Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now!

Your slippery slope argument is no better. The key argument here is, "It's stupid to alienate your base customers."

I pirated a TON of music when I was 14/15 years old and Napster was new. It broadened my horizons quite a bit. Before that I owned maybe 10 CD's, MAYBE. Now I own a few hundred. Without pirating maybe I wouldn't have been exposed to music the way I was. But that doesn't matter.

The music industry has to adapt to new tech the same way everyone else does. Harness it. Suing an end user for $200,000 for pirating a CD worth of music is ridiculous. How many albums had she purchased in her lifetime? I like to make mix CD's of my favorite music for friends for special occasions... should I be sued? I know my friends have gone out and purchased some of the albums I've represented on their mix CD's, so the good for the industry outweighs the bad, yes? It's possible, and even plausible, that free sharing of music would bolster the industry.

Without pirating maybe I wouldn't have been exposed to music the way I was.

There is no way to be exposed to new music other than stealing it?

It's possible, and even plausible, that free sharing of music would bolster the industry.

It's more likely that it might completely kill the revenue stream needed to support the artists, producers, engineers, etc. needed to create this music. Radiohead's pay-us-what-you-think-its-worth strategy saw a majority of people paying zero and the average of the remaining folks paying an average of about $4. Surprised that they withdrew that album and have chosen to sell it for a set price?

That's actually a complete fallacy. The record industry specifically suffered comparably less in the recession of 2001, during the height of piracy. Want to explain that? It has to adapt to survive, like any business. Piracy is an issue, and I'm not advocating universally allowing it, but going after the end user as a mega-evil corporation that sues grandmas and soccer moms isn't exactly the best way of tackling it.

Here're a couple solutions:

Promote services like Rhapsody and Napster that allow infinite access to infinite music on monthly recurring charges. Many of us that buy maybe one CD a month (my massive collecting frenzy is over) would instantly subscribe (as I do) and the same revenue stream is in place.

Promote a system like iTunes with digital download, but get rid of the troublesome and encumbering DRMs that turn away hordes of end users.

Being caught up in the muck of litigation and playing the bad guy won't work and it won't help things.

Want to explain that?

No. I am thinking that you might want to expand on your theory of piracy is the main driver ehind recording industry success.

The record industry specifically suffered comparably less in the recession of 2001, during the height of piracy.

Maybe that had something to do with the quality of the music during that time. You are claiming that there is a link to piracy and record industry revenues. As I said before, there are many other means of being exposed to music other than stealing it. There are also many factors in financial performance of the record companies.

Piracy benefits the artists zero. It is not up to the customer to decide that the best distribution model for the labels, producers and artists is more exposure via piracy. I doubt that you will find a musician who will thank you for stealing his music. Like it or not, the music is the property of the record industry to give it away, sell it or rent it as they choose. They are the ones who took the financial risk in the game. They should benefit.

There is another option to take if you are unhappy with the distribution model. Don't buy their product. In the physical product world, if you were not satisfied with the cost or terms of sale for a product would you buy it?

Did you completely ignore the rest of my post? Here, I'll be succinct:

A) Piracy is a smaller problem than it is made out to be.
B) There are MUCH better ways of dealing with it than suing school mom's and old people.
C) Industries must adapt to survive.

Did you want to actually counter any of my points? No? Just go off on a tangent about things I've already gone over again? Oh, ok, good game.

That's rich. Pot meet kettle. Did you address my points? How about this one "There is no way to be exposed to new music other than stealing it?"

Piracy is a smaller problem than it is made out to be

That = your opinion, not fact.

here are MUCH better ways of dealing with it than suing school mom's and old people.

The RIAA has pursued over 26,000 actions against pirates. These cases make the news when it is someone that normally would not be associated with illegal file sharing. Jammie Thomas is a single mother. But, she was found guilty of downloading and sharing 1,702 songs. That would be the equivalent of 170-210 full albums of 8-10 songs each. Hardly the innocent little soccer mom.

Industries must adapt to survive.

The industry is adapting whether you see that or not. It may not be adapting as faster as you would like to see them do so. But, who are they hurting most? I would think that they are only damaging their own potential revenue stream by not adapting quickly enough.

That's rich. Pot meet kettle. Did you address my points? How about this one "There is no way to be exposed to new music other than stealing it?"

I never said that. I said that my piracy led me, and by reading artiles around the internet many others, into a life that included music where it hadn't before. I even gave an example of really good sources for new music: Rhapsody, Napster, iTunes, etc.

The RIAA has pursued over 26,000 actions against pirates. These cases make the news when it is someone that normally would not be associated with illegal file sharing. Jammie Thomas is a single mother. But, she was found guilty of downloading and sharing 1,702 songs. That would be the equivalent of 170-210 full albums of 8-10 songs each. Hardly the innocent little soccer mom.

Ok, I was drawing out a hyperbole. The RIAA is suing end users for piracy when there are better ways to fight it, including easier access to new music, more effective access to music, and DRM renovations. Suing end users is the most self destructive way possible of achieving the desired result.

The industry is adapting whether you see that or not. It may not be adapting as faster as you would like to see them do so. But, who are they hurting most? I would think that they are only damaging their own potential revenue stream by not adapting quickly enough.

Which does not run counter to what I said AT ALL. I said they need to adapt. I didn't give a speed at which they should or a direction they must, I made suggestions into what coule immediately be done.

They are making piracy out to be the sinking blow to their glorious schooner, when it absolutely isn't. @!$%#ty music, over marketing, and generational gaps are what's causing slumping sales in some markets (most notably the pop market, which is showing lower sales than previous years) but the same could be said about the hair metal market in the late 80's. It isn't an unforeseen slump, they are just looking for targets to blame instead of making adaptive decisions to combat the recession in sales.

I think the music industry as a whole (i.e. the distributors) are doing a great job adapting. The RIAA is being a stubborn child and attacking the people it wants to sell to in vain attempts at showing them who's boss. It's ridiculous.

"Piracy benefits the artists zero. It is not up to the customer to decide that the best distribution model for the labels, producers and artists is more exposure via piracy. I doubt that you will find a musician who will thank you for stealing his music. Like it or not, the music is the property of the record industry to give it away, sell it or rent it as they choose. They are the ones who took the financial risk in the game. They should benefit."

Artists already hardly benefit from album sales. The majority of their income is from performance. Albums sales directly benefit the RIAA members and largely established artists with better contracts the most (i.e. Metallica). I think that piracy is an issue, but saying it doesn't help the artist when someone who pirates all of his music will go to shows, the largest source of an artist's revenue, is a falsehood. It directly and most profoundly hurts the corporate heads of the industry.

There was a time when people didn't think that you could make money by giving away IP in the form of software. The Open Source movement has corrected that.

Are you suggesting that artists could make more money by giving their IP away for free? Please explain that one. Radiohead just tried that and it did not do very well.

Please explain that one. Radiohead just tried that and it did not do very well.

It depends on how long of a view you take. CDs and vinyl go on sale next month, perhaps since their record has spread so far it will encourage people that otherwise wouldn't have to spend extra money on a crafted box set. Maybe when Radiohead tours in support of In Rainbows they'll get people going to the concerts that wouldn't have had they not released the album for "free." Maybe those people at the show will buy merch.

There are a lot of ways a band can make money off of their music than just by selling the CD, and there are still enough people willing to pay for the CD that they won't go broke as long as they aren't following the major label approach of taking a huge loss from initial marketing and trying to explode immediately and rather starting small and building up a fan base over time.

Radiohead did make the decision to distribute their album that way. Music pirates make that decision for the creator of the music.

I am sure that Radiohead considered all of the things that you suggest. Maybe they thought that it would have done better on the pay-as-you-like scheme. But, it was a gamble on their part. Maybe they do make that loss up on concert revenues or whatever. The most important point to me is that it was their decision.

I think that this model could work in some cases. New bands my try to invest in their future by giving away their music for the exposure. But, they still have to pay the bills somehow. Even if the bands do expect to make their money on tour, they still have to pay the production and distribution costs of the albums out of that revenue.

There is no reason that all music has to be sold at $10-15 per disc or at $0.99 per song via download. Bands can choose any or all of these. There are more options for distributing music today versus 10 or 20 years ago. But, I do not see this as the 'buggy whip' scenario.

I just think it's time for the major labels to try and be creative in the face of a changing market rather than try to litigate themselves back to 1992. It's possible to leverage cheap and/or free digital music into actual revenue and the majors certainly have the money to throw around to find out how. Especially if they fire all these high priced attorneys that are saying me making a mix CD or, heaven forbid, ripping a CD I paid for to my computer for my own personal use is piracy.

No doubt. The labels are certainly going overboard in trying to curtail fair use. The movie studios are in the same boat there. They could both learn to be a bit more creative with their distribution models.

At the same time, there is a difference between fair use and piracy. Lending an album or movie to a friend is fair use. Making yourself a copy of your music to leave in your car changer is fair use. But, it is hard to argue that making your music collection available on a peer-to-peer network for all to see and download could be. These folks are as wrong as the record labels that are trying to eliminate fair use.

But, it is hard to argue that making your music collection available on a peer-to-peer network for all to see and download could be. These folks are as wrong as the record labels that are trying to eliminate fair use.

Well I certainly wouldn't categorize piracy as fair use by any definition, but I do honestly think it offers quality bands more than the record labels' lawsuits. Most music are willing to pay for music that they think is worth paying for. Sure you have the people that will store thousands of songs and never buy a CD, but you have many more that, upon downloading an album and finding that they really do love it go out and buy it. I'm not saying every label needs to release all their music for free, but I do think that such widespread distribution has helped a lot of bands gain a lot of exposure. Indie bands have been all over the Billboard charts this year, at higher rankings than they've ever been. I don't think you can discount the part that file-sharing played in that.

Jay Butler: "Are you suggesting that artists could make more money by giving their IP away for free? Please explain that one. Radiohead just tried that and it did not do very well."

I thought I did explain it in my comment, but let me try again...

The open source movement creates IP in the form of software, however they don't profit directly from the sale of that software. Customers are encouraged to copy the software and share it with as many people as possible.

The companies that produce the software make money from related businesses: selling hardware, support, consulting, pre-made media (boxed software), t-shirts, etc. As a result, there is zero cost for DRM. The more popular the software is - as a result of it being continually better - the more money the companies make from the related sales and services. For example, when IBM invested $1B in open source, they reported that they recovered the investment in 18 months.

What I suggested in my comment is that the content producers could do the same thing, essentially expanding on the idea that currently artists make most of their money at concerts (live performance ticket sales, CD/DVD sales, t-shirts, etc.).

Just as you need a computer to use open source, you need an mp3 player to play downloaded music, or a portable media player for video, or a computer for either. The content is distributed over networks, that sell bandwidth for profit.

The current content producers can transition their profit centers to those areas that are profiting from the sharing of the content, rather than the content itself. The content becomes a cost center supporting sales. NBC, for example, is owned by GE, which has twice the market cap of Apple. They can acquire Apple and profit from the use of the content rather than directly from the content (as an example). Sony effectively does this. Their electronics division dwarfs the revenue from their media division.

Obviously, this requires changing the way artists are paid; without content, the related industries will fail. The creation of content must be encouraged, the same way open source encourages software creation. Many open source developers are salaried. If the development of software - a creative process - can thrive in a salaried environment, why not musicians, actors, directors, etc.? You probably won't have the same individuals, but that doesn't mean your product will be of lower quality.

Actually, considering the cost and quality of much of the current content produced, I'd say the media industries have little to lose.