Excellent post about filesharing/free downloading of music

[Lurker765]

I really don't understand how people can justify not giving money to artists who create something they enjoy. And to blame this on "business models" or "distributors" or such.

At this point in time you can mostly buy straight from the artists website. Or at worst you can purchase from iTunes or Amazon where a cut will make it to the artist. It seems that the ease of use barrier is completely gone and the only reason someone still gets illegal downloads is because they don't want to give money to anyone including the artist who created the music.

Every single song I own either came from a CD that I bought and then ripped or from tunes legally downloaded. I still use things like Grooveshark or Pandora to preview an album or song, but if I like it I buy it from a legal source.

[senorsheep]

You're missing the point. You're just looking at the thing from the perspective of one of the parties who are losing out ... and not asking why it's happening and who's at fault. The internet has completely changed the music industry ... not illegal downloading ... it has completely revolutionized the entire fabric of the business: how the music is bought, sold, packaged, distributed, promoted, exchanged, recommended, reviewed, recorded, scouted. Everything has changed ... apart from the record industry.

Every industry has been transformed by the Internet. Many many companies and even industries have completely gone out of business, others have had their profit margins shrunk as they fail to adapt, or their business models become obsolete. However, others have seen their profit margins massively increase ... and music should have been one of those industries, because it is perfectly suited for the Internet and social media sharing and distribution. Instead, the music industry made the Internet their enemy, and let entrepreneurs, tech companies, venture capitalists invest in often simple 3rd party environments to trade and exchange music. They are the ones taking the profits while the record companies, still locked into their obsolete business practices, just picking up the scrapes ... and firing the blame everywhere but their own back door.

Why are the artists suffering? Because the the guardians of their welfare (in terms of sales) are the still locked into a business model that belongs somewhere in the 1980's.

I'm not missing the point at all. I worked in that business for eight years. I understand completely how the major labels brought this down upon themselves through their greed and short-sightedness, and why and how the file share distribution model evolved. That's not in dispute.

I don't care about the fortunes of Warner Music or Universal or Sony. I do care about the fortunes of artists like David Lowery, and, yes, I am very focused on the artist perspective. How do guys like David Lowery and Kevn Kinney survive on scraps in this brave new word of file sharing? Artists like them aren't going to make it on the road warrior jam band financial model. How can their interests be protected in this new distribution paradigm? Or should they be? You seem oddly uninterested in these questions.

[johnnya24]

I really don't understand how people can justify not giving money to artists who create something they enjoy. And to blame this on "business models" or "distributors" or such.

At this point in time you can mostly buy straight from the artists website. Or at worst you can purchase from iTunes or Amazon where a cut will make it to the artist. It seems that the ease of use barrier is completely gone and the only reason someone still gets illegal downloads is because they don't want to give money to anyone including the artist who created the music.

Every single song I own either came from a CD that I bought and then ripped or from tunes legally downloaded. I still use things like Grooveshark or Pandora to preview an album or song, but if I like it I buy it from a legal source.

It's almost a completely separate issue ... the record companies are blaming illegal downloading for the collapse in their profits. It is not illegal downloading, it is their own fundamental failure to adapt to the Internet that has caused this problem. Why was it left to Apple and Amazon to create the online music market? Apple are a hardware / software manufacturer, and Amazon a general retailer who started off specializing in book sales. a computer maker and a book seller transform the Internet music industry while the actual music industry do nothing (unless you call stymieing progress something)

We are all pointing the finger here ... but no-one seems to want to point it in the right direction.

Yes we all want to artists get paid for their work. Few would suggest otherwise. The game has completely changed, but the arguments haven't. It's not the 70's and 80's anymore. Those days of massive physical record sales, strict monopolization of the market and inflation of the prices are long gone. Even if you take away all illegal downloading, those days are still gone.

Too much attention is paid to illegal downloading, deflecting from the real issues. Illegal downloading is only a very small part of the equation. The biggest part is the record companies themselves, and their massive collective failure to represent the artists. WAIT! WHAT? Record companies are acting in their own self interests and not in the interests of the artists? STOP THE PRESS! The record companies viewed the Internet as a challenge to their monopoly of the market. They could either fight it and try and stop the tide, or embrace it. They chose to fight it and lost badly. The artists are collateral damage in the record companies attempt to stem the tide of progress. The winners ... Apple, Amazon etc etc. The losers ... small / medium artists who have been let down by the failure of the record industry to provide them with a platform online.

[Lurker765]

What are you talking about johnny? At this very moment in time you can buy songs directly from the artist websites themselves. Or from iTunes or Amazon with no DRM. Maybe in the past you could justify illegal song downloading -- not now.

And why do you keep mentioning 70s and 80s. Napster started in June of 1999. MP3 format was not even released publicly until 1995. Most people were still using dialup modems in the 90s. The new era of digital downloads didn't really start until the 2000s, not the 1980s.

I doubt anyone in here cares about major record labels. We care about the artists being supported for their work. This thread started with a music General Manager at a radio station stating she had 11,000 songs which she mostly didn't pay for.

[DMT]

No one responded when I compared musicians to athletes but I'd like to continue with that point for a bit. Of all the players who get drafted and go pro, only a tiny percentage of them make it to the bigs. An even smaller percentage become big stars with multi-million dollar deals. Minimum wage players earn ~$400K but their careers are generally short. Minor leaguers make much less. Artists and athletes both know the financial risks of their profession. If they can't hack it, then they can either choose to continue struggling and hope they someday will or they can find a new career. Nothing new.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120311/EDIT05/303119969/1021/EDIT

All players (even those with large bonuses) are paid “minor league scale” once they sign. Minor league scale at the TinCaps’ level is currently $1,100 per month (and players only get paid during the season) plus $25 per day in meal money when the team is on the road. Even at the “highest” level of the minor leagues, AAA, scale is only $2,150 per month plus the same $25 per day in meal money.

I discussed this with a group of friends and the best reply so far was: "Musicians are paid in pu$$y, not kaish. Rationalization complete."

[johnnya24]

I'm not missing the point at all. I worked in that business for eight years. I understand completely how the major labels brought this down upon themselves through their greed and short-sightedness, and why and how the file share distribution model evolved. That's not in dispute.

I don't care about the fortunes of Warner Music or Universal or Sony. I do care about the fortunes of artists like David Lowery, and, yes, I am very focused on the artist perspective. How do guys like David Lowery and Kevn Kinney survive on scraps in this brave new word of file sharing? Artists like them aren't going to make it on the road warrior jam band financial model. How can their interests be protected in this new distribution paradigm? Or should they be? You seem oddly uninterested in these questions.

Where is this notion coming from that back in the good old days musicians were all rich and made fortunes from record sales. That is not how I remember it. Most musicians through the history of the industry have struggled to eek out a living. There seems to be this assumption that everyone who is struggling now, would have been a roaring success if it wasn't for illegal file sharing.

If there were no record companies ... no artist would ever have made money. Artists have relied on record companies to get them the distribution, promotion, sales, exposure. The collapse of artists earnings, your major concern, all stems from the failure of the record industry. So I'm not sure how and why you are not caring about the fortunes of the record companies, because as far as I can see, the two are inextricably linked.

Back in the pre-Internet days ... I couldn't get my hands on so much music I wanted because it just wasn't available. I was sadly completely dependent on the record companies and the big chains (who by the 90's had squeezed out all the small/niche retailers) for distribution and availability. In the 70's 80's 90's the record companies by and large provided a platform for artists to sell and promote themselves ... and both sides made out for the most part. In the 00's the record companies let down the artists badly. The goal posts moved. The way we listen to music changed. The way we acquire music changed.

Over the last 12 years, where is RIAAStore.com ... with a full catalogue of all their artists recordings? We have had numerous illegal file sharing methods during this time: napster, other file sharing networks, torrents, direct downloading from storage farms ... all of which gradually came to dominate the Internet file sharing landscape in a very short space of time. Where was the RIAA store were we can get this all legally? Where could people go to stream, download and purchase straight from the manufacturer? Nowhere ... we still can't. The profit margin for the record companies would have been huge, the overheads next to nothing, the price of the products could have been massively reduced without effecting profit margins, and they could even have accounted for illegal downloading.

Not to mention the GIGANTIC levels of web traffic and the billions of advertising $ and subsidiary revenue lost.

Why are the artists suffering ... fundamentally because of the failure (and continuing failure) of the recording industry. The two are inextricably linked.

You mitigate illegal file sharing by offering a legal service that provides all of the same choices as the illegal sources. You further mitigate file sharing by providing a better service than any of the illegal networks ... because they basically provide no service at all. You further mitigate illegal downloading by embracing technology and the Internet and staying one set ahead ... mobile availability etc. But you can't do any of this if like the record industry, you leave it up to Apple and Amazon and Spotify to take all the inventive steps while you hang around the courts pissing into the wind.

[DMT]

From the article:

$35K/year average for doing something they love? Many social workers out there or daycare providers would love to make $35K/year doing stuff they love too.

[johnnya24]

What are you talking about johnny? At this very moment in time you can buy songs directly from the artist websites themselves. Or from iTunes or Amazon with no DRM. Maybe in the past you could justify illegal song downloading -- not now.

And why do you keep mentioning 70s and 80s. Napster started in June of 1999. MP3 format was not even released publicly until 1995. Most people were still using dialup modems in the 90s. The new era of digital downloads didn't really start until the 2000s, not the 1980s.

I doubt anyone in here cares about major record labels. We care about the artists being supported for their work. This thread started with a music General Manager at a radio station stating she had 11,000 songs which she mostly didn't pay for.

I read your posts, why not read mine if you are going to respond ...

Every time you buy a song from itunes, Apple take their cut before the record companies, then the artists get theirs. Millions lost to middle men every week, while the RIAA are spending fortunes trying to close down The Pirate Bay. Billions of $$ lost to the record industry and ergo the artists in the last 12 years while the RIAA do nothing.

I'm not talking about "now" ... I'm talking about the last 12 years ... which is the period when illegal file sharing has become ingrained into 2 generations of music listeners. The horse has well and truly bolted ... and still the recording industry is harping on about illegal file sharing while Apple and Amazon etc are running off their revenues.

There is no point talking about the causes of this or that and totally ignoring actual causes.

[OaklandA's]

You mitigate illegal file sharing by offering a legal service that provides all of the same choices as the illegal sources. You further mitigate file sharing by providing a better service than any of the illegal networks ... because they basically provide no service at all. You further mitigate illegal downloading by embracing technology and the Internet and staying one set ahead ... mobile availability etc. But you can't do any of this if like the record industry, you leave it up to Apple and Amazon and Spotify to take all the inventive steps while you hang around the courts pissing into the wind.

We can't change the past - why are you so focused on that? You still haven't explained what is wrong with using the many legal ways of obtaining music today. The artists have agreed to put their music on Amazon, Apple, etc., and they get a cut of the money. They don't get a cut from the various torrent sites. I am surprised that you can't see or don't care about the difference.

[senorsheep]

$35K/year average for doing something they love? Many social workers out there or daycare providers would love to make $35K/year doing stuff they love too.

I've got to think that's pretty heavily skewed by the few who are pulling in millions annually. In any case, I was pointing out that the $100,000 figure being thrown around earlier was not the norm.

I'm kind of surprised by the "Let them eat cake (crumbs)" attitude towards the artists being expressed here.

[heyelander]

$35K/year average for doing something they love? Many social workers out there or daycare providers would love to make $35K/year doing stuff they love too.

really? A fan of baseball is using the "people should be happy with what they make, at least they are doing something they love" trope?

[Lurker765]

I read your posts, why not read mine if you are going to respond ...

Every time you buy a song from itunes, Apple take their cut before the record companies, then the artists get theirs. Millions lost to middle men every week, while the RIAA are spending fortunes trying to close down The Pirate Bay. Billions of $$ lost to the record industry and ergo the artists in the last 12 years while the RIAA do nothing.

I'm not talking about "now" ... I'm talking about the last 12 years ... which is the period when illegal file sharing has become ingrained into 2 generations of music listeners. The horse has well and truly bolted ... and still the recording industry is harping on about illegal file sharing while Apple and Amazon etc are running off their revenues.

There is no point talking about the causes of this or that and totally ignoring actual causes.

I do read your posts. I read all these posts. In fact my answer to this post is:

We can't change the past - why are you so focused on that? You still haven't explained what is wrong with using the many legal ways of obtaining music today. The artists have agreed to put their music on Amazon, Apple, etc., and they get a cut of the money. They don't get a cut from the various torrent sites. I am surprised that you can't see or don't care about the difference.

You mention millions lost to middle men -- that is true in every industry in the world. But, in this case you can actually cut out the middle man by going directly to the artist's website in many, many cases. And still you don't.

[DMT]

really? A fan of baseball is using the "people should be happy with what they make, at least they are doing something they love" trope?

Not sure where I said that. My point is that the music industry is like nearly every other industry (including baseball) in that those at the top make tons of $ while the vast majority earn far less.

[johnnya24]

We can't change the past - why are so focused on that? You still haven't explained what is wrong with using the many legal ways of obtaining music today. The artists have agreed to put their music on Amazon, Apple, etc., and they get a cut of the money. They don't get a cut from the various torrent sites. I am surprised that you can't see or don't care about the difference.

It's not the past, it's very much the present.

File sharing will reduce over time ... the integration of the various forms of digital technology will help see to that. But it will never fully go away ... it has always been around in any case (since the days of the cassette recorder).

My problem is that it is third parties (tech firms, book sellers, start ups) who are the ones driving the online aspect of the industry, not the Recording Industry. The more money these vehicles are making (billions annually) the less money is filtering through to the artists. It is the fragmentation of the industry that is the fundamental concern, and that is where the recording industry has failed the artists. How is a small time singer songwriter supposed to get noticed in the splurge of the Internet? Previously s/he would be talent spotted, signed up, and given exposure ... now? It's almost impossible because the Recording industry have allowed things to become fragmented to the point were the distributors are now more important than the record labels ... and Apple and Amazon don't give two sh!ts about the artists they only care about the bottom line.

I could release a track today and stick it on a brand new website, on iTunes, on Amazon store ... I can even self publish a book ... all sounds great, all very democratic, I keep almost all of the profits, wonderful ... only thing is ... 99% of the time no-one is going to buy it or even hear about it. For every success story you hear about on the Internet, there are 10's of thousands of people who are trying and can't get noticed. The record companies are nowhere to be seen ... they are basically clueless.

It is the Internet, not file sharing that is the issue. And fundamentally the failure of the recording industry to adapt to the internet, and as a consequence the complete fragmentation of the industry. File sharing is not good, people should support their favorite artists of course ... but it is not the crux of the issue. it is not why artists are struggling ... it is a symptom of the record industry's continual failure.

[johnnya24]

I do read your posts. I read all these posts. In fact my answer to this post is:

We can't change the past - why are you so focused on that? You still haven't explained what is wrong with using the many legal ways of obtaining music today. The artists have agreed to put their music on Amazon, Apple, etc., and they get a cut of the money. They don't get a cut from the various torrent sites. I am surprised that you can't see or don't care about the difference.

You mention millions lost to middle men -- that is true in every industry in the world. But, in this case you can actually cut out the middle man by going directly to the artist's website in many, many cases. And still you don't.

You haven't read my posts clearly. Totally never said anything of the sort.