is a game of survival for most, played by rules that benefit only a few.

In a perfect world, musicians would create simply because they could and neither they nor anyone else would have to worry about the distraction of money. As Aristotle suggested, the best flute players would have the best flutes and beautiful music would result...

But until we reach that sort of Utopia the current system will likely insist on having its way.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by localoid

There's a bigger, well entrenched system in play as well... Life is a game of survival for most, played by rules that benefit only a few.

In a perfect world, musicians would create simply because they could and neither they nor anyone else would have to worry about the distraction of money. As Aristotle suggested, the best flute players would have the best flutes and beautiful music would result...

But until we reach that sort of Utopia the current system will likely insist on having its way.

Ironically, the best instruments aren't made by corporations, but hand made by a artists in their own right.

Then there is the most beautiful, robust and accessible music of all, body percussion and singing.

[localoid]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Ironically, the best instruments aren't made by corporations, but hand made by a artists in their own right.

Then there is the most beautiful, robust and accessible music of all, body percussion and singing.

I listen to a lot of different types of music and personally, while I have my favorites, I couldn't do without any of the genres... I'd miss them too much.

But not every musician is going to have the desire, ability, or resources to build their own instrument and it largely depends on what instrument you desire to play. I've made several NA flutes, but I haven't bothered trying to make my own digital samplers since the early '80s. It's become just too easy to buy digital excellence, ready made.

On the other hand, the best trumpet player I've ever known plays a beat up Conn student model that he picked up 2nd hand in the 50s that the typical pawn shop would probably pay about $15 for...

Aristotle's point was that best flutes need to be in the hands of those who would use make best use of them, because "that's what flute are for", rather than selling them to those willing/able to pay the highest price.

In theory, anyone can create beautiful music, even without having access to or owning an instrument. But that's difficult to do if you can't create/ hear sound directly in your head.

If everyone had that ability, the need to pirate music would be reduced, because we'd just play it back in our brains whenever wanted to hear it. But of course it'd be hard for a group of people to dance to a tune playing back in my brain...

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by localoid

If everyone had that ability, the need to pirate music would be reduced, because we'd just play it back in our brains whenever wanted to hear it. But of course it'd be hard for a group of people to dance to a tune playing back in my brain...

You could with hard dugs.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Piracy might be wrong to some degree but this:

http://crooksandliars.com/node/56426/print

Is why I'm ok with it, anything that lets the middle class keep its head above water is ok with me at the moment.

I didn't and don't know enough of the very technical details to understand whether or not the criticism of LightSquared was correct. But, there was a lot of genuine concern:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...of-physics.ars


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared

I will leave it to others to comment on the technical specifics. Sorry, but, I'm not sure what this has to do with copyright, DRM, piracy, etc. ?

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by IntelliUser

Do you realize what the economic consequences of that would be? If teenagers stopped buying iPods? Because that's what would happen. You're delusional if you really think they are going to "save" to buy music.
Music sales are not going to increase, and iPod sales are going to drop. I'm sure that's very good for the economy.

So here's what's delusional: Your notion that all these teens are still buying iPods. More and more people are using their CELL PHONES as music players now and they sure as heck aren't going to be giving those up. So the "economic consequences" you speak of are zero. It's 2012, not 2001. Plus, you're saying that teens can afford to save up for an iPod (not to mention the concerts, movies, amusement parks, dances, the apps for their cell phone and trips to the beach they take, etc. etc.) but somehow can not save up for music? That's total BS.

[Sedulous]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

So here's what's delusional: Your notion that all these teens are still buying iPods. More and more people are using their CELL PHONES as music players now and they sure as heck aren't going to be giving those up. So the "economic consequences" you speak of are zero. It's 2012, not 2001. Plus, you're saying that teens can afford to save up for an iPod (not to mention the concerts, movies, amusement parks, dances, the apps for their cell phone and trips to the beach they take, etc. etc.) but somehow can not save up for music? That's total BS.

I think the post is suggesting what happens if people lose interest in the industry when there limited access to "affordable" music. I don't purchase what I don't know about. Makes it hard for new artists to break out and means the music industry focuses its resources on fewer and less risky (less diverse) artists. Fewer artists and styles means fewer sales and/or higher prices.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Sedulous

I think the post is suggesting what happens if people lose interest in the industry when there limited access to "affordable" music. I don't purchase what I don't know about. Makes it hard for new artists to break out and means the music industry focuses its resources on fewer and less risky (less diverse) artists. Fewer artists and styles means fewer sales and/or higher prices.

The solution to both of those problems is the same solution that has always been around: Radio. All the free music you want there. Course you can't hear what you what when you want, but that's the "price" of being free to you. Add in internet radio and now you have even more choices to discover and listen to new music. There are options out there besides pirating.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

The solution to both of those problems is the same solution that has always been around: Radio. All the free music you want there. Course you can't hear what you what when you want, but that's the "price" of being free to you. Add in internet radio and now you have even more choices to discover and listen to new music. There are options out there besides pirating.

Stop dodging the fact that piracy isn't all about music. As stated many times the music industry is and has evolved to deal with a digital world.

Piracy is about more than music.

[Sedulous]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

The solution to both of those problems is the same solution that has always been around: Radio. All the free music you want there. Course you can't hear what you what when you want, but that's the "price" of being free to you. Add in internet radio and now you have even more choices to discover and listen to new music. There are options out there besides pirating.

The radio around here offers basically the following:

1: A continuous cycle of the same five insipid pop/dance tracks. Interrupted by inane radio chatter and copious advertising.
2: A mix of "oldies"
3: A mix of not-quite-yet oldies.

While it is true that internet radio has more variety, it also has flaws. One of which is identifying artists (yes, I know about Shazaam), poorly organized, and not always accessible.

I think there are two main points here: (1) Fewer artists get airplay/promoted by the recording industry leading to less mainstream variety and (2) it is simply easier to exchange some music and identify artists of interest. Often this is done with people that know you and what you might like.

This is apparent in the film industry as well. As much as you might hear about major studios complain about "piracy", ticket sales are higher than they were in 1995 and revenue has doubled even though they are releasing fewer movies. Like the music industry, their efforts are focused on taking fewer risks on "new" things. At least half of the movies out right now are sequels or re-makes. Fewer still are aimed at adult audiences. All of them are over-priced.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Stop dodging the fact that piracy isn't all about music. As stated many times the music industry is and has evolved to deal with a digital world.

Piracy is about more than music.

I wouldn't argue with that, but, I would argue that music is the area where DRM really can't work completely, while, with movies and software, it can if you want it to. That is, if you don't mind inconveniencing the consumers/users.

Another problem with music is that there seem to be a significant number of music packrats out there who collect pirated music that they might listen to once if at all, but, for some reason get satisfaction out of having 100,000 songs in their hoarde. If no one ever listens listens to it, the harm in this sort of hoarding/piracy is rather difficult to discern.

Everyone seems to agree that upper-middle-class professionals should pay something significant for their movies, music, and software. People don't seem to agree what college students should pay. Especially the college students

Digital reproduction has flattened the world in both positive and negative ways. For example, when I was in college, classical musicians gave very inexpensive concerts at my college, and other similar colleges, midweek. Student ID required. On weekends, they gave concerts in big cities for big bucks. Likewise, we got to see movies on campus with student ID very inexpensively. Books had tiered pricing -- certain textbooks were available in India, for example, for very reasonable prices. Was it immoral for an American to acquire such a textbook instead of using the US edition? The fact is that this sort of tiered (socialistic) pricing has existed since forever. But, it is a lot harder to get tiered pricing to behave the way you want nowadays.

I would like everyone to agree that this is a very difficult problem to solve, and perhaps suggest incremental pragmatic measures that allow authors and artists to be remunerated while keeping the arts accessible and available to all.

[obeygiant]

Sweden Grants Religious Recognition To File-Sharing Church

The Swedish government has formally recognised a “church” whose main belief is the right to file-share, in a move that is unlikely to be well-received by the Hollywood studios.

The recognition of the Church of Kopimism as a religion by the state of Sweden was revealed in a statement on the Church’s Website, after more than a year of trying to gain formal recognition.

“Just before Christmas, the Swedish government agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organisation. This means that Sweden is the first country to recognise Kopimism as a religion,” said the church’s statement.

It said that board chairman for the organisation Gustav Nipe had to apply three times.

“I think it might have something to do with the government organisations abiding by a very copyright-friendly attitude, with a twisted view on copying,” Nipe was quoted as saying.

According to the statement, the Church of Kopimism regards information as holy, and copying as a sacrament. It also holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V (the keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste) as sacred symbols.

While the church does not directly promote illegal file sharing, it does believe in the open distribution of knowledge and holds religious services that it calls ‘ kopyactings’.

“Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organisation and its members,” the church said.

The church also said the Swedish government recognition was a large step. It hoped that it was one step “towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution, said Isak Gerson, the 19-year philosophy student and self-confessed spiritual leader of the Church of Kopimism.

The Church of Kopimism is a religious organisation that began life in 2010. According to the church’s statement, it is made of a community that “requires no formal membership.”

“You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy,” the statement said. “To do this, we organise kopyactings – religious services – where the kopimists share information with each other through copying and remix,” it added.

However the move has predictably drawn a less-than-enthusiastic response from campaigners seeking to uphold copyright protection.

“It is quite divorced from reality and is reflective of Swedish social norms rather than the Swedish legislative system,” music analyst Mark Mulligan was quoted as saying on the BBC.

“It doesn’t mean that illegal file-sharing will become legal, any more than if ‘Jedi’ was recognised as a religion everyone would be walking around with light sabres,” he reportedly said. “In some ways these guys are looking outdated. File-sharing as a means to pirate content is becoming yesterday’s technology.”

Sweden is well known for its file-sharing activists. During the European parliament elections in June, 2009, the Swedish Pirate Party (PiratPartiet) gained two Euro MP seats. But In September, 2010, the party was unsuccessful in its attempts to become a political force within Sweden after it failed to secure a parliamentary seat in the country’s general election.

PiratPartiet also said it planned to launch the world’s first Pirate ISP - a broadband service that would allow users to share BitTorrent files anonymously online.

Besides these Scandinavian developments, there seems to be a zero-tolerance towards piracy in many countries. In the United States for example the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is proving to be controversial, with a number of big name firms refusing to support the legislation in its current form.

In the UK, there is the Digital Ecomomy Act, which has also proved to be hugely controversial.

Is this real?

[Sedulous]

Originally Posted by obeygiant

Sweden Grants Religious Recognition To File-Sharing Church

Is this real?

I don't know. As long as they worship Digital Jesus it must be right.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by Sedulous

I don't know. As long as they worship Digital Jesus it must be right.

"digital jesus"? Good band name!