Entertainment For Lively Minds
Nothing comes for free?
Ok… I’m giving up my life of crime. Going straight. Changing my ways for the love of a good man. I fought the law and the law won. Etc, etc, blah, blah. My name is Miss Demeanour and until recently, I stole music and films off the internet.
Now I’ve heard all the arguments regarding copywright law, billions in lost revenue, the purchase of pirate CDs and DVDs propping up arms dealing, people trafficking, drug smuggling and even Knock Off Nigel, but these could all be countered by the shiny gold twinkly sign in my head saying FREE STUFF FOR ME!
The Damascene moment came when the aforementioned good man pointed out to me that nothing comes for free. Now as persuasive as the FREE STUFF FOR ME! argument is, the shiny goldness was somewhat tarnished. Even the most turgidly dreadful landfill indie bands need to buy instruments, studio time, technical assistance, marketing, hair gel, skinny black jeans etc to produce their output? If you don’t want it, no-one’s forcing you to have it, but if you do, why should they not be paid? This argument for me goes back to the days of renting tapes from the library and copying them and FREE STUFF FOR ME! worked as well then as it did up to a couple of days ago. The difference is all about scale. You would probably copy a CD for around 10 friends. A tape would probably be rented out by a library about 20 times before someone’s cassette player chewed it up and spat it out. So for every 100 purchases, there would be around 1000-2000 copies. Since the advent of mass file sharing, one original could potentially generate a million copies. Personally, I’ve only bought a handful of CDs and DVDs in the last 5 years, whereas I have storage boxes full of the things bought in the preceding 5 years.
In the end, if nothing comes for free, what price do we pay? If record companies dissolve, are we left with recordings with all the sound quality of bad bootlegs from back in the day, self-funded vanity projects or perhaps nothing at all? If film companies no longer hold the multi-million pound budgets, will we never see another Avatar? (Yes, I know the plot doesn’t deserve the name but wasn’t it beautiful?)
At the risk of peeling back the lid (again) on an enormous can of worms, I’m throwing this particular debate out there…
- More from Miss Demeanour.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Kudos
Kudos from me, for two reasons:
1) Stopping illegal downloading
2) Admitting that you did it 'cause it was free instead of spouting the usual excuses.
With you entirely.
Great post, Miss D, and like Sam says, I'm impressed that you didn't give us the usual self-serving pseudo-anarchist balls that many of the Limewire lot tend to come out with.
End o't day, creative people can only be creative if the infrastructure is there to allow it. Record companies, for all their faults, are the infrastructure: they enable people to not have proper jobs and instead make music for a living. If people can't make any kind of living out of it, they won't do it, or at least not to anything like the same extent.
I don't pay for downloads
I still buy CDs and LPs. I download the following :
1) Boots, always artists I have everything else by.
2) TV shows (all UK ones)
3) Official releases from artists that I will buy later anyway on CD or LP.
I have downloaded a lot of stuff, but still own 10 times more music than an average punter and have probably spent 50-100,000 quid on music over the years.
With you on all of that
I also still buy loads of CDs/DVDs.
Films: tried downloading films/TV programmes, but it's a pain in the arse. The quality is variable and unless you want to watch it on your computer, it takes forever to convert and invariably ends up with the sound out of sync.
Music: I only download bootlegs and otherwise unavailable material.
I can't see the point of downloading an official release by a favourite artist, anyway. It's too easily lost and what have you got to show for it? No artwork. Nothing.
One annoying by-product of the digital revolution is the advent of the download-only bonus track. I recently bought a Loudon Wainwright III CD and inside was a voucher entitling me to download a bonus track. That's nice, I thought.
But downloading it only created a whole set of new problems.
What to do with it now? Do I keep it on the computer or iPod, or burn it onto a CD? Yeah, I could do that, but since it was obviously part of the sessions that produced the album, why treat it like an orphan?
OK, let's rip the whole album to iTunes, then burn a new copy of the CD with the bonus track at the end and file that in the CD cover.
Hmmm, If I do that, I'm left with a shoddy-looking home-made CD of uncertain quality (CD to mp3, back to CD - I'm no audiophile, but something must be lost along the way?).
It's not an ideal situation, is it?
Oh, did I mention that ever since downloading the aforementioned pesky bonus track I've been inundated with daily unwanted emails from Loudon's (then) record company, all of them concerning artists I have less than zero interest in?
Can't deny it...
and it's inexcusable, I know, but some of my recent purchases have been CDs of things I have downloaded, erm, free of charge. I do think if record companies get lazy and only offer downloads there will be little incentive to pay for something that isn't perceived as having any added value. I'm always happy to "chip in" to to my favourite artists especially if it means other bands get the oxygen of publicity.
I do get the impression the Massive are an honest bunch, though.
Value
If you attach no value to music, then what makes it worth having? Downloading seems to be like some folks who steal Post Its out of the stationery cupboard. They don't need them at home but can't resist a shiny pile of free stuff.
I'll always pay, no matter how stupid that might make me look. I pay because it's worth something to me.
There's value, added value and perceived value
Someone recently posted on here about Prince's Lovesexy being available for download for a paltry 60p. I think that and "selling" your newest CD on the cover of a national newspaper can't help but diminish the perceived value of music.
That and record companies "milking" the public with endless remasters and remixes, not to mention the out-takes now seen to be fit for release when an artist's output dries up or ceases.
I don't hold with the "try before you buy" argument for illegal downloads but I have bought some right clunkers in the past that I wouldn't have if I'd heard them first. Most licensed download sites offer a snippet of the songs but not in all cases.
Record companies could give added value to, and extend the life of the CD format by including mp3s of the tracks on the CD. It is, by the way, even if you own the CD, illegal to "format shift" in the UK by ripping the tracks to mp3.
I don't think the last part is true
If it is for your own personal use.
Format shifting
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7299505/Millions-of-iPod-fan...
I stand corrected
And the law is an ass
I stand corrected too
The correct shortcut is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7299505/Millions-of-iPod-fan...
Complete bollocks of course, and totally unenforceable.
At least we don't get screwed by the blank media and memory levies in place in countries where it is legal.
Sony
IIRC one of their executives referred in court in the USA to people transfering one of their songs to an Ipod as "stealing one song". Of course if that person had legally downloaded the song, they could have played it on thier Ipod. So Sony are basically arguing for in favour of eliminating the CD, which was at the time the main route for distribution of their products. Which goes to show how insane the music industry has got.
As a side point, what is the legal position on us all ripping the Word CD to our ipods? Presumably illegal, or does the Word get a dispensation?
Oi!
Outside, now!
Absolutely.
I can honestly say that apart from the odd home made compilation tape/disc made by or for friends I've never stolen an artist's work,talent and time.I'm not being judgemental about this at all,I fully understand the temptation to get something for nothing but as a struggling painter I don't see why I should not expect to receive fair payment for my paltry efforts so I apply the same expectation to all other artists and duly pay for their work,talent and time.Theft is theft not a revolutionary gesture.
There is...
...a funny expectation among many downloaders that they're somehow "owed" music for free. Like music is a naturally occurring resource that's not owed by anyone, and that it's a fundamental contravention of their human rights not to be able to blag stuff buckshee. It's a very odd attitude.
Biscuits
I've spent loads of money on biscuits over the years. Therefore I feel justified in stealing the occasional packet of biscuits.
I steal biscuits all the time, but I will actually pay for biscuits if they're by a biscuit manufacturer I really like.
I'm not shelling out for biscuits just so some pony-tailed biscuit mogul can keep himself in filofaxes and Ferraris. Fight the power!
More biscuits
The biscuit stealer might also suggest that he's stealing biscuits because the biscuit seller has treated him like a right c*** lately, continually re-releasing his favourite biscuits using cheaper, more inferior ingredients yet charging more for them at the same time, or by supplying biscuits that poison his larder when he puts them into storage, or by selling biscuits but not compensating the guy who came up with the recipe in the first place...
Of course
But there's nobody forcing me to eat those biscuits.
Or
Adding creamy topping to his favourite biscuits that was never asked for and actually takes away from the taste of the original biscuit and costs 10 times the price!
Anyway
The old biscuits were better.
Eat some old!
MP3 Biscuits
I find these modern downloadable biscuits to be horribly compressed. It makes everything taste like a Garibaldi.
Yes but as you get older
your taste buds start to go and really, you cant tell the difference between your cd biscuit (carton dispensed) and the downloadable ones - as long as the flour hasnt been too compressed.
Have you tried a blind test - I bet you cant tell the difference.
I mostly eat biscuits
on public transport and there so much background eating going on I normally can't tell. It's only when I'm a home with my fine china tea set(up) that I can tell the difference.
Sensible
I'm hoping you use solid silver teaspoons? Doesnt make sense to skimp on that, but so many do (shakes head in sad, despairing fashion)
I used to use solid silver teaspoons
until I discovered the Ultrastir x3 series spoons. Made of 99.99999% OFC, extruded with 60 microns of silver. Each of the molecules, which are varied and balanced in size, is separately encapsulated in a FEP extrusion which delivers a perfectly symmetrical stirring pattern.
I also place a 2 pence piece between my cup and saucer to isolate china against china vibrations.
You're all still buying biscuits by the packet? From shops?
Haven't you heard of Buiscuitfy? For a monthly subscription, as many biscuits as you want, whenever or wherever you want, for you to do with as you wish.
But you can't share them.
Tsch! Neophytes!
I stopped buying biscuits years ago. Not because I steal them but because I only like the old ones that I've had for years. You know, the kind featured in magazines like 'Classic Biscuit' and 'Yoyo'. Fortunately for me, I always made sure to buy two packets of each biscuit: one for preserving, untouched, in its original packaging, and the other for eating, one biscuit at a time, in the special biscuit-consuming den that I built in my garage.
Peek Freans Boxsets
I only really buy boxsets now. The Peek Freans label does some lovely collections with beautiful artwork and some wonderfully remastered classics. The mix on the custard creams from the 2007 Father Christmas tin was sublime.
Sell-outs
They're just blatantly trying to attract the Xmas market. Bread-heads.
You mean biscuit-heads surely?
This is
probably my favourite conversation of all time! Up arrows all round. Please keep going.
Last Friday
I went out and bought Gilmour and Orbs "Old Time Biscuits" that came with a lovely 50% Extra Biscuit that really is no use unless you use Two Bospresso Cups. I think that extra biscuit now that I've tasted it ....really takes the biscuit.....!
Bloody Hell
Proof.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11525897
Surely, with the advent of Spotify and the like
there's no reason to download commercially available stuff with the excuse that "I was seeing if I liked it before I bought it"?
I can't think of a single valid justification for downloading commercially available material anymore.
Big up to Miss Demeanour for 'going straight'...
I've banged on about this before but
you could argue that Spotify and the like and the streaming in cd quality as Barry McIlheney once described it on a podcast has certainly reduced the need to buy music. But that's another argument.
I agree with the basic premise of the OP, which is why, much as I loathe and despise him, I'm all in favour of Rupert Murdoch charging for access to his newspaper sites. It's the same principle as music - whatever format I consume Times stories in, I should pay for them.
The problem is that the Internet has created a climate where people - and particularly the generation who have grown up with it and know of no time when it wasn't there - expect it to provide its bounty for nowt. Music, films, whatever, it should be free, that's their albeit faulty expectation and line of logic.
Look at this place even - imagine the outcry if they took the podcast away? But we don't pay for it. Word, I assume, feel obliged to offer the podcast, and this forum for nothing, because thats what the competition does andthat's what the Internet demands. But why do we get it for free? We shouldn't, because time and effort goes into it, but we expect that this is what the Internet does, feeds us entertainment and info for nothing.
This then feeds into the BBC Bloat thread. There are posts there discussing the number of people sent to Chile to cover the miners rescue or how many go to Glasto. It might just be that 300 is the right number they need to send to Glasto for it to look as good and as comprehensive as it does. Again, you don't get that for nothing either.
For the record (see what I did?)...
...I would absolutely pay for the Word podcast. It'd be worth a couple of quid a time to me: it's a highlight of my week. I enjoy seeing a new podcast pop up in my iTunes as much as I enjoy the thump of the magazine hitting the doormat.
You and me both
Don't put...
...ideas into their heads...
Surely it's the newspapers/magazine's decision...
... whether we pay for it or not?
A friend of mine was once the UK distributor for an American hi-fi magazine. He told me that the revenue from advertising covered the costs of putting the magazine together and they could have given the magazine away if they'd wanted, but in doing so, the reader is not "invested" in it and will tend to read fewer articles and then throw the magazine away.
I think there's more to charging people for something over the internet than just making money.
Fair point re loyalty etc
but I suspect that if magazines etc could work out an easy way of charging for podcasts, they would.
I think we've had a discussion along these lines on here before with Fraser and I think he suggested that there's no system that really works as yet in terms of charging people - apologies if I'm not remembering that correctly, Fraser.
I wouldn't know how to illegally download stuff even if I could
But I wouldn't anyway. Probably.
Home taping is killing music!
File sharing
Is killing home taping.
Don't like downloads, but ...
... there are lots of grey areas here. I love CDs and LPs. I like the physical product and the quality of sound. It also seems a bit of a no-brainer that artists should be paid for their efforts. But what do you do when you're after something that is long out of print and only available in physical form at some exhorbitant price on ebay? Do you still ignore torrent land? If the record companies aren't making the product available for you to buy, is it wrong to go looking elsewhere? And neither a free download nor a second hand-purchase is going to benefit the artist in any way.
I'm with Doctorow, Eno and Barlow
Cory Doctorow:
"..if you want to try to control individual copies of your work on the internet, go ahead and try. I think it's a fool's errand, and so does almost every technical expert in the world, but what do we know?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-conten...
Eno:
“I think records were just a little bubble through time and those who made a living from them for a while were lucky. There is no reason why anyone should have made so much money from selling records except that everything was right for this period of time. I always knew it would run out sooner or later. It couldn’t last, and now it’s running out. I don’t particularly care that it is and like the way things are going. The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you’d be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate – history’s moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/17/brian-eno-interview-paul-mor...
Barlow:
"What's worse is that they now want to remove all (Grateful) Dead music from the Web. They might as easily put a teaspoon of food coloring in a swimming pool and then tell the pool owner to get it back to them."
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/29/barlow-on-death-of-g.html
James EB-O:
I certainly appreciate that this period of change in the distribution of 'recorded music product' is making it hard on a lot of people, not least David Hepworth and Mark Ellen as their bloody fantastic magazine relies, to some great extent, on advertising revenue.
However, it is time to face facts. Thanks to technology, the monetary value of recorded music is locked into a zero sum game. The days of fruit and flowers are over.
This will not have any impact on artistic creativity and the wide availability of new music. In fact, that evil technology is making it easier and cheaper to create and distribute new music.
Miss Demeanour is merely delaying the inevitable. Saying I am not going to steal music any more is a laudable thing, but it is also the equivalent of giving a terminal cancer patient a homoeopathic remedy.
As both music creators and music lovers, we don't *need* the record industry any more. This is not an anarchistic propostion - this is cold, raw capitalism in action.
Eno
The whale blubber analogy doesn't hold water - if it did, whales would sink. Yes, blubber was replaced by gas. But although the form in which music is held has changed from wax to vinyl to aluminium to zeroes and ones, it's still music. People still write it and record it and I like that. If they dont get paid for it, they'll stop doing it and we won't have that music to listen to, unless lots of Big Society patron philanthropists start to sponsor artists as was the model years ago. I doubt that will happen.
"I don’t particularly care that [recorded music is dying] and like the way things are going. The record age was just a blip". Rather easier to say when you're on points for The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree etc etc. That blip was pretty good to you Brian and understanding the way things are going and liking the way things are going are two very separate things, especially from the vantage point of a new artist.
Canals and Trains?
I'm no expert on the whale blubber industry of the mid 19th century, to me, it was a pretty good analogy, but I take your point.
"People still write it and record it and I like that."
Me too.
"If they dont get paid for it, they'll stop doing it and we won't have that music to listen to.."
I don't believe that this will be the case, not at all. If you have time, skim through the full Cory Doctorow article. Toward the end he mentions the ISP licensing model that the EFF have floated. I think this is a damn good idea, though, cynic that I am, I don't think it will happen. I hope that something like it will.
Who knows what the new business model for music is. We were thrashing this one around the other day and one of my colleagues insisted that the recorded music should be free - the saleable product is the live performance and the merchandise. Well, I think we've seen some of the larger acts move that way (Madonna, The Rolling Stones).
Wherever I can, I buy music direct from the artist online in a downloadable format (FLAC if available) and let that artist know that this is my preferential means of paying for their wares. Perhaps we should all try and do that (buy direct I mean, you might want CDs or vinyl)?
I am lucky enough to live in a city with a vibrant live music scene, I get out and see a lot of bands and buy their CDs if they are for sale at the gig. Generally, they don't have a shit-show of *selling* music online.
One thing that you can be sure of is that saying "I'm not stealing anymore" is burying your head in the sand. That's what the music industry has done in its cycle through the seven stages of grief and it's helping nobody.
Pretty much agree with you
I certainly prefer to buy direct wherever possible and people will, I'm sure continue to be driven to make music. I can't quite decide whether the "gatekeeper" idea that was the labels was a good thing or not because I was always willing to try a 4AD release for instance, much as I do with Samdhi, Sylvian's label.
All in all, it's a confusing time for consumers too. Speaking personally, I no longer have the time or the opportunity to seek out music the way I did 20 years ago and I have the 21st century angst that amid the mass of it all, I'm missing out on something. Still, there's plenty of worse things to worry about.
The irony of Eno's comment is that I think he would struggle to get an audience today. I agree that playing live is a good income stream and the way to get noticed. I'm not sure him playing Music for Films in a Glasgow pub on a Friday night would work. There are lots of people who are great in the studio who are terrible live, or can't even take that music out live, or don't want to. Without recorded music that gets properly paid for, they will surely suffer won't they? God, we'd have missed out on the late 70s Steely Dan on that basis. Could the world have survived?
Eno's pub band
That would be something to see. I'm sure he could sell out the Barbican seven nights on the trot if he wanted - or sell a download of his good self humming the Teddy Bear's Picnic sotto voce for 90 minutes. He has his legion of true fans who will buy everything he does.
You're right, he might have a difficult time getting started these days, as might Roxy Music for that matter.
Bespoke labels/online stores are well worth supporting too, artist gets a better deal than they do from Apple and the ilk. I like Bleep, Dead.net and Live Downloads.
And Steely Dan could record Can't Get A Thrill on a Powerbook today, the vast sums of money were for the studio time. Surely?
Studio time
As somebody who knows sod all about these things, that Dan Powerbook point strikes me as a good one.
I know the stories about Abbey Road's financial issues etc, yet still we hear of band's holed up in studios for ages creating their new mantelpiece. Just how much does recording cost these days?
I *RUINED* it for myself...
I've never given these feelings room to surface before, but I think that now the time has come...
I did it. I bought into the whole FREE STUFF FOR ME! argument - and occasionally, I even flirted with the "I've paid loads over the years" so THEY owe me argument, but essentially, I did it because it didn't cost me anything.
And *deep breath* I did it a LOT - a simply staggering amount, to be honest - I've never worked it out and I don't plan to start now..however, the point was, I loved music and now I could have it all for free (cue manic laughter...)
BUT, But, but....I've ended up ruining it for myself. In the last few months, I've barely downloaded or listened to anything, and certainly haven't really discovered anything new. I've got a room in the new house with lots of CDs that I've not had the *inclination* to play. This is potentially a combination of msuic losing some of its shine (through my own actions) and also doing the majority of my listening via iPod on the way to work. (I'll not get into the whole digital vs analogue debate here, that's for another day...)
*So*, I've started to try and claw some of the love I had for music back, and it started with the new Neil Young album. I'll download boots and live shows still, as I had with Neil, but I bought the new album on vinyl and Amazon delivered it yesterday. My first *NEW* vinyl in 20 yrs possibly.
I have an appointment with 'Le Noise', the sofa and a decaf coffee this evening, dear god I hope it works....(and I'm not talking about the merits of the LP specifically)
So glad I'm not alone
As soon as you speak out against illegal downloading (stealing, to give it its proper name) you are condemned as an old-fashioned Philistine who is somehow in bed with The Man. But I'm glad others in the Massive seem to have a similar view to me.
To me it has always seemed blindingly obvious with no grey area: if you download an album for free, the musicians who made it won't get paid. If they don't get paid, they can't spend all their time making music. Result (to take it to an extreme, admittedly): no more band.
It has been said before, but if I go to work, I expect to be paid. I don't expect my employer to avoid paying me on the grounds that he is somehow owed the benefits of my talent, or I've earned enough in the past that I don't need the money, or everybody else is doing it, or all the other ridiculous excuses illegal downloaders come up with to justify their sheer unwillingness to part with money in return for somebody else's hard work. And not everybody involved in creating that album is a millionaire rocker - what about the designer, the website builder, the distributor's van driver, etc?
Yes, the net has utterly changed the music industry, and everyone involved is struggling to discover the right way of keeping it afloat. But grabbing albums for free, with no money going to the people who made them, cannot be a sustainable model. As others have said, a whole generation has grown up expecting music/films/etc to be free. Don't they see that if something is free for too long it will cease to exist?
I think this sums it up neatly
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/i-think-many-us-have-been-here
Well done Miss Demeanour
I'll still have to illegally download though. As a DJ, the young people do tend to ask for stuff that inconveniently isn't out yet. I usually get it when it does though.
(Although last time I DJed, I played an awful lot of stuff straight from YouTube via my laptop)
I illegally download Lily Allen's music
but I never listen to it - can't bear it - I just do it to spite her.
The revolution is gathering pace
Well done comrade!
Don't forget to download some Metallica whilst you're at it
I find the whole subject confused and confusing.
I'm not allowed to download a TV program from t'interweb, which would allow me to watch it when and as I liked, as this is illegal. I am allowed to save a TV program to my FreeSat hard drive, which I can then watch when and as I like, because this is not illegal. In both cases I have got the programme for free, although it could be argued that in the latter case I have paid my TV license fee which allows for this facility. However, I could continue to download from PirateBay and I don't think this would make my license fee any less paid, if you see what I mean.
The same applies to movies, which, if I chose to wait long enough, I would be able to download for free to my FreeSat box without incurring the wrath of the law.
I remember the 'home-taping-is-killing-music' nonsense of the early eighties. As we all know, not only did home taping not kill anything, but certain well-known record labels (and I'm looking at you, Sony and EMI)did very well out of the home taping thing. Both sold voluminous amounts of blank tapes. Sony used to sell expensive rack systems that allowed you to do just that, should you choose to borrow a mate's LP, or casettte if you had a tape to tape facility, and from the end-user point of view I really can't see the difference between that and downloading from a pirate site.
If anyone can, then please feel free to enlighten me.
From the end user point of
From the end user point of view, there isn't really a difference, as you're still getting a free copy. The difference is scale; between the average number of tape to tape copies and files shared, as compared to one original. Also, a good point well made, companies still made a profit selling blank formats, so in a roundabout way new music was still supported.
I can only assume that downloading TV programs is illegal but saving them to FreeSat isn't because of the file sharing implications of downloading to your PC, therefore interfering with DVD sales.
I fear I'm developing zealotry of the type of the reformed smoker here, although that's one habit I'm not giving up-throw as much logic at me as you like!
re: torrent tv
The tv torrent site UKNova is a bloody Godsend for any expats living in the US. Interestingly, it also respects copyright, at least to some extent. Torrents appear as and when, but if a tv company announces a DVD release, then the corresponding torrent(s)is removed. Of course, people outside the UK are not paying a license fee, although my reading of the situation is that many - including myself - would willingly pay for one, if it guaranteed rescue from the mindf**k of the US networks. There is BBC America, of course, which is great if endless repeats of Keeping Up Appearances is your thing, but rather hopeless for everyone else. I feel like the Beeb are actually missing out on a huge market, although I assume that competition laws or something prevent them from broadcasting all of their UK content overseas. I suppose the BBC iplayer and its UK commercial equivalents could be viewed outside the UK if you knew your way around proxy servers and the like, but that seems like a step too far for me.
partially reformed...
I used to download a lot of music too, but since Spotify I've pretty much stopped (excluding occasional hard to find album or stuff owned on vinyl that I can't be bothered to rip).
But with TV I'm in exactly the same situation as Martin (I live in Spain) and would gladly pay to access UK TV, I know my way around a proxy server but am yet to find a free one that's any good - and I object to paying for one if none of that goes to the show makers. So I download TV (a lot of TV), but this being Spain, I also pay a tax on all blank media (including hard drives). That is what makes it legal to download anything here - and nobody seems to see the obvious problem with this.
But it's not just music, it's film and video games too - and the argument is ALWAYS - they owe me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8471290.stm
Startpoint ...
...I lived in Spain for a few years, and it's fairly straightforward to pick up UK tv, because the footprint of the Sky satellite extends all the way down to southern Spain. A 1.2m satellite dish pointed at the satellite and hooked up to a bog standard satellite receiver will enable you to pick up all the free to air channels (BBC, ITV, Ch4, etc). I have no idea about the legality of this arrangement, but many people seem to make a living flogging Sky systems to expats on the Costas.
La Comunidad
A couple of friends of mine here have Sky subscriptions from UK addresses, and it works fine for them, but they live in the 'burbs with gardens and I live in central Madrid in an historic building... I'm almost certain I could hook it up without anyone noticing - but technically the "community" of neighbours own the roof... and 1.2m is on the chunky side.
Having said that - I do actually live in the attic space so maybe I could get away with it - until someone looks at Google earth.
Cheers for the tip though
with regards to the home taping thing...
the difference is just down to volume. Back in the day, if I bought the new Pet Shop Boys album and loaned it to a mate who wanted to copy it, I had to do without it for a length of time, he had to go to the hassle of getting a blank tape, physically copy it and return it to me.
Nowadays, I can buy the CD, rip it to mp3, put it on a torrent site and an unlimited amount of people can get it, and consequentially not purchase it.
Have a think how many people I'd have to loan my original cassette to in order to make a dent in the bottom line for the record company.
Before you think I'm being too po-faced about it, I've torrented stuff in my time. In the main it's stuff that's commercially unavailable, either it's NEVER been released, or it's long deleted. Occasionally I'll try before I buy, and in a way, I don't have a problem with that; the record industry HAS, I think, employed the 'pig in a poke' business model. No matter how shitty an album is, once you'd bought it, you'd no comeback. Can you imagine if shoe manufacturers tried that?
I keep banging on about Station to Station. Steven C (I think) posted an entry over a year ago going on about it. I was cutting back on spending back then and torrented it, listened to it and loved it. Soon as I could, I bought the 1999 EMI release of it. Earlier this week, I took delivery of the 3CD special edition.
The bigger issue isn't isolated cases of torrenting, per se. It's (as has been pointed out) the view that's rapidly becoming accepted that music should inherently be free.
AHA! Thank you, Ivan. That is indeed the point.
"The bigger issue isn't isolated cases of torrenting, per se. It's (as has been pointed out) the view that's rapidly becoming accepted that music should inherently be free."
Well, to an extent. Clearly Artists have circumvented the problem of lost revenue by hiking their concert ticket prices accordingly. Clearly the youth of today have no problem with shelling out large sums for live music and continue to do so willingly.
As for the record companies: well, clearly they have to change as the old model simply doesn't work any more. Incidentally, they must be going bananas at the current situation whereby der yoof are prepared to pay whatever for a ringtone (a few seconds) and not a pound or so for a download single.
So what's to be done?
An indication of how clueless the companies are lies in how easily they got into bed with Apple. Without knowing the full details - who does? - I suspect the industry owes Apple a huge debt. The problem for them, as seasoned Apple watchers will tell you, is the closer that anyone 'works' with Apple, the tighter they've got you by the balls. But that's another story.
mild observations...
if somone finally came up with a cornucopia machine - see various sci-fi novels - that would (given the correct inputs of raw materials) output *anything you wanted* then there would be a direct comparison between digitized music/visuals and biscuits ...
at the moment, music and movies can be copied and distributed; not HobNobs sadly
if we ever reach a stage where *anything* could be copied and distributed then - yay - capitalism would be fekked and we'd move into a post-scarcity culture where all bets would be off (given equal access to unlimited raw materials which sci-fi novels usually get round by setting the story in space where mineral-rich asteroids are ten-a-penny)
i see it as a kind of internal contradiction that businesses whose raison d'etre is predicated on copyright exist side by side with businesses that allow the free replication of copyrighted materials ... it's almost as if someone came up with a machine that copied cars or machinery or plant or weapons without having to buy the stuff off the original manufacturer ... imagine your teenage kids sitting in their rooms running off copies of Vivienne Westwood dresses, Jimmy Choo shoes and AK47s ... (from their 3D printers)
sure, at the moment you have to buy the laptop/PC/internet access in order to copy the music/tv programmes/movies so the copying isn't actually "free" ... it's only free in comparison to paying a tenner for a CD or whatever ... (other costs apply) ...
er, where am i going with this? maybe that the infrastructure of copying has spread throughout the western world and elsewhere thanks to the internet & computers, so relying on people's self restraint not to employ that tech is overly optimistic, irrespective of retrospective, individual guilt ... just as it would be if you could run off a "free" Ford Focus from your 3D printer, or a kilo of chickpeas or a plain black T-shirt ... (the problem of access to raw materials notwithstanding) ... which is perhaps a bigger issue than the ethics of copying?
sorry, this is more ruminative than conclusive, but hey, i'm making it up as i go ...
Post-scarcity culture
I'm for this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture
It's all over
Some very interesting points made above. I can really sympathise with (and agree to a certain extent with) everyone who feels that it is unfair to consume music without paying the artist.
However, I think the two key points from above are the quote from Brian Eno (the recording industry is becoming as outdated as whale blubber) and Glenbervie's view (the futility of trying to protect copyright while offering free replication of copyrighted materials).
Basically, it's all over. In the near future, anyone able to make any money out of the music industry will be an anomaly.
My point would be: does it matter? Amateur musicians, no more hit parade, no more "albums", people making music for fun instead of profit... It would take a bit of getting used to, but surely there's nothing wrong with that?
Totally agree
Times they are a-changing. Not just in music but journalism, TV and films. They are all relatively new industries and they need to learn how to adapt faster. They should all be the most technology savvy of businesses and I am amazed that they are so surprised. The newspapers and TV stations (BBC I'm looking at you) basically scoffed at the internet and got left behind and have been trying to catch up ever since.
I think it's a case of complacency and arrogance that has left these industries reeling and as ever it's the talent that feels the most heat.
But it's an ongoing revolution and everyone will have to adapt and if that means going back to basics and working from the ground up, trying new ideas, so be it.
I reckon the music business needs a good kicking and if this gets people thinking differently I'm all for it.
Newspapers
Did they scoff at the internet? I think they embraced the web, gave the only thing of value they had away for free, and are probably now wishing they had actually scoffed at it.
And while I agree that this is an ongoing revolution, and that many will fall by the wayside, heal dragging is only natural in a world where your business traditionally relies on people paying for what you produce rather than expecting it for free. In the absence of a new business model that works, I'd drag my heals too.
Surely
if they had embraced the web they wouldn't have had so many redundancies and closures as a direct or indirect result of it. And surely Murdoch would have been a lot quicker off the mark to start charging, in fact wouldn't all of them have done so rather than give their work away for free?
They missed a trick and are back peddling fast.
Paying
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What should they have actually done?
Maybe we should all go amateur?
Why are musicians a special case? If you make music, you are as entitled to get paid for it as somebody who makes biscuit tins. Or should we all go amateur? Shall we have brain surgeons probing a frontal lobe for fun instead of profit for instance.
Few musicians have made the riches of Bono / McCartney / Collins / Madonna. Must are doing a job of work for an ordinary - and often wildly fluctuating wage as is the case with most freelancers - to put food on the table, the same as plumbers, teachers, bank managers. If you think we don't need any more music then that's fine, all go amateur and we needn't care, but assuming we want to hear new things in the future, they're as entitled as anyone to get paid for it.
Equally, amateurs tend not to be as good as professionals because they don't have time to hone their craft. If you muck about with a guitar for half an hour a couple of times a month, I suspect you won't be on the same level as Dave Gilmour who has been able to put the hours in, as well as having the gift in the first place.
There is another economic angle to it as well. Illegal downloading is seen as only affecting the artist and the evil industry. It doesn't. It affects all of us. You download illegally and you're not paying VAT. Similarly, the record company isn't earning money to add to its profit on which corporation tax is charged. The artist doesn't get paid, so he/she/they pay less income tax. Maybe they even have to become one of those evil, sponging benefit eating bastards the Daily Mail keeps telling us about.
I don't disagree with the thrust of your argument, that it's going to be bloody difficult to close Pandora's Box again, but I do think it's worth trying, not that I have a clue how you do it or whether you could to any meaningful extent. But if we don't find some new model, we risk losing a great deal.
ah but...
... isn't this why there are more gigs now and the price of top-end ones has gone through the roof? Am going to see Robert Plant on Monday and an upper circle seat cost £44 (inc booking fee, VAT I assume) ... so the locus of economic dynamism simply shifts rather than disappears ... water is still flowing downhil, just via a different route etc etc
also i don't think the thing about "everyone" going amateur really holds up ... professional musicians who stick at it will make their money from live performance or iTunes perhaps (or selling stuff direct from their own websites), thereby staying professional ... granted they won't have the record companies to prop them up anymore so there is a change...
but that's simply not the same as anyone having a crack at brain surgery or flying a 737 ...
the comparison of music and freelance writing is probably closer since anyone can be a musician/writer, some are lucky, some are gifted, reward does not always correlate with talent and fewer people are willing to pay for either through traditional channels ... this will not stop people picking up guitars or laptops i don't think...
(thinks...)
You make some good points, Molesworth. Will need to have a think and come back to you when I have more time...
Take your time
I've got plenty to do - these Lennon box sets don't just torrent themselves you know :)
Cobol Programmers, printer's devils,
Elevator operators, ice sellers, lamplighters, switchboard operators, milkmen, typesetters, typists, ledger clerks, hangmen, whalers, town criers, reeves, pardoners, knights, coopers, stokers...
Sorry, once massive industry relying on the talents of a few, the world has moved on. Music will survive, as will innovators like Simon Cowell, who has done quite nicely out of monetarising "the product", thank you very much.
Oh, thank God
I forgot about Simon Cowell. Yes, I hope he's going to be ok. We can only hope.
I should point out that
my mentioning Mr Cowell should not be considered an endorsement - however, he's undeniably found a new way to flog a dying horse.
Please don't tell my milkman
that he's obsolete - I need my daily pinta.
Right, I'm off the record shop, to check out the Top 40.
Or mine
Having milk left on your doorstep is one of those little things that makes life seem a bit more civilized. Come to think of it, the only delivery that got through to us in last January's snow was the milk. As long as there enough people who appreciate it (there's the rub), our milkman still has a job.
Expat blues. (Middle East)
I'd be perfectly willing to pay for downloads,but:
ITunes does work here, but with a ridiculously limited catalogue, basically Mariah Carey and Justin Beiber.
No Spotify, BBC Iplayer, etc. Not licensed here.
1 shite record shop.
No book shops
No Kindle coverage.
Cable TV s '2 and a half men' on a loop.
Amazon, yes, and I spend, I guess, loads more on music and books than the average punter - at least a hundred quid a month - but they'll sometimes take 2 months to arrive.
So, until Itunes, etc, can get their act together to 1) make stuff available here and 2, rerelease all the out-of-print albums I want but can't get in any other way apart from illegal downloads - I'll keep doing it.
Were you forced to be an expat?
Your post is basically a list of downsides of being an expat (which I absolutely understand and would agree with were I to be an expat). I imagine there is a list of benefits as well. Neither of them justify, to me at least, not paying people for stuff they have produced.
If your employer decided to not pay you for your efforts because itunes is crap, iPlayer doesn't work and it takes ages for Amazon to deliver, you would be rightly cross. Why is that any different?
from the beeb today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11547279
I think the £1 album idea could well be a winner. If the downloads were quick, safe, easy to find and wide ranging, who wouldn't fork out a quid on an impulse buy?
The argument that the inherent value of art means that it should cost more is noble but invalid. I believe in the value of art too but many people don't. My younger bro looks at me like I'm daft for volunteering to shell out for albums. Its a generational thing I suppose (he's 23, I'm 33). The record companies need to try something radical to get people buying music again.
I speak as someone who hasn't downloaded anything illegally since the original napster! I always had the feeling that too much of a good thing wasn't doing me an awful lot of good. Sure, I could download hundreds of tunes but I didn't really listen to them properly. I kind of feel the same way about spotify at times.
We're already getting there
Just browsing on Amazon, all 4 Elbow studio albums are there on CD for less than £4 quid each.
Hardy worth stealing them at that price is it?
Still waiting for the right solution for music ownership
Spotify is great, and I have been a subscriber since it was available, but they just don't pay the artists enough money.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-ear...
I am just waiting for an offering that is as good as Spotify but pays more money to the talent.
Rights holders need to get their acts together with a single universally available location for music, tv and films.
We could pay 10p per track for the right to listen to the track in perpetuity via whatever means we like, be it internet, tv, home hifi, car radio...
Imagine all those shelves that will be freed up !