Another LONG rant about people not paying for music

[jwhitcomb3]

I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is: after pointing out that a tangible loss is a financial loss, you asked me to explain the tangible loss of the owner, and I did so.

Somehow you seem to be arguing that the owner is only harmed when the person who robbed them could have plausibly paid for what he stole. This is a nonsequitur. The owner is harmed by the theft of his property regardless of who the robber is or the robber's circumstances.

Put more simply, the owner experiences the same loss whether the thief is a rich or a poor man.

[MCChris]

Most of the people with broadband internet connections in the USA are middle class.

The middle class has seen their incomes fall consistently since the 70's.

Now, most middle class households are strapped for cash and can't afford to buy music like they did in the past.

If people had more discretionary income, they could buy more music legitimately.

I was buying box sets and CDs like you couldn't believe in the 90's... my collection is massive as a result.

Now, I can barely afford to put gas in the car, so buying music stopped.

Do I stop listening and getting more music? No.

Hence the downloading rise being congruent with the decline in middle class incomes.

So artists should quit feeling entitled to compensation for their creativity, but broke folks should continue to feel entitled to expensive devices, internet connections and data plans that they probably can't afford?

I mean, you're a lawyer... prove how they are financially hurt instead of presenting straw man arguments and sidetracking the issue.

Same way an employee is hurt when his boss claims to be penniless that week and informs said employee he won't be paying him.

[django49]

Way back when, as a relatively impoverished student, I got a ton of recordings on reel to reel.....Sometimes off the air (Local station helped by playing new albums without commercial breaks) or by borrowing/sharing albums (to copy). It was cheap, and of somewhat lesser quality. But it exposed me to a LOT of stuff I would have never actually bought at that time.

Funny thing happened. As the CD thing (and other digital options) came along, I ended up BUYING most of that stuff. Some I have not purchased, often because it has never MADE IT to digital formats. (I DID transfer some of those old recordings to digital before the old reel to reels finally crapped out for good). Somehow or another, after all those years, I ended up with over 2000 LPs and 6000 CDs. (Yeah, I know, I am compulsive).......And my nephews think I am nuts for having all this in space filling physical product.

I do NOT like the requests to "burn me a free copy" and put that off limits. However, I DO sometimes make a compilation disc for someone as a loan to expose them to different artists and encourage them to seek out their broader discography. (SOMETIMES that works). And, of course, burn some copies of more obscure cuts when I am (well, when I WAS) in a band and we needed to all hear the same tune for learning to play it purposes.

And I made a bunch of compilations, from things I DO own, so I can pick a genre or two and load them up in the car.....Yep, personal use.....If I was not an old fart, I suppose I'd go to MP3/iPod/etc. But these meet our needs and have great sound quality.

I have never been in the situation of making money (more than a token amount) from any (alleged) personal music ability.....Guess that was a good thing, as I was forced to learn what I WAS good at......But I do appreciate the need to have a good economic model so we do not lose too much talent.

And I do try to support real artists, either buying their recordings or going to their shows. I hope enough others are honest enough to value their work so we can keep the talent alive.

[specialk]

By the way, I am close to completing my first novel. I recognize that the day of $40k advances for successful novelists is gone. I realize that I will have to market my butt off and choose the correct pricing to sell more than to my family members, but in my opinion, that is balanced by the fact that I am not being kept out/down by the publishing industry and can get my work to potential readers w/o gatekeepers. But part of the environment will include people disseminating digital copies in a manner that undermines my earning potential.

That's life.

Nathan,

Concerning your novel:

http://www.amazon.com/

Best of luck with it!

[zenmindbeginner]

I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is: after pointing out that a tangible loss is a financial loss

Jeeze Louise... I said in therms of theft, tangible loss usually means financial loss. Really, you are not intellectually superior to me, so lose your tone.

Somehow you seem to be arguing that the owner is only harmed when the person who robbed them could have plausibly paid for what he stole. This is a nonsequitur. The owner is harmed by the theft of his property regardless of who the robber is or the robber's circumstances.

You are inferring and putting words in my mouth again. The theft of a binary file which wasn't stocked in a store, sitting in a warehouse or in someone's place of business or home is not the same as stealing someone's inventory or personal possessions out of their home. I know you want to have some sort of lunatic argument where I am advocating theft by poor people, but that's really all in your head. You'll have to take both sides on that one.

So artists should quit feeling entitled to compensation for their creativity, but broke folks should continue to feel entitled to expensive devices, internet connections and data plans that they probably can't afford?

Interesting point and and a better inference than jwhitcomb's but still sort of exaggerating and kind of distorting my point.

When I say I don't have any money, I don't have much discretionary money left over after I pays my bills... I can pay my data plans and bought the computer with which I use... I don't feel entitled to shit when I work for it and pay for it with the money I earned.

I don't feel that people who can afford it should steal music because they can... I was only illustrating an example where some illegal downloading doesn't actually hurt the artist and can actually expose more people to their music and ultimately increase their popularity.

[jisham]

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

Arguing that artists need to be coddled by society is even sillier.

Do you know how many illegal copies obtained would have been sales if the illegal download weren't available?

Of course you don't.

But until you do, you can't really use the number of illegal downloads as a basis of your argument.

I'm not suggesting we coddle artists, only pay them the same way we pay for other products we choose to own.

I also don't need a number because I'm not suggesting that since "some" consumers are paying the artists should quit complaining. I'm suggesting every song that is downloaded should be paid for, so the number of illegal vs legal doesn't make or break my position as it does yours.

Eh, you may have misunderstood my point. Which is only fair, because I probably obscured it too much.

I'm not defending illegal downloads. I, too, think that people should pay for what they download.

I am saying that fighting against illegal downloads is a waste of artists' time. I am also saying that the fact that there is a huge market for legal downloads, and a huge market for illegal downloads, is a moderately unambiguous sign that many artists are overpricing their product.

Many (but not all) artists have a choice: illegal downloads or zero downloads. Meaning, the value of their work is not even $1/song. They need to face it.

Other artists have a choice: illegal downloads or cheaper downloads. They need to use whatever level of fame they have to add value to a download if they want to maximize the price. If they want to just make music and not be bothered with marketing, they must accept lower pricing.

But there will always be some theft, because some people are always thieves. You can't price candy bars cheap enough to never have shoplifting.

So now that we know that:

1) ending all illegal downloading is impossible

2) illegal downloading is vastly reduced if the music has a fair price

3) the fair price (as set by the market) is often lower than the current prices in the current system

Thus:

4) Artists need to face up to the fact that if they really want to be an artist, they need to have a full-time job separate from their music. It can be a corporate job, it can be in the service industry, or it can be marketing their own work. But the days of making a living as a professional pop music star have (at least temporarily) changed beyond recognition. Being a rock star was always about selling yourself to some extent, not just your music. That just got kicked into overdrive.

The fact is, entertainment options are exploding. People don't need to listen to new music anymore, not when there are massive catalogs of music.

When I was a kid, having 80 cassette tapes was a pretty big collection, although there were certainly some with 200.

Now, having 800 different albums on your iPod is nothing. And that's just a classic rock collection.

What's the answer? Dunno.

I think it will all shake out. Some artists will be left behind, just like when video killed the radio star. Just like when Grunge killed Hair Metal. Some will prosper. New artists will rise. A new business model will emerge.

It sucks in the meantime, but no one is owed anything. Music won't die, even if the the industry does.

[diablo175]

Just like when Grunge killed Hair Metal.

Oh my god, they killed Hair Metal. YOU BASTARDS!

[hamerhead]

I miss the old days of buying an album and making cassette copies for my buddies.

...or is that the same thing?..........

[MCChris]

I miss the old days of buying an album and making cassette copies for my buddies.

...or is that the same thing?..........

Similar. Takes a lot more effort to make a cassette copy or burn a CD than to simply click on a link to download a file. File sharing also is much more viral. You can't make hundreds or thousands of cassette copies in a matter of seconds.

[jwhitcomb3]

The theft of a binary file which wasn't stocked in a store, sitting in a warehouse or in someone's place of business or home is not the same as stealing someone's inventory or personal possessions out of their home.

Actually, in the eyes of the law, it is exactly the same thing.

[jwhitcomb3]

Jeeze Louise... I said in therms of theft, tangible loss usually means financial loss. Really, you are not intellectually superior to me, so lose your tone.

Perhaps my tone would have been more respectful if your first reply to my post hadn't been "fuck you."

[zenmindbeginner]

Jeeze Louise... I said in therms of theft, tangible loss usually means financial loss. Really, you are not intellectually superior to me, so lose your tone.

Perhaps my tone would have been more respectful if your first reply to my post hadn't been "fuck you."

For the win.

[MCChris]

Jeeze Louise... I said in therms of theft, tangible loss usually means financial loss. Really, you are not intellectually superior to me, so lose your tone.

Perhaps my tone would have been more respectful if your first reply to my post hadn't been "fuck you."

LOL!!!

[zenmindbeginner]

Jeeze Louise... I said in therms of theft, tangible loss usually means financial loss. Really, you are not intellectually superior to me, so lose your tone.

Perhaps my tone would have been more respectful if your first reply to my post hadn't been "fuck you."

LOL!!!

I know... That will make you spit out whatever yer drinkin'.

[earachemyeye]

You guys are killin me.

[a.bandini]

The original article shamed me into deleting the two out of nearly 4000 songs I have in my iTunes account I didn't pay for. I wish I hadn't gotten those. Shame on me.

[Turdus]

The original article shamed me into deleting the two out of nearly 4000 songs I have in my iTunes account I didn't pay for. I wish I hadn't gotten those. Shame on me.

Ha... I'm an Emusic addict, and I just about puked when I added how much I've spent over there in the last couple years.... it's not the monthly fees, but the countless booster packs I buy every month. I hope some artist somewhere got a happy meal out of it all.

[polara]

Didn't wade through every word of this, but there were some points made that I though were quite good. The biggest one is that, like like the rise of the middle class, more than a TINY handful of musicians being able to make a living that brings them any sort of comfort is a historic anomaly, a weird period in history. I think, as has been noted before me, the confluence of the return of feudalism (sadly I think it's mankind's natural tendency) and the digitization/virtualization of all cultural artifacts is going to result in a return to the "old days" of music. It was done at home, for fun, or by traveling folk musicians/troubadors, or a handful of academic/elites in some sort of patronage system.

In the short term, I've wished there were a system that allowed people to take my work -- my recordings into which I piled thousands of dollars -- for free, in return for my being granted the same from them. Free food, booze, gasoline, clothing. But if technology ALLOWS people to take what they want with no consequences, that -- for right or not -- effectively makes supply limitless and thus the fair market value nil.

And then society quirky rearranges its value systems so that a previous generation's theft is a new generation's entitlement. Pity the watchmaker, the printer of phone books, the big three TV networks. Society, through the cold lenses of technology and economics, has rendered its verdict. Someday when we're all toiling in the digital mills to increase the wealth of our our biomechanically-enchanced immortal lords, we serfs might hear legends of the days of rock stars and LPs, but it'll be just words.

[3of5]

I've been telling people for twenty five years that retirement too, was a short term fluke. An anomoly of our brief, incredible, prosperity and egalitarianism. Historically people have worked until they physically could not. For myself, I know that I am going to be working into my 70's.

[3of5]

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame

"I am saying that fighting against illegal downloads is a waste of artists' time. I am also saying that the fact that there is a huge market for legal downloads, and a huge market for illegal downloads, is a moderately unambiguous sign that many artists are overpricing their product.

Many (but not all) artists have a choice: illegal downloads or zero downloads. Meaning, the value of their work is not even $1/song. They need to face it.

Other artists have a choice: illegal downloads or cheaper downloads. They need to use whatever level of fame they have to add value to a download if they want to maximize the price. If they want to just make music and not be bothered with marketing, they must accept lower pricing.

But there will always be some theft, because some people are always thieves. You can't price candy bars cheap enough to never have shoplifting."

There is a serious flaw in this argument that artists are overpricing there product. If almost anyone can steal a product, any product, with almost complete anonymity and no almost no chance of being caught, then the value of that product will be zero. Any price would be too high, even 1 cent. It is still easier, faster and cheaper to steal than to pay. Actually in this case it may be safer to steal than to pay because you don't have to reveal your credit card number.

I work with a fair number of teens and young adults and the prevailing attitude now seems to be that if you paid for music then you are just dumb.

[Disturber]

Ouch, this turned in to a long thread that kinda slid of the rails. Although I enjoy your witty post Polara, always good to read your wise words. And Zen too.

I think Corgan puts the finger on someting in this interview here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AeDRsdGz_E

Plus 2 minutes in to the vid.

Okay, I need to go and see a man about a kebab. See ya´ later

[Studio Custom]

Most of the people with broadband internet connections in the USA are middle class.

The middle class has seen their incomes fall consistently since the 70's.

Now, most middle class households are strapped for cash and can't afford to buy music like they did in the past.

If people had more discretionary income, they could buy more music legitimately.

I was buying box sets and CDs like you couldn't believe in the 90's... my collection is massive as a result.

Now, I can barely afford to put gas in the car, so buying music stopped.

Do I stop listening and getting more music? No.

Hence the downloading rise being congruent with the decline in middle class incomes.

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

The middle class has chosen to be debt slaves and that does not absolve them from being thieves.

The average home size has nearly doubled in 30 years, not only has that made the home more expensive to buy, but also more expensive to heat, air condition and insure. Families use to have one TV, one telephone and one car. Now its normal for people to have at least one per person. Vacations use to involve the family going somewhere in their car, often to a relative. Now people fly to Miami to catch a cruise.

Our consumption is tenfold, but versus inflation our incomes are flat. It is disingenuous to say we are poor when we live the most lavish lifestyles ever known to man. The middle class has chosen to stretch beyond their means to keep pace with their neighbors, so they are willfully "poor".

[gorch]

I don't have any money and so when I download for free, I wasn't a candidate for a legitimate sale in the first place. It's not like they can count on my spending dollars anymore because there aren't any.

The problem is when you already HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE CD AND CHOOSE NOT TO, not the working poor being able to listen to a new song once a month because they downloaded it illegally.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing.

Guess we need a new government entitlement program to give free music to people who can't afford to buy it on iTunes

... and don't forget to put a pair of roses in Steve's grave to thank him for the invention of iTunes. I see my shares climb.

[JohnnyB]

When the recording industry moved to digital recording in the '70s (mostly classical except for Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop"), it was to lower the noise floor, consistently present a 20-20KHz bandwidth, and have a more realistic dynamic range. In other words, to improve the product. In some ways it did, but it also made violins sound like ass and cymbal crashes sound like white noise. In the '80s when the popular music industry switched to CD, one enticement was to be able to sell their back catalog to baby boomers all over again. It worked. Millions tossed out or garaged their LPs and started snatching up CDs as they became available.

Once the digital cat was let out of the bag, over time the industry encountered unintended consequences. It turns out they'd shot themselves in the foot. When recording analog-to-analog, you have to record in real time. It takes roughly 40 minutes in two 20-minute segments to dub an LP to a cassette. How long does it take to rip a CD at full resolution? 3 minutes? Then came mp3, where a 770 MB CD is crushed to a fraction of that. Now how long does it take to make a copy? 30 seconds? By the old method, no one would have 11,000 songs on their iPod. It would take 640 hours (16 work weeks) to record 11,000 songs in real time.

At the recording end, where aspiring artists had to scrape together $200/hour studio money or get signed, now anybody with a PC and a small investment could get a software package, a better sound card, and build a home studio with near infinite multi-tracking plus pitch and timing correction, reverb, un-name-it, and record their own stuff.

Between ripping on the consumer end and computer-based recording on the supply end, the supply/demand equation for recorded music went into the toilet.

The supply/demand equation is the plate tectonics of economics. Once supply and demand (which includes perceived value of the product) shifts, no amount of outside intervention can substantially change it. Where recorded music formerly required expensive studio time and professional engineers, now it could be done inexpensively by the artists themselves. Where copying used to be laborious and time-consuming, one could easily rip thousands and thousands of songs in a short period of time. Where music used to be recorded in analog by professionals committed to their craft, it is now pieced together, auto-tuned, re-timed, "fixed in the mix", and so on. The resulting product does not provoke emotional involvement. In other words, today's recorded music seldom does what music is intended to do--make you feel something. Instead, the resulting product simply becomes the individualized daily soundtrack for the millions who wear earbuds as if they were a permanent ear growth.

Music used to be valuable, desirable, and worth sacrifice at both ends. The Beatles were on the road for nearly 5 years (including a horrific year of squalor in Hamburg) before they laid down tracks at EMI 50 years ago. At the consumer end, a 30-40 minute LP, adjusted for inflation, cost nearly $25 in today's money. We paid it gladly for what that music did for us.

My points are that music has gone from a precious commodity to something as cheap and plentiful as fill dirt. And like fill dirt, most people now dig up their own rather than buying it.

The difference is that fill dirt isn't copyrighted. It doesn't represent writers and performers sweating out a performance to make you feel good. If you don't think the current product is worth buying, don't steal it; demand better. Even in the digital age, better product is available. There are now HD download services where you can buy the equivalent of the original 24-bit/192 KHz master. HDTracks.com doesn't worry much about DRM because the sheer size of these music files discourages rampant downloading and hoarding. They also sound really really good--good enough to restore that sense of emotional involvement in the music.