Non-Iraq/Non-Golf Post...Music Pirates/MP3/P2P

[Glenn]

What do you guys think of music sharing? The industry's in big trouble. CD sales are dying. Anyone with Kazaa can get any song in 1 minute for free.

Here's my take:

It is 100% the fault of the music industry. As a recent report I saw rightly pointed out, they have done nothing to embrace the MP3 format. All they do is sue. They overcharge, overpromote and release garbage.

Napster was the first to go. I didn't disagree with this, as Napster was set up to make money off of other people's work. But Kazaa Lite, an (ironically) hacked version of Kazaa, allows people to distribue music to other people in a setting where no one makes money. Is this wrong? On one level, yes. Basically, the artists are receiving nothing for their work. P2P file sharing is going to be very difficult to prevent though, and until the industry shapes up, it is a buyer's best option.

Free music downloads are not all bad. They allow people to explore all kind of music they never would have tried before. Recently, I was on a punk/hardcore kick so I downloaded a bunch of Black Flag and Dead Boys. Without P2P I would have just ignored it and put Use Your Illusion II or Jim Croce's Greatest Hits in again. No way I'm going to go spend $15 bucks on something I don't know if I'll like. Sometimes this leads to CD sales. But sometimes it leads to people just keeping/burning the music, especially if there's just one song they like.

So people are stealing music. Why? Well, it is easy, and free. But the real reason is that buying music is a total ripoff. It is not that hard or expensive to make a CD. Even with high end production, etc... So why does it cost $17.99 to buy one? And what if you only like one song...you have to pay $6 for the single...if a single is even available. Let's put this in perspective. Fight Club was rated the #1 DVD (best quality, coolest features, etc) by EW. Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition was #2...it contains 3 versions of the movie! How much do they cost? On Amazon, Fight Club is about $17 and Terminator 2 is about $20. Popular CD's are about $15. If one thinks about the difference between a movie (DVD) and a CD of music, it is not hard to see a big error in the market here. Packaging and raw materials for a major market CD costs what? A quarter or so? And how much does a CD cost to record? I am not exactly sure, but I can tell you it is a few orders of magnitude less than it costs to make a movie! It is a total joke that people are expected to buy a CD for $17 becuase they like two 4-minute songs. I don't buy CD's much becuase I go to the store and it ends up being between the Eminem show and the Seven Samuri. It's not close. Plust I can get the Eminem show for free. Sure, I think Eminem deserves his money. And if you tell me his address I'll be happy to send him a check for his per CD royalties...or mabye I'll just throw some nickels in the envelope /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

Another major advantage of P2P file sharing is the availability of rare/unusual versions of songs that one might not otherwise be able to obtain. It is my feeling that if someone who holds the rights to music/entertainment doesn't release it for sale themselves, it is fair game. It only serves to promote their artists anyways. For instance I have an MP3 of Bruce and M. Ethridge doing "Thunder Road" that is amazing. Other examples include the P2P-ubiquitous "Wild Horses" cover by Jewel. You can't get this stuff (in a legit fashion) on CD even if you tried, so is it wrong to get it for free?

What should the music industry do to fix this? They should embrace the format, and distribute the music electronically a low cost. For 25 cents a song (maybe 30 for new stuff, 15 for old?), they would do pretty well. Imagine having and account at a website where you could just search for any music ever, and then click and get it for a quarter a song. People would do that, and the artists would get their money. Some of the fat cat producers will suffer, but the market will adjust. (Note: Sug Knight is an exception, he should get whatever he wants since, well, I don't wanna get shot.) Look at a song like Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction". That is an awesome song, but who goes out and buys the CD? I bet people would buy the song for a quarter though. High profile, highly marketed, low talent artist like Britney or J Lo may suffer, but they suck anyways so good!

Thoughts?

[John Cole]

Glenn,

I just listened to Vaughn Monroe's "Ghost Riders in the Sky," Sly and the Family Stone's "If You Want Me to Stay," Mickey and Slyvia's "Love is Strange," and Tito Puente and Johnny Pacheco's "Gauntanamera." I'd probably pay a buck to have these on the hard drive.

John

[adios]

Excellent post. I'm fearing that the "genie is out of the bottle" though and I'm wondering if anyone would pay even the nominal fees you mention. Napster was killed but others live on and I'm afraid that the Music industry has done itself permanent damage.

[IrishHand]

*shrug*

I find it tough to get too worked up about millionaires making fewer millions. Even if bands didn't make a penny from CD sales, they could still rake it in doing tours (assuming they're either decent singers amr/or decent entertainers). Of course, the reality is that most people either (a) don't have regular Internet access, (b) don't have the intelligence or motivation to download songs and burn CDs or (c) don't feel that violating federal law on a regular basis is a good thing. Those 3 together will ensure that CDs still get sold in a fairly high volume.

As for the price of CDs, they'll charge whatever people will pay. Kind of tough to say they're too expensive when the music industry has been making insane amounts of money for years.

[John Ho]

Yeah but even if cds were like $5 people will still rather download them for free. Like it or not, this is the type of economy we have. It's a free market and they are charging what the market will bear. If you don't want the cd don't buy it. The record companies may rip everyone off but that does not justify stealing it on the Internet.

I mean it's not like there's a conspiracy to charge too much for food. Then I can see a justification for stealing food since that is threatening survival. But music is entertainment.

About your quarter a song thing...people won't pay a quarter a song when they can steal it for free. Plus artists with popular songs deserve to get rich don't they? If you can buy a book for $20 you can buy a cd for $20. Enforcement is the key here...not changing the marketplace.

[Glenn]

"I find it tough to get too worked up about millionaires making fewer millions. "

Me too, but it's funny to watch them screw themselves /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

"Even if bands didn't make a penny from CD sales, they could still rake it in doing tours (assuming they're either decent singers amr/or decent entertainers). "

Yeah, my understanding is that the bands/artists don't really make much per cd compared to the price tag.

"Of course, the reality is that most people either (a) don't have regular Internet access, (b) don't have the intelligence or motivation to download songs and burn CDs or (c) don't feel that violating federal law on a regular basis is a good thing."

In respose to A and B I would argue that the people who buy the most music (young people, audiophiles, etc...) are the ones who would also download music. It probably somewhat artist specific though, that is, Yanni's sales haven't been hurt too badly, but newer bands are getting killed. I've seen a number of statistics that show the industry's profits are dropping sharply. As far as federal law goes, downloading music is a crime equivalent to speeding or not paying the parking meter in most people's minds.

"As for the price of CDs, they'll charge whatever people will pay. "

That's what interesting from the reports I've seen. In response to dwindling sales, they have raised their prices which has driven more people away.

[Glenn]

"It's a free market and they are charging what the market will bear"

The market is all screwed up. They are self-destructing because they are charging more than the market will bear. Just because it is a free market system doesn't mean all parties are acting in their own best interest or can't improve their methods.

"If you don't want the cd don't buy it. The record companies may rip everyone off but that does not justify stealing it on the Internet."

I applaud your morals but in the real world millions do steal it so they need to work with that or they are going to get killed.

"About your quarter a song thing...people won't pay a quarter a song when they can steal it for free. "

I'm not suggesting that my one paragraph plan is the solution to the worlds problems, I was just throwing something out there. And yes, people will pay it if it is well marketed and convienent.

"Plus artists with popular songs deserve to get rich don't they?"

Yes. Of course they do. But from what I know (which could be very wrong) they get less than a dollar a CD in most cases, so where does the money go? Distributing the music directly and electronically would eliminate the retail markup which I imagine is pretty big. I mean what does Eminem care if Tower Records makes money? Also, the producers and record companies seem to be taking too much money out of the market. They are going to have to cut down on their take if they want to be around much longer.

"Enforcement is the key here...not changing the marketplace. "

The idea of enforcement in a peer to peer system where no one is making money is absolutely silly. What should we do send the feds out to arrest every 13-year-old in America? And then pay billions to have trials for the tens of millions of music downloading criminals? When there are no leaders to target and there are so may people involved, there is no way to enforce the laws. Say I share 100 songs on my computer? Should I go to jail for that? Should I be fined? Is it worth it to you as a taxpayer to pay for an investigation and a trial? This is not a solution. Sure you could "make an example" out of a few people, but honestly random justice is horrible.

[John Ho]

Sure you can make an example out of a few people. No different from a speeding ticket. P2P is tough to regulate but the piracy has to stop. It's no different than stealing. If it's not worth bringing people to trial for stealing intellectual property than what's the point of the laws? Some people don't think others have a right to their intellectual property. Most of your hackers and pirates feel that way and they are the ones who create and update the tools to share files. It has to stop.

As for the market being screwed up for cds I don't think that's true. People bought cds for years at the same price they are now. The difference is it is too easy to STEAL it now. It's just plain stealing no matter how you justify it. It's simple - if you don't want to pay the price for a cd don't buy. Listen to your favorite songs on the radio(whose availability is paid for by commercial time).

[Glenn]

". No different from a speeding ticket"

Do you need a warrant to track people's internet activity and and a court order for their ISP to release their name then a trial with a court appointed attorney for a speeding ticket? The idea of enforcement is a joke, think about what they'd actually have to do. Convicting a random person of a felony and ruining his life because he downloaded or uploaded a song is just plain dumb. So is spending my tax money on it. It is something the industry has to deal with. The government has more important things to do.

Also, you wrote:

"People bought cds for years at the same price they are now. "

Prices have gone up a lot recently.

[John Ho]

CD prices have gone up because of piracy. Before Napster and all the other P2P the prices were steady.

Of course the record companies raised prices. You have to charge the people who get it legally more to make up for the people who get it illegally for free. I'd have done the same thing. If the record companies lowered prices because of piracy it would do little to increase sales volume (since Internet pricing is still $0) and cut down their margins. It's a huge problem.

I don't think "ruining" someone's life for committing a felony is wrong. If someone has 1000 songs on his computer he needs to take the risk of going to jail or paying a $50 a song fine. Why not go further and not "ruin" someone's life for stealing a car (since insurance pays for it?)

[Glenn]

"I don't think "ruining" someone's life for committing a felony is wrong. "

So in your mind everyone I went to college with, and I mean literally everyone...5000 people at a tier one school...should all be investigated, heavily fined, and incarcerated? Keep in mind these people are doctors, lawyers, engineers, officers in the armed services, etc... Should the FBI spend millions to get these people? The fact is that while it's a crime, and is "wrong", it's a crime committed on a very low level by an enormous number of people. The cost to enforce the law would be very high because of the warrants and trial involved in penalizing just one person...and what kind of penalty can you reasonably give someone for uploading or downloading a song? I mean, making a mix tape for your girlfriend is legal as far as I know so there is a fuzzy area here. The downside of enforcement is huge compared to the "gain" of screwing a few random people. If it was like a parking ticket where they can just look at a car and stick a ticket on it this might help, but it's not. If you believe it should be enforced, explain how you would go about catching a Kazaa lite user, how much it would cost, and what you would actually convict him of, and if you can tell me it's reasonable econmically to do this (that is, the goverment should take money out of our salaries and do this instead of say building a road, a school, or tracking down a murderer) then I'll rethink this. I feel bad for artists like Metallica who are hurt by Kazaa, but as usual, the goverment is not the answer.

[John Ho]

I would actually advocate a fine of $50 for each pirated song on your computer. This way, people would reduce the amount of songs they download and likely restrict them to their "must have" rather than risk paying $50 for a bunch of songs they rarely listen to. The people they fine will help pay for enforcement. But it's really irrelevant how much it will cost. Either change the law and eliminate the concept of intellectual property or bite the bullet and combat one of the greatest mass thefts ever carried out.

I went to Berkeley and people pirated there too. What's the point? Hell when I was a kid people used to copy floppy disks which had games on them. Nothing has changed. It's not as hard as you think to track down these people. What you really want to focus on are people who share their songs with many people and have huge bandwidth. It's not so important to focus on the people who download. Kind of like going after drug kingpins over users or smaller dealers(though I think drugs should be legal).

You mentioned the high cost of warrants? How much do you think a warrant costs? And if we can prosecute people for shoplifting we can prosecute people for piracy. The pirated songs are right there on the computer and easy to prove.

Basically you are advocating the destruction of an entire industry because you want free music. What about the money they spend on scouting talent? Record executives spend hours and hours listening to demo tapes and seeing people live. They do this to find the next star who will make money for the company. They've done nothing illegal. They don't force us to listen to their music and when you buy a cd there are no hidden costs. You buy the cd and it's yours. And they are being ruined by people who don't want to pay money for their songs. It's called capitalism and people who pirate music and just thieves. I have no problem with record companies dying because something better came along. But it would be a shame to see them die because everyone decided they wanted to steal.

[John Ho]

To answer your question about what I would prosecute them for...I'm not a lawyer but I could think of Grand Theft and racketeering. Not sure about racketeering but I think a good prosecutor could make it stick.