"Music sales are not affected by web piracy"

davet82

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

A report published by the European Commission Joint Research Committee claims that music web piracy does not harm legitimate sales.

The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies examined the online habits of 16,000 Europeans.

They also found that freely streamed music provided a small boost to sales figures.

"According to our results, a 10% increase in clicks on legal streaming websites lead to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchases websites," claimed the report.

Interesting study...

I'm going to be honest and admit I have pirated stuff on the web but I think I only did it because I could, what I mean is if I had to pay for it I wouldn't bother downloading it, strange but true...

Nodin

"internet piracy" you say? What a strange phenomena....

meoklmrk91

I have pirated and will continue to do so, I rarely pirate music these days because of iTunes and spotify. I also use netflix for movies and tv shows. Spotify and netflix are very new services in this country, both starting in 2012, before that peopls options were very limited.I have no problem paying for stuff it's just that if companies don't give me the opportunity to do so then I will find some other way to consume that media, simple as.

SebBerkovich

I've been buying music ever since I've been able to afford it... when i was younger/broker spending 15 quid on an album didn't have a strong appeal.

carlmango11

I've had this discussion with friends before.

If you weren't going to buy it anyway, what harm is it to download it? It's a victimless crime! The producer loses nothing.

However, if it's something I would have bought I generally do feel a pang of guilt when I stroll on over to The Pirate Bay and sometimes do pay for it if I want to support the producer (eg: small band, decent software/game company).

Sarky

Piracy is still dumb. If you like music, it's only fair to throw a few bob the artist's way. But meh, everyone but the big publishing companies already knew piracy wasn't really a threat.

Duggy747

Yes........the poor artists.......

jjpep

I think the biggest threat piracy poses is to Internet freedom more than anything really. As long as it exists governments will always have an excuse to try to curtail Internet freedom. Now so far here that hasn't happened because of public outcry when it has been tried but that's no reason for us to take things as granted.

IM0

some stuff you feel justifies buying some dont so you download it to see what its like, and later on you get into a band you wouldnt have and end up spending more money on the band which you wouldnt have without piracy

LoonyLovegood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMj_P_6H69g

Amanda Palmer makes a really good point in this TED talk. Make everything available for whatever price people want to pay, and they'll generally pay. I think in the whole piracy discussion, that can be forgotten.

Amirani

With Spotify and Netflix about, I have pretty much no need to pirate anything.

Rayne Wooney

If I can get the exact same quality song free online as for €1.29 on iTunes then why not, if I like a song and can't find a decent quality version online I buy it off iTunes.

Sky King

I have paid to see artists who I never would have heard of were it not for youtube etc.

efb

That Rebecca Black concert rocked!

maximoose

Sarky wrote: »

Piracy is still dumb. If you like music, it's only fair to throw a few bob the artist's way.

I do, but in the form of merch and buying gig tickets. Haven't purchased music that wasn't made by a friend since Dustin's Christmas Hits in 1998 - and I don't feel bad about that in the slightest.

The music industry is absolutely borked. Came across a great article on here the other day but in typical fashion I can't find it again. Basically showed how ridiculously greedy everyone involved in producing a record has become and how it is increasingly difficult for artists to make any money from record sales - if anyone can find it that'd be lovely. Specifically used 30 Seconds to Mars as an example, they ended up still owing their record company millions despite huge sales.

Sin City

I heard that most artists these days get their money from touring not from album sales , or at least very little from album sales. Its all the corperates who make the money off the sales so I have no issue with downloading free music. (Not that I do much downloading of free music btw)

Sarky

maximoose wrote: »

I do, but in the form of merch and buying gig tickets. Haven't purchased music that wasn't made by a friend since Dustin's Christmas Hits in 1998 - and I don't feel bad about that in the slightest.

I still buy plenty of music, just not in shops. I've spent a fair bit online for various albums and soundtracks you often can't get in a shop. I have no qualms about handing over a tenner for the equivalent of a 2-CD album of really good music.

People deserve credit for entertaining you with their work. I'm not paying €15 for a CD when only pennies of that end up in their pocket. I can go to the source online, give them far more money per song, and still end up paying a fraction of that €15. The artist is happy, and can afford to keep making music. I'm happy, and can afford to buy more of it. Everyone involved wins.

And if ZZ Top should happen to be playing in Cork this summer (and they are), I'll happily buy a ticket (I did).

Ruudi_Mentari

it would be nice if more people 'pirated' sounds of the underground instead, even for the sake of circulation due to it being now so much easier to find and even offered up for free by those who made it but less and less people see to be tapping into that now in an ever tackier mainstream climate. I guess worthwhile counter culture has lost it's bite, in music.

Alarm bells stopped ringing and rusted over when nerds up in their podiums ensconced in their computers eventaully became the new rockstar anyhow, so fcuk it

The more people touring for revenue anyhow the better.

Turtyturd

Most musicians don't set out to make money over the ability to live off their music, so as long as they can do that I don't feel guilty about downloading.

Sin City

Turtyturd wrote: »

Most musicians don't set out to make money over the ability to live off their music, so as long as they can do that I don't feel guilty about downloading.

AdamOHare

My best mate buys in 500gig harddrives and then fills it up with music and sells it on for a 30quid profit. And 1 terabyte drive full of movies for a 50quid profit. If pirating was dead then he'd be out of business. Me thinks that article is probably wrong. I reckon pirating does effect sales to some extent or other.

md23040

AdamOHare wrote: »

My best mate buys in 500gig harddrives and then fills it up with music and sells it on for a 30quid profit. And 1 terabyte drive full of movies for a 50quid profit. If pirating was dead then he'd be out of business. Me thinks that article is probably wrong. I reckon pirating does effect sales to some extent or other.

Normally would not wish schadenfreude on anyone but your best mate deserves the book thrown at him with a hefty fine and whatever other penalties can be imposed for parasitically leeching from other peoples works without any form of recognition.

No one really cares about someone downloading the odd bit of music or film as no one really gets hurt, and there's no opportunity lost if someone wasn't going to buy it anyway. But what your best mate is doing remains quite different and deplorable IMO.

Rant Over

AdamOHare

md23040 wrote: »

Normally would not wish schadenfreude on anyone but your best mate deserves the book thrown at him with a hefty fine and whatever other penalties can be imposed for parasitically leeching from other peoples works without any form of recognition.

No one really cares about someone downloading the odd bit of music or film as no one really gets hurt, and there's no opportunity lost if someone wasn't going to buy it anyway. But what your best mate is doing remains quite different and deplorable IMO.

Rant Over

I respect your opinion. But I dont think ethics/morals come into it with him. At the end of the day moneys tight for him and if it gets him some extra money then fair play. Like everyone has said so far. Its a victimless crime. He could out be selling drugs or whatever.

stimpson

AdamOHare wrote: »

I respect your opinion. But I dont think ethics/morals come into it with him. At the end of the day moneys tight for him and if it gets him some extra money then fair play. Like everyone has said so far. Its a victimless crime. He could out be selling drugs or whatever.

Oh, the ironing is delicious.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82830868&postcount=187

AdamOHare

stimpson wrote: »

Oh, the ironing is delicious.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82830868&postcount=187

A bit of context is in order.

That was regarding a drug dealer getting caught smuggling a load of drugs at the border and everyone saying she should get off because the sentencing in that country is very strict..... but the thing is....people do get hurt that drug dealing crap.

What my mate doesnt leave his customers in debt/in hospital etc. Its a victimless crime.

Kinski

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

Alarm bells stopped ringing and rusted over when nerds up in their podiums ensconced in their computers eventaully became the new rockstar anyhow, so fcuk it

Are they though? David Bowie is currently #1 in the UK album charts with the fastest-selling album of the year thus far, and was only just pipped to top spot in the US by noted computer nerds Bon Jovi.

The likes of the Chemical Brothers and Daft Punk briefly threatened to herald a new era of dance superstars in the late 90s/early 00s, but it never really came to pass.

Bipolar Joe

I tend to download movies. All the music I listen to is almost always free, any way, and when the artists do release hard copies, I'll buy them because I'm a collector douchebag. Wolfbait and Ravenous are two examples. For movies, I watch a lot of free ones (Either because the copyright ran out, or it's just free, like The Amateur Monster Movie or Decay).

For bigger movies, like Dredd or whatever, ones that you have to pay to see, I'll generally download it first. I can't afford to buy something that will end up being awful. I liked Dredd, so I'm on the lookout for somewhere to buy it, and I might just end up getting it online.

A lot of my music has been pirated, a lot of it is free. A few years ago I released a CD-R that I just couldn't get many people to buy. Then, it ended up being pirated, and I sold out within two weeks. It could just be coincidence, but I think the fact that people had access to it, and could hear if it was something they'd like, pushed people to want to own it, and now I have people that are more likely to purchase from me when I release stuff.

The end.

EDIT: And on the subject of piracy being a "Victimless crime," it's not. Who do you think suffers the most? The fat cats? The artist? The lady whose job it is to type shit up? The dude who is basically a wage slave? Who do you think gets fired, or has their paycheck cut? The secretary on just above minimum wage, with a kid or two and a mortgage, ends up making less or gets fired. She is a victim of piracy.

hfallada

Apple take 70% of the €1,29 you pay for a song. Amazon and apple both I believe run their whole European music stores from Luxembourg to avoid VAT on the download sales. So they stop governments collecting tax revenue.

Then whatever is left from the €1,29 you pay goes to the record company, lawyers, accountants and finally the artist.

In the end they get **** all and they know it. They know the way to make money is merchandising and touring. Dr dre made $100 million off beats alone last year.

Paying for music is gone but artist have never been richer

There were always ways to pirate media, it was the music industry that did itself more harm than anything else by holding up the development of online media sales in the first place. For a long time, even on the all powerful Apple iTunes store you couldn't buy music from certain artists (The Beatles, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin etc.) and when users preferred digital media, why bother going to a bricks and mortar store to buy something when there was an easier way to get the music illegally.

There's plenty of holier than thou people around forums that will look down on others as if you just slaughtered a lamb on their doorstep for downloading stuff illegally but the reality of the situation was never that clear cut. The industry was so afraid of allowing their music to be made available digitally that it became available digitally via peer2peer illegal file sharing before it became digitally available the legal way. Once that had happened, so many people had learned the oh so easy, illegal and free way to get it that switching to the legal, but not free way, was never a logical step for some (a moral step for others). If they had made the cheap legal digital downloads available quicker (I'm not talking about just iTunes here) they could have stood to make way more money than they did (and maybe even curtail the illegal file sharing boom that happened in the early 2000's).

stimpson

AdamOHare wrote: »

A bit of context is in order.

That was regarding a drug dealer getting caught smuggling a load of drugs at the border and everyone saying she should get off because the sentencing in that country is very strict..... but the thing is....people do get hurt that drug dealing crap.

What my mate doesnt leave his customers in debt/in hospital etc. Its a victimless crime.

You said:

AdamOHare wrote: »

I hope she gets it to be honest. Im sick of hearing about her and listening to all the bleeding heart druggies who want her to walk away scott free just because in their minds what she did isnt a crime.

So, anyway.... How much do you...eh...I mean your mate want for a hard drive?

Mark Tapley

md23040 wrote: »

Normally would not wish schadenfreude on anyone but your best mate deserves the book thrown at him with a hefty fine and whatever other penalties can be imposed for parasitically leeching from other peoples works without any form of recognition.

No one really cares about someone downloading the odd bit of music or film as no one really gets hurt, and there's no opportunity lost if someone wasn't going to buy it anyway. But what your best mate is doing remains quite different and deplorable IMO.

Rant Over

If you wished schadenfreude on someone you would be wishing that they felt pleasure at the misfortune of someone else. Which would be strange.

stimpson

And while we're at it, I can't believe I didn't post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

jjpep

I find it kinda bit weird the argument some folks give for justifying piracy 'oh after the record label, manager etc gets their cut the artist only gets xx %'. How much do you think the artist gets paid when you don't pay for it??

Grayson

jjpep wrote: »

I find it kinda bit weird the argument some folks give for justifying piracy 'oh after the record label, manager etc gets their cut the artist only gets xx %'. How much do you think the artist gets paid when you don't pay for it??

In my case nothing. But I wouldn't buy it anyway. So either way it's nothing.

I own some films. But I'd say 99% of what I download I wouldn't have bought anyway.

jjpep

Grayson wrote: »

In my case nothing. But I wouldn't buy it anyway. So either way it's nothing.

So why would you download something that your not interested in?

Lelantos

Of course piracy has an effect, I'm not too worried about the artists, but the knock on effect is the demise of the b&m stores. Lots of independents closing in the last year or 2 not to mention a certain chain. It's not all down to piracy of course, but its a damn sizeable chunk .

Grayson

jjpep wrote: »

So why would you download something that your not interested in?

I'm not saying I'm not interested. But that doesn't mean I would pay full whack for it.

I'd have no problems paying for a subscription service. But doesn't mean that I want to pay 10 for an album or 30 for a box set.

md23040

Mark Tapley wrote: »

If you wished schadenfreude on someone you would be wishing that they felt pleasure at the misfortune of someone else. Which would be strange.

You're understanding the sentence wrongly, in that I do not wish to feel misfortune on another individual but in this case an exception would be made. But please don't be such a grammatical Nazi.

In the case of drawing the line at victimless crime the OP's POV has been clearly exposed as a sham IMO following earlier contradictory posting in another topic.

By comparison shoplifting is victimless by your parameters, since the supplier is not affected, nor the worker, nor the store as the margin has shrinkage built in, burglary ditto with people able to collect through their insurance, general insurance fraud etc.

Stop trying to use a moral compass to distinguish something that's blatantly wrong, and different from somebody doing the odd bit of downloading.

karma_

md23040 wrote: »

You're understanding the sentence wrongly, in that I do not wish to feel misfortune on another individual but in this case an exception would be made. But please don't be such a grammatical Nazi.

In the case of drawing the line at victimless crime the OP's POV has been clearly exposed as a sham IMO following earlier contradictory posting in another topic.

By comparison shoplifting is victimless by your parameters, since the supplier is not affected, nor the worker, nor the store as the margin has shrinkage built in, burglary ditto with people able to collect through their insurance, general insurance fraud etc.

Stop trying to use a moral compass to distinguish something that's blatantly wrong, and different from somebody doing the odd bit of downloading.

Quick, get this man a pitchfork.

Bipolar Joe

karma_ wrote: »

Quick, get this man a pitchfork.

Because he's thinking about the people lower on the food chain than the ones that own the store?

karma_

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Because he's thinking about the people lower on the food chain than the ones that own the store?

You know what, you're right. I only skimmed his post initially and completely got the wrong end of the stick there.

Apologies md.

Ruudi_Mentari

Ahhhr, hoist the maxell tape high me mateys.

Mr. CooL ICE

My own band is signed to an independent label, which means that we have had to pay towards print, promotion and recording. We all have full time jobs and know that unless our popularity explodes, we're not going to be able to use music as a full-time income.

However, if I google our band name + album name, 3 of the first 10 hits in google are links to our album on file sharing sites. We have the option of contacting the owners of rapidshare.com/uploaded.net/whoever through our label to remove the material, but we don't because we know that at our stage, people listening to our album for free is better than not listening to it at all. However, when I think of the money and hard work that went into getting the album out there, it really does hurt.

I personally believe that digital downloads is the way forward and that physical albums are now for collectors, but knowing Apple keep 70% as the purchase fee doesn't help. Hell, the cost of getting an instrument serviced requires a few thousand listen on Spotify.

/rant

karma_

LordChessington wrote: »

My own band is signed to an independent label, which means that we have had to pay towards print, promotion and recording. We all have full time jobs and know that unless our popularity explodes, we're not going to be able to use music as a full-time income.

However, if I google our band name + album name, 3 of the first 10 hits in google are links to our album on file sharing sites. We have the option of contacting the owners of rapidshare.com/uploaded.net/whoever through our label to remove the material, but we don't because we know that at our stage, people listening to our album for free is better than not listening to it at all. However, when I think of the money and hard work that went into getting the album out there, it really does hurt.

I personally believe that digital downloads is the way forward and that physical albums are now for collectors, but knowing Apple keep 70% as the purchase fee doesn't help. Hell, the cost of getting an instrument serviced requires a few thousand listen on Spotify.

/rant

Do you think there is any long term benefit to the success of your band by having your early work disseminated in that fashion?

Mr. CooL ICE

karma_ wrote: »

Do you think there is any long term benefit to the success of your band by having your early work disseminated in that fashion?

Yes. As said, if people took the effort of uploading it to a number of sites for others to download, it means that there is a chance, albeit a small one, that people could spread the word. And any word of mouth is highly valuable at our stage.

Besides, if we got the files taken down, they would probably be re-uploaded within days, so reporting them would be to fight a losing battle. I'm not being defeatist by saying that, just trying to be realistic

PogMoThoin

This doesn't surprise me.

Trent Reznor admitted uploading NIN's own music to thepiratebay, said it was the best advertising you could get. They purposely left usb keys lying around in the toilets, at their concerts so their music would be found and leak.

Radiohead released an album on their website and let fans pay what they felt it was worth. Afterwards, they said they made more money on that album, than they made on all other albums put together, as there was no greedy hands taking big slices of the pie.

Bipolar Joe

PogMoThoin wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me.

Trent Reznor admitted uploading NIN's own music to thepiratebay, said it was the best advertising you could get. They purposely left usb keys lying around in the toilets, at their concerts so their music would be found and leak.

Radiohead released an album on their website and let fans pay what they felt it was worth. Afterwards, they said they made more money on that album, than they made on all other albums put together, as there was no greedy hands taking big slices of the pie.

I'm not a fan of Trent Reznor (He's a dick), but the ARG surrounding Year Zero (The USB stick thing) was fantastic marketing.

krudler

I download tv shows, Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad mostly, now, if either of those were made available online, with a price for the season to watch them legally and in HD, I'd happily pay for it. HBO has an online service but you need to be a HBO customer to use it, which kinda negates it. I don't know why more tv companies run like a season pass to one particular show, say 15 quid to watch all 10-13 episodes of whatever. They make money, you see the show in a decent quality format without downloading it off a torrent, everyone's happy.

krudler

PogMoThoin wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me.

Trent Reznor admitted uploading NIN's own music to thepiratebay, said it was the best advertising you could get. They purposely left usb keys lying around in the toilets, at their concerts so their music would be found and leak.

Radiohead released an album on their website and let fans pay what they felt it was worth. Afterwards, they said they made more money on that album, than they made on all other albums put together, as there was no greedy hands taking big slices of the pie.

the comedian Louis CK recorded a show and charged people 5 bucks for it, no DRM, not anti piracy measures, was available in different formats, once you downloaded it the do what you wanted with it, and it made him over a million quid. When will record companies and movie studios realise if you try prevent people using your products on whatever device they want they'll just download it in a different format. I paid for Louis' show cos I love the guy and it was a fiver, the entire thing was on youtube but feck it, support worthwhile artists and all that.

Prodigious

"You wouldn't steal a car"

If it was on Pirate Bay I probably would!

Ruudi_Mentari

Truth is these days it really is the case that the most naive people, actually buy. the most insufferable crap

and even scarier it is often merely because they want them to be rich and famous, like most if their lyrics demand. Nikki show dem how it's done / taking money just for fun... 2 sticks in my bun so if you think about it is quite the savvy angle these illuminum are brainwashing our kids with. Fame and fortune is what's popular, the self to the detriment of others not a sense of the che guevara that was so prevalent and I wonder just how newtered we are on the face of it due to this when most of the youth emselves are actually aspiring to the fat cats

and obviously the majority of the consumers are very young and actually buy into this so I don't see a comeback for music as having such major cultural and social relevance as it did, in this computer age and I think the most counter cultural / punk thing of the moment coming to the surface seemingly being a fuppin folk revival is most telling. But more power to it, tbh because it rlly is that bleak.. give music back to actual musicians, must start somewhere before we can reclaim the streets but if people just want to be in a monotonous, metronomous computerized 'trance' then its goodnite irene.

so yeah the issue is more profound than mere piracy!