yet more Industry lies about piracy

[AlanG]

just found through the BBC site a place called pro-music. Yet another hot bed of lies and deceit by the 5 majors to claim piracy is "teh eevil!12"

So Ive decided to take each of their "myths" about free music and rip into them . Their comments will be bold, mines plain text.

http://www.pro-music.org/freemusic/p...m#theseartists

1."Free music' sounds great. What's the problem?"
t is a common misconception that accessing so-called 'free music' - by downloading or burning music from the internet without the creator's permission and without paying for it - doesn't really hurt anyone.
fallacy - strawman, not all free music is by signed artists and not all is on the internet without their permission. By creating this strawman they try to make out that all music online is illegal.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Unauthorised uploading or copying is not free at all - it is the musicians and the people who invest in the music who are paying the price.
well mainly the people who "invest" as the artists get next to nothing from album sales. Downloading that MP3 will stop some industry sleaze getting a new Merc this year, hardly killing his livlihood. Thats even if you believe their nonsense.

The artists, first and foremost, the labels that have invested in them, the publishers who manage the copyright of their songs and the thousands of people involved in the many different areas of the music industry are all affected. Downloading and burning without permission doesn't fairly reward the efforts of those who create, develop and record music, and who depend on it for their livelihood.
99% of record deals dont fault reward those who create the music, but when do the RIAA etc speak about that? If someone does download an album because they cant afford to buy a CD, how does that steal money from them if they were not going to buy it anyway? Thats without going into a rant about artists creating music for art and not for money.

More illegal copying and internet distribution means less sales, and that means less money for companies to invest in artists and music. This affects a whole community of people: the employee at the retail store that faces closure ; the aspiring artist who won't get a deal because record companies have less money to invest in new talent;
the reason there is no money to invest in talent is because its getting p*ssed against the wall giving Blobby Williams and Mariah Carey 80million dollar record contract advances not to mention the lawyers earning more than the artists for sales!

the entrepreneur who's making records with local kids; the act who is trying to survive from selling CDs on the road; and the artist whose first album just failed to sell enough to turn a profit. On top of that, there are the thousands of other people who depend upon music for their income: from the sound engineers and CD factory workers to the band managers and graphic artists. There are also countless music magazines, entrepreneurs trying to set up legitimate online sites, designers, specialist PR people… the list goes on.

so artists who generally tour in wee venues to close audiences of fans living off tshirt sales etc and who put their mp3s online in order to gaina bigger audience are damaged by people downloading their music and then going to their gig afterwards? Can these people actually flip between the multimillionairres who they represent and student bands who they dont represent so easily and think no one will notice?

Furthermore - copying music without permission is illegal. And just because it doesn't involve organised crime or knock-offs sold on street corners doesn't mean that it isn't taken very seriously.
yet again assuming that free music is without the copyright holders persmission

[AlanG]

2. "These artists are immensely rich anyway, downloading a few tracks for free is not going to hurt them."

The overwhelming majority of artists are NOT rich. And it's not just a few tracks but virtually everything ever recorded. But the biggest losers are the upcoming artists because not paying for music means much less money to invest in them.
are they trying to claim that suddenly the day mp3 was invented that artists bank accounts were emptied? It has always been the case that a small minority of musicians are rich and the rest are not but this is the fault of the record companies who screw them over in crappy contracts while lining their own pockets.

Which means it's the music lover who gets short-changed. Fewer artists get the chance to make their mark, and the labels are less likely to take a risk with more experimental music or niche genres.
Like they have always done in the past?

Consumers of 'free music' may get a short-term benefit, but at the long-term cost of hurting the artists they most admire, and new talent.
consumers of free music get short and long term benefits, artists may get small short term benefits (thats if you ignore more promotion = more people to go to gigs/buy music) and great long term benefits, if for example they build up a large following and keep 100% of their sales profits rather than signing a record contract and getting about 2-3%.

People who accuse the music industry of not producing anything new should give some thought to how that impacts on new artists. Think of the bands - and there are many, including U2, R.E.M. and David Gray - who didn't make it big with their first or second album. Bands need time to flourish, and if their early sales are cannibalised on the internet, they may never get the chance to become the next U2 or R.E.M.
Well I was going to write a serious response but decided instead to ask why would be want even more U2, REM or David Gray?

[AlanG]

3."Uploading music and burning it without the consent of the creator may be illegal, but isn't the music industry exaggerating the effect on the music sector?"

There is overwhelming evidence that unauthorised copying and distribution means less music is sold.

For example, look at the way sales of albums have fallen while internet uploads have soared. During one four-month period of 2002, the number of music files available on pirate sites nearly doubled from 500 million to 900 million. At the same time global music sales in 2002 fell by around 7%. As a result around 250 million fewer albums were sold in 2002 than in 2001.
thats very interesting except although the figures for the sales are smaller there is no figure given for the number of albums released during this period. Which has infact fallen, and had also fallen from 2001 to 2002. Its like claiming country A with 100million dollars is better off than country B with 50million dollars and ignoring that country A has 100million people living in it while country B has 3. If less albums are released it doesnt take a genius to figure out that less will be sold.

Uploading and mass copying weren't necessarily the only reason for this decline - but they definitely had a major impact.
so if they werent the only reason why were none of the other reasons listed? Maybe because they would show that downloading is a scapegoat of the music industry?

In particular, sales of the top-selling artists are declining: in 2001 for the first time in many years no album sold more than ten million copies in the world's largest market, America - a pattern almost repeated in 2002 when only one album - Eminem's The Eminem Show - passed the ten million sales mark. And as sales of the bigger names fall, there are repercussions for the growth and support of new talent.
Perhaps something to do with the huge dip taken by the American economy and *every* business sufferring money problems in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, hay not to be crude but maybe people realised there was more to life than buying a luxury item?

Perhaps the most worrying development is that the majority of people downloading music from the internet are young music fans, who are also the biggest consumers of music. 41% of young people in Europe who get music 'for free' say they buy less CDs, compared to only 19% who buy more.

what a fantastic raw statistic. For all we know the 19% might buy 100% more CDs than before while the 41% who buy less may only buy 1 less per year. As no figures are given to show this either way and the company throwing this propaganda out has everything to gain by publishing more statistics to back it up can we assume that this is the case? No mention is given to "why" they buy less, perhaps they download some album tracks from Avril or Britney and realise they are crap so dont waste their money on the album?

A whole new generation of music lovers is damaging the very diversity they look out for in music.
the diversity that can be found online and not on radio/MTV you mean?

[AlanG]

4."I've heard artists claim that making their music available to download for free is the best way to get themselves heard, in that way promoting their music and boosting their sales."

We support the use of promotional material made available for free download - but only where the artists and other rights holders have authorised it for this purpose. This must be a choice that they make, not one forced upon them by others.
Making music available on the internet is a really exciting development for artists. The net can be a great tool for new acts who wish to drum up interest in their work.
then why is this not made clear in the rest of the "myths". Piracy is made interreplacable with "free download", it is groups like Pro-Music who are blurring the distinction and trying to scare people that free=illegal.

It isn't true that making music 'free' will always promote the sales of that track or album, however. In fact research shows that downloading and burning is substituting sales significantly more than they are promoting them. Research in markets around the world shows that one third of active file-sharers spend less on music since they started getting it for free.
so presumably 2/3rds are either spending the same or are spending more, as this is the majority the research shows that downloading at the very least sustains sales with those who are fans of the artists and will continue to support them during the "poor first album sales" as mentioned before.

Most artists are happy for consumers to download their music - when it's legitimate and with their consent. And those who want to disseminate their music for free have the choice to do so.
Except when propaganda campaigns try to claim that downloading=illegal.

MP3.com, for example, contains thousands of songs by aspiring artists - although it is a question how many artists, if any, have been able to embark on a career just using the internet. The fact is that most people who go online to download are much more likely to go for known artists - even if new to them - rather than complete unknowns.
first of all dont even mention mp3.com or dont you keep up with the news. The second is again an attempt to confuse the reader.
"most people who go online to download are much more likely to go for known artists" that is the most redundant statement these bigwigs have come out with. If the artist were not "known to you" then how would you know to download them or even if they exist? And even if they are unknown to you the second you find them in any search they suddenly become known.

It is those who think that they have the right to 'share' music illegally with millions of individuals without having paid for it that are damaging the music industry, and as a consequence are threatening the careers of budding artists before they even begin.
On the contrary it is the churning out of media friendly garbage and lack of variety on radio/music tv stations that are making people go online to search for music that interests them.

-----------------------------

5. "The real problem is that the music industry wants to stop the advance of technology."

Technology is not the enemy of music - quite the reverse. There has always been a healthy relationship between advances in technology and the music business: from the Edison cylinder, through vinyl, tape, and the CD, to the MP3 file.
unfortunately bold is the strongest I can use to emphasise LIES. When radio shows wanted to play music the industry went in a strop claiming that it would stop people paying to see live shows. Before MP3 it was "home taping will kill music" from people taping off the radio.

One true claim is that the music industry supported CD. But then the reason for this was obvious. Bring in music only on a new format and people are forced to buy it on this format and may then replace their old collection on it. This was aided by the big 5 telling retailers they would no longer do "sale or return" on vinyl. Retailers then in turn didnt want to risk losing money on vinyl so drastically cut support of it in stores and started buying a vast majority of albums in on CD.

The impact of digital technology has opened doors for artists and many others involved in music; allowing more experimentation and sophisticated home recording, online real time musical collaborations, webcasts, enhanced sound - and the ability to share all that with a wider global audience.

The music industry will always make use of new technology - for example Super Audio CDs and DVD Audio, as well as the opportunities that new 3G phones bring. Technology is also helping the industry to transfer thousands of tracks in artists' back catalogues into digital format.

But while the methods of recording or distribution might change, what doesn't is that artists and those who work with them depend upon copyright and getting paid for their livelihood.
replace this with "all the leeches involved in releasing an album bar the artists wont make money if the consumers choose downloading"

[AlanG]

6. "There are no legitimate services out there for me to use, so I'm forced to fall back on the illegitimate ones."

There are already legitimate sites offering hundreds of thousands of tracks from all the major record companies and many independent labels - and more are appearing all the time.
wow, I have had MP3s since 1997, I dont recall there being any legitimate sites around at that time where I coudl download signed artists music. MP3.com and that was about it, then there was Napster etc a while later.

These sites offer better quality of product and service than illegal alternatives. Many are now offering transfer to portable devices. They are not progressing as quickly as hoped because of stiff competition from free music infringers who have sidestepped all the complex processes involved.
better quality? How is WMA better quality than 320Kbs MP3 with retained digital quality?

And it's just not good enough to say if I can't get it legally, I'll steal it.
So if an album is deleted and can no longer be purchased that is no legitimate reason to download the tracks until such time as the record company decides to re-release the tracks?

---------------------------------

7. "Piracy on the Internet may be a problem, but nothing can be done to stop it."

It is a huge problem, but it has to be stopped and it can be. The recording industry has many ways of stopping illegal downloading and file-sharing; from education programmes and the launch of legal alternatives to technological 'blocks' and - where necessary - deterrence through legal action.
It can be stopped?
Virtual networks
IRC
FTP
Direct connection
future anonymous p2p that encrypts your IP address and doesnt allow its storage for retrieval and ultimately capture.

no. It cant be stopped, accept it and move on.

The music industry has launched many initiatives to educate consumers and businesses around the world about the consequences of illegal online activity. Many people who enjoy music are simply unaware of the effect their actions have on bands and artists.

Everyone knows that one of the best ways to stop people from using the illegal sites is to provide them with good alternatives. Many companies are investing huge amounts in developing legal alternatives. It takes time because it's hard to compete with free, but it is happening.
oh thank ye oh wonderful industry execs for finally blessing us with what the consumers have wanted for 7years. Even although you offered no option on this before and refused to support such measures we will now all rally round you and do it your way.

We're also seeing the start of new systems used for a better electronic delivery of music on the internet. Digital rights management tools are being used to help track music online, so that everyone who needs to be is paid - all the way down the line. New technology is also being used in ever more sophisticated anti-copy control devices for music, similar to those already used on DVDs and computer software.
you mean more money wasted on ineffective copy-protection, how wonderful. Whatever soophisticated method is used there is still one to fall back on - headphone on stereo to input on pc soundcard. It can and will happen.

But there's more to stopping mass copyright theft than by just investing in new legitimate services. Indeed, those new services are not going to flourish if there isn't a fair space for them to develop without being stifled by online piracy. So those who ignore copyright laws should not expect an easy ride.
and those who abuse and twist copyright law should be stopped. The industries abuse of it is NOT what copyright was intened for.

Copyright exists to protect the rights of artists, allowing them to determine whether and how copying, distributing, broadcasting and other uses of their works take place.
then why do standard contracts sign over these rights to the record companies?

In addition, legislation around the world is being adopted to improve rights and technological protection to help fight piracy in the online world. People who breach copyright have to be prepared to face the appropriate legal penalties, including fines.
so for the people who cant afford to buy an album so download it they will be magically able to pay a fine? Logic error: please apply a clue.

[AlanG]

8. "File sharing and burning is just like home taping, and that never killed the music sector."

File sharing via the internet cannot be likened to copying tapes deck to deck at home. That's like comparing someone physically copying a letter to a printing house churning out hundreds of copies a minute of the same letter - and then making it available to absolutely everyone around the world for free.
it can if you extend the analogy to the radio stations being the ones who share the music to vast numbers of people. A radio station broadcasts a track to 100people listening. These people run a tape and copy therefore the radio station has allowed 100 copies to be made. No different to Little Billy allowing 100people to download a track from him.

CD recordable (CD-R) copying is comparable to a home version of the high-speed mass production of CDs in factories. You could burn as many as 200 albums onto multiple CD-R discs in less time than it takes you to read this web page. It's cheaper too - 20 years ago the first CD manufacturing facility cost US$1bn. Now the same capability is available to home users for less than US$100.
technology gets cheaper, whats your point?

The damage this sort of copying causes to music is enormous. But it also presents other dangers to the unwitting consumer. If you use a peer-to-peer service, you open your computer and all the information you've stored in it up to hundreds of strangers - simply at the touch of a button. When you use a file-sharing service you may unwittingly be acting as a 'mass distributor'; as whenever you're online every other user around the world has the ability to access your hard drive. And this could lead to problems with your personal computer, including the transmission of viruses.
if you dont know what you are doing it can leave you open to virus attacks. As for allowing areas of your PC to be accessed by "every other user" surely thats the point of file sharing?

------------------------------

9. "It's the record companies' fault for not getting their artists' tracks online quickly enough."

While it is very easy for anyone to upload an MP3 music file onto the net and give it away for nothing, what takes time is to do so in such a way that the online product is tracked through the process, with the artists, publishers, record companies, third party retailer all being paid their share of the price. The systems for doing this have had to be created from scratch and there have been complex negotiations between all the relevant parties in order to get the music licensed for digital sale.
seven years is quite long wouldnt you say?

Second, it is not true to say that record companies have not got their music online quickly enough. The music industry is far more advanced than any other in terms of producing its product for digital sale. What is true is that the appearance of the MP3 file format has meant that the music industry has been forced to grapple with issues of theft of intellectual property on the internet far sooner than other industries. Unlike most products where the internet is simply used to help sell the physical product, with music the virtual online copy is practically the same as the physical product.
wrong, their is no artwork and unless you cut out a chunk of your hard drive and store it in a box there is no "touchable physical product" either.

The speed with which the MP3 music file spread over the internet meant that as the music companies started to digitise their product, set up payment systems and invest in companies (some of which went bust in the early dotcom 'bubble') they were already in a situation where they were competing with free. And trying to compete against an over 99% pirate market on the internet is very difficult. Isn't it ridiculous to expect a record company who has to invest a huge amount in its artists to compete with a distributor who is giving music away? What high street bakery could survive the arrival of a competitor across the road who started giving away bread for free?
ah you mean like TESCO selling CDs as a loss leader, but then it increases sales for the record company while pulling in less money to then pass on to the artist per CD so you wouldnt want to make that comparison would you?

[AlanG]

10. "There's only one answer to piracy: lower CD prices."

In an ideal world everything would be free. Artists wouldn't need money to buy instruments. Record companies wouldn't invest money in recording. Designers and retailers would donate their time and talent scouts would not have any costs. Best of all, tax wouldn't exist. But let's face it, this is the real world. And legitimate companies who invest in and create music cannot be expected to compete with music taken and given away 'for free'. Whether we like it or not, all businesses have overheads and the business of music is no exception. Huge costs are spent on developing talent, from finding it to recording, producing, promoting, marketing and distributing it.
while at the same time the people who actually create the product through their own talent and skill get screwed over by the record execs. Oh hold on their was a giant pang of sympathy that I heard from the bottom of my heart.

It is also true that most criticism of CD prices springs from a misunderstanding of how much royalty, distribution, marketing and artist and repertoire development is reflected in the price of every CD that's sold. That's the real costs of a CD - not the cost of the disc itself.
yes and even less percentage points that then go to the artist who makes the CD possible more than anyone else. Heres an idea, MP3 online means no promotion costs or manufacturing costs, so thats that cut, distribution is switched to pay for bandwitch and the money rolls in and is divided between less people. What a wonderful idea...

It is another myth that studio executives pocket huge profits on everything they release. Profit in the business is rare - for every ten CDs the record companies put time and money into, generally only one brings a return on the original investment. Meanwhile the recording industry reinvests up to 25% of its turnover in new artists.
and the reason profits are so low? Because of the huge amount spread towards a tiny minority of artists. Because of the huge amount spent on lawyers and other hangers on.

Music is still excellent value for money compared with other entertainment products; the 'cost per hour' of consuming music is significantly cheaper than books and other print media, cinema-going and mobile phone use. Buying an album is an investment in music that you will own for life.
could that be the reason then that from 2000 onwards while consumption of all forms of entertainment media fell, music fell by the smallest percent, so although sales were falling, the music industry was not losing anywhere near as much ground as all other forms of entertainment media including DVD/Movies/Games etc

----------------------

11. "None of the money from online sales goes to the artist anyway."

You're quite right if you mean unauthorised online use! This is the major problem with unlicensed sites - the artist and everybody else in the chain doesn't get paid. If you mean legal downloads, this is simply untrue. Record companies pay artists royalties on sale of downloads in the same way as for sales of CDs. The share of the sale price that the artist receives depends upon the terms that the artist and record company agree and set down in the artist's contract.

lets examine the statement made:
"None of the money from online sales goes to the artist anyway."
when has this *ever* been claimed by anyone, ever? People claim that a small minority of the sales of CDs goes to artists, which is true, generally 12-13% minus 10% to managers etc. But this is teh first time Ive seen this claim anywhere.



Anyhoo, that concludes Alans monthly rant at music industry leeches.

[Misanthropy]

t0t4l pwnage

you could have replaced each of your points with "DIE CAPITALIST PIG!!"

[: : Scott : :]

ffs what a lame article.

[humndislocation]

www.sendthemback.org genius!!!

"It's time to make it right by giving back what we stole!" And that's just what we did! We sent back all the MP3's we'd illegally downloaded. Everyone one of them!"
...
It's Easy! Here's How!!
...
#3 Snail Mail 'em

1. Locate on your computer the first MP3 you want to send. (Hint: MP3s usually end with the letters ".MP3" or ".mp3"

2. Open up your hex editor. (Did you know that "hex" is short for "hexadecimal?" Well now you do!

3. Resize the hex dump (usually on the left side of the page) as small as it goes. You won't be needing it.

4. Drag-select the ASCII dump. Use the "copy" command.

5. Open your favorite word processor such as Microsoft Word™ or Microsoft WordPad™. Press "paste."

6. Set the page margins to 1" all around (2.54 centimeters). Consider single-spacing.

7. Load your printer with a fresh ream of paper. (Did you know that there are 500 pages in a ream?)

8. Press print.

9. Pack the paper carefully in a carton and take to the post office.

10. Send to the RIAA address in Method #2.


#4 Fax 'em

1. Follow the instructions for snail mailing, but do not go to the post office.

2. Look up the fax number of the nearest RIAA Regional Authority.

3. Load your fax machine with the paper. (Hint: Most fax machines can only load 10-20 pages at a time. Can you figure out how many batches your MP3s will take...without using a calculator!

4. Press send.