tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post6012230759674766752..comments2024-03-16T16:43:13.585-04:00Comments on thoughts & ramblings: The Real Issue Of Online Piracy and Illegal File-Sharing: AssholesZack Hemseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-25501335829504072016-07-15T15:04:47.257-04:002016-07-15T15:04:47.257-04:00I agree with you that the people who make money of...I agree with you that the people who make money off of copied content are the big issue in piracy. There are lots of alternatives to enjoy music legally, and it's sad that some people would rather support the "piracy industry" than legitimate sources. Plenty of artists provide their music for free through legal venues. The money that pirates are earning off of ad revenue is money that could have went to the artists themselves. That is the true loss. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-56048716478327863132016-07-12T21:39:08.049-04:002016-07-12T21:39:08.049-04:00Thanks for your perspective, Zack. You really chan...Thanks for your perspective, Zack. You really changed my mind about the piracy debate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-28380731705896636652013-04-18T19:27:54.088-04:002013-04-18T19:27:54.088-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alberto Cunhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15647329847688521723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-41144018813153489942012-06-06T22:50:44.736-04:002012-06-06T22:50:44.736-04:00Lastly, no one supports governments shutting down ...Lastly, no one supports governments shutting down words and ideas - to suggest that in response to this article or reasoned debate about anti-piracy issues is to twist words to fit a preconceived notion. It's very simple: either creators have rights to that which they create, or they don't. Given that you are of the belief that IP should not exist, we know where you stand. But let me give you some words of caution - it's all well and good to jump onto the internet anarchy bandwagon, but know you walk a slippery slope…today artists are being exploited and stripped of their rights, but tomorrow you might find yourself in those shoes when some new group of jack-offs decide you're not entitled to X / Y / Z, or that a new area of business no longer has the right to charge people for their products, or that no one has a right to privacy, or that you shouldn't be allowed to make a certain amount of money, etc. The delusional "Robin Hood" fantasy that supporters of piracy are immersed in is but a budding Orwellian dystopia.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-73230339332032920782012-06-06T22:50:35.004-04:002012-06-06T22:50:35.004-04:00It seems to me that you have conflated a few thing...It seems to me that you have conflated a few things. Proponents of artist rights are not trying to force or impose anything on individuals - it's the other way around - individuals and piracy facilitators are imposing on artists and content owners. For an artist to charge a fee to a person who wishes to download a song is not to impose on them, as that person is not forced to buy it. However, for an artist to be forced to allow unrelated parties to distribute their content without their consent or approval is most definitely to impose on them. <br /><br />Regarding Katy Perry, what you or anyone think she should or should not make is of no consequence - the question is should people have the right to steal her music, distribute it globally without her consent, and make money off it to boot? Similarly, Lady Gaga's business model (or your impression of it) is irrelevant to the real issue here. If Lady Gaga chose to make her music available for free, it would have absolutely no impact on this discussion, other than to attest to the fact that content owners should have the right to run their business as they see fit.<br /><br />Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I'm not sure you fully comprehend the nature of assholes - there is no "working with them" - they make money by exploiting other people's creations, and that's where it ends. No profit sharing to be worked out, nor business strategy to formulate…and obviously, no right to force them to stop exploiting your creations. Where I come from that's not working together, that's getting jacked. <br /><br />Not sure what you're getting at with respect to "pissing off old publishers" - I don't have a publisher and I don't have a label, so all the evil record industry talk can go out the window - I independently run my own company and publish my own music. I have yet to get a request from an asshole wishing to "work" with me. But I have politely contacted many an asshole to no response.<br /><br />With respect to "assholes are simply providing the distribution people want and no one else was providing", yeah, people love free stuff. But just because people want free stuff doesn't mean suppliers should be forced to acquiesce. I would love a free automobile, and I'm sure I'm not alone - if I walk into a Honda dealership and demand they supply me with a free car, does their refusal make them profiteering demons? No. Does it follow that we should band together and raid the Honda dealership? No. And if we did start raiding dealerships across the globe, how long will it be until dealerships with quality cars started disappearing altogether? Of course, maybe the car manufacturers will continue to make automobiles because they're so passionate about it…you know, the "real" car makers that do it for the love and not the money…the ones who earn a living working 40 to 60 hours a week in an unrelated field but miraculously find the time to crank out automobiles in their spare time. I'll let you drive that car. In any event, stealing someone's stuff and giving it to the entire world doesn't make you a distributor - it simply makes you an asshole. <br /><br />This should be common sense: people have rights to the things they create...because they created it! Not sure why that is so hard to grasp for some, but I certainly understand why it's a nuisance to those who earn money through violating the rights of content creators. IP is not a monopolist tool, it's related to the right to property that all individuals and businesses possess. In contrast, a bunch of assholes undermining the self-determination of content owners is dictatorial.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-70956598633820137772012-05-24T23:33:52.260-04:002012-05-24T23:33:52.260-04:00You are taught as an artist to register your work ...You are taught as an artist to register your work with congress. Well that's a joke. Every industry is suffering from the digitization of works. You can download 1000's of ebooks in minutes. Entire discographies of music artists are available at a couple clicks. 'Anyone can do it' software and hardware is becoming more popular. The 'pirate' sites and blogs are so good at what they do they often have legit fortune 5000 businesses advertising on them. Congress, the 80 year old fossils that they are, do nothing because they can barely grasp what a usb flash drive is for. The law seems to be in favor of those who peddle free copy written material. Its a recipe for disaster. People do not feel they need to pay for anything other than a hot movie ticket like the Avengers. The Arts are slowly just becoming 'the hobbies'. Bottom line, don't quit your day job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-60217476854699384732012-05-21T08:03:52.647-04:002012-05-21T08:03:52.647-04:00That is the real issue happening here. Im afraid i...That is the real issue happening here. Im afraid its true, but we still have a choice.scottsdale dui lawyerhttp://www.azduilawyer.com/scottsdale-dui.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-52139812472692490282012-05-19T12:17:57.721-04:002012-05-19T12:17:57.721-04:00Digital content is easier to replicate and distrib...Digital content is easier to replicate and distribute which changes business models thats all. I understand the arguments in this post but still feel like your trying to force or impose on individuals. I wouldn't say Katey Perry should make less, but I also wouldn't say she should make more, neither case is my business though I feel it likely she stands to make more with the advance of tech being where it's at. Lady Gaga is an example of someone who embraced a model of business relying on her tours and so called piracy only increased her exposure. The distribution of the music and artist are things of value and if someone is uncomfortable with arrangements of bits on harddrives being replicated they shouldn't make ideas/movies/music or base their business plan on controlling it.<br /><br />These assholes are simply providing the distribution people want and no-one else was providing. Anybody can work with them instead of against but it's a choice of pissing off the old publishers right? I dispute the claim they are refusing to pay artists just by maintaining a file sharing service.<br /><br />Most of what I'm saying is trying to be convincing that there are other ways if we aren't afraid. But there is a basic moral question the answer of which can avoid a lot of pain: do we want to vilify people by calling them pirates and having governments shut them down as well as enforce the containment of words and ideas? I think there are better ways to think about IP, mainly that it should not exist and we should think about what enforcing it really looks like. It's a monopolist tool, not one for artists and creatives to wield.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-1343654295516877752012-05-19T11:20:20.268-04:002012-05-19T11:20:20.268-04:00Well, keep in mind that even when the physical CD ...Well, keep in mind that even when the physical CD market was booming, pricing was still varied to a certain degree, with CDs ranging on average from $12.99 to $16.99 depending on the artist and retail outlet in question. More to the point though, the cost of manufacturing was only one variable that contributed to the cost of the physical CD - other factors were the costs incurred from recording, mixing, mastering, etc. Moreover, there has always been a non-mathematical component to pricing, in the way of ascribing a cost to the creativity inherent in the product, which is ultimately the real thing being paid for. <br /><br />So with all of that said, the only thing that has changed from the era of CDs to digital downloads, is the removal of the single variable of manufacturing / packaging. But every other variable remains in place - recording, mixing, mastering being the primarily ones (but depending on the artist / band, also musician fees, producer fees, PR / marketing costs, etc). And of course, the inherent creativity (i.e. the song itself). So as I see it, the standard album download price of $10 is actually a very fair price point in comparison to it's physical CD counterpart.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-76116160751503512622012-05-06T04:30:45.106-04:002012-05-06T04:30:45.106-04:00I think one of the biggest issues with the pricing...I think one of the biggest issues with the pricing is one of supply and demand. When the only was to get music was through CDs tapes and vinyls the pricing mechanism was easy: you could price off what you needed to make more discs or tapes or sheets of vinyl. Consumers also had a rough idea of what these materials cost and therefore had a fair idea of what "overpriced" was. Now, because very few people aren't actually buying hard copies of anything, and because digital copies are basically free to make, the entire cost market has been turned on its head. Do we charge the same, even without physical materials? Do we charge less? If so, how much less? Thats the real question.tberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-21231644186849677382012-04-19T08:26:59.890-04:002012-04-19T08:26:59.890-04:00Zack
I completely ADORE this article. This is a s...Zack<br /><br />I completely ADORE this article. This is a sensible and serious enquiry/proposition I put to you: I publish a quarterly 'zine'/'mag' as a part of our band 'package' and include anything artistically, musically in particular, relevant - I invite contributions from others. This includes reviews not only on our music but other peoples' aswell. I would really LOVE to include your article in the June issue. It is brilliantly and entertainingly written. Would you be happy for me to do so? The 'zine' is a freebie which is circulated to fans of our music. I can offer you another outlet for your musings! Please do let me know if you'd be happy for me to do that. e_mail: anthonyholgate@yahoo.com<br /><br />Happy to send you a copy if you wish to see what it is like beforehand.<br /><br />I look forward to hearing from you soon, hopefully in the affirmative. Best wishes<br />AntAnthony Holgatehttp://www.candytree.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-51059163559698023822012-04-16T20:18:31.286-04:002012-04-16T20:18:31.286-04:00It seems the two of you are talking past each othe...It seems the two of you are talking past each other. Current music costs are certainly not overpriced in and of themselves. However, in comparison to piracy where music is free, any price is overpriced. So the question of what constitutes a fair price for a song or album depends on what we (society) decide to do or not do about piracy. If we decide to accept piracy as an unchangeable fact of modern life, then it will become more and more prevalent, necessitating an adaptation to consumer practices, resulting in a continued undercutting of music prices and a very bleak future for artists (one which will probably result in a full commitment to streaming platforms eventually). But if we decide that piracy is not an unchangeable fact of modern life, and adopt policies to effectively and intelligently combat it, then piracy loses the leverage it currently has on the music industry, entitled consumers will come to terms with not being able to have everything they want for free, and content owners will price their music as they see fit. I'm hoping for the latter scenario.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-58852184115118071332012-04-16T10:55:45.939-04:002012-04-16T10:55:45.939-04:00Drastically underpriced lol
What's keeping yo...Drastically underpriced lol<br /><br />What's keeping you from pricing your songs @ $5/pop? I'd really like to see how fans respond to that.<br /><br />lolJonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-29886426938385671982012-04-15T23:50:42.461-04:002012-04-15T23:50:42.461-04:00JWC: "
You're making an EMOTIONAL argumen...JWC: "<br />You're making an EMOTIONAL argument that doesn't jive with your business objectives. If you really want things to turn around, you're going to have to stop classifying downloaders as pirates & look at them as MODERN MUSIC LISTENERS, who ARE productive, the industry just hasn't made any effort to monetize them."<br /><br />Nonsense. There is no way to "monetize" somebody who is unwilling to pay a fair price for a product.<br /><br />Somebody who actually VALUES my work (or anyone else's) will be willing to pay a fair price to see that the work continues. If someone isn't willing to do that they're not a customer and certainly not a real fan.<br /><br />I mean, get real - music is DRASTICALLY underpriced right now - the cost of an album in 1965 adjusted to 2012 dollars would be between $35-$50. One song would cost between $3.50 and $5. A song now costs less than a jumbo candy bar many brands of sugar water and it lasts much longer and won't rot your teeth or give you diabetes.<br /><br />Music prices need to rise, not fall. People value what they pay for.<br /><br />Don't talk to me about "monetizing" - people who don't want to pay are simply greedy bastards who want whatever they can grab. Looters and parasites. And it really doesn't matter what kind of excuses they make. Why should a musician who has spent years of unpaid hard work learning and developing his art and invested thousands of dollars in equipment make less that a burger flipper at Mickey D's, just because some freeloader feels entitled to free music?<br /><br />And many people who download PIRATED material aren't even real listeners. They just use it as audio wallpaper or even worse, just have it in their "collection".<br /><br />If somebody pays for my music, they're invested in actually LISTENING to it. Pirates aren't. I would rather have 1000 paid sales to people who listen and really like what I do than 10,000 downloads to people who treat my music as wallpaper.<br /><br />Piracy isn't "exposure" regardless of what the thieves try to claim.John Eppsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-709156944360402262012-04-14T22:26:09.340-04:002012-04-14T22:26:09.340-04:00Just for context, here's a quote from Butch (w...Just for context, here's a quote from Butch (who knows a thing or two about recording) on the subject...<br /><br />"I started using Pro Tools in the mid 90's. I went from ditching my two ADAT machines and scraping up to buy a used 16 bit, Nu-Bus Pro Tools rig with only 16 tracks of recording capability on it. As I recall, my girl helped me out with it! It was the former system from the RnB group Silk and still had a bunch of "Oh baby" vocals on the drive...<br /><br />I didn't know the first thing about Pro Tools at all, and I learned how to use it by trial and DAE error. Within a month I recorded my first hit song ever on it (Marvelous 3’s 'Freak of the Week'). The whole thing was recorded to 16 tracks, with one preamp, one microphone, the drums sub-mixed to stereo, and mixed in the box. That was top 5 radio. It changed my perspective on the 'big expensive studio' approach to recording. So needless to say, I have paid my girl back for that rig…"JonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-27341934886793139562012-04-14T20:57:01.107-04:002012-04-14T20:57:01.107-04:00Butch Walker recorded the Marvelous 3's Hey! A...Butch Walker recorded the Marvelous 3's Hey! Album on a pro tools rig in his living room &... you can argue whether or not that qualifies as "wide audience" appeal, but it certainly hits the mark on quality. And this was in the early days of digital recording, when Pro Tools rigs were far less capable & much more expensive. A lot of people WANT records to cost as much as they used to, but they most certainly don't HAVE to. Making this argument that all records have to be big budget, studio recordings just shows that you believe that you hold all of the cards, when you don't.<br /><br />I'm with you on the fridge analogy, to a certain point... I don't think piracy is right, or that owning a lot of storage space is in any way a justification for violating copyright, I'm just making the argument that it has irreversibly shaped consumer behavior. And as hard as it would be for you to ever admit it, consumer behavior is a variable equal to if not MORE IMPORTANT than the laws of the land if your end desire is to make a the most profit that you can. But the end goal of the music industry seems to be to have people pay a certain price per song based on behavior that, judging from revenue reports, no long dominates. If I could sum up the problem in one sentence, that's it right there.<br /><br />You're making an EMOTIONAL argument that doesn't jive with your business objectives. If you really want things to turn around, you're going to have to stop classifying downloaders as pirates & look at them as MODERN MUSIC LISTENERS, who ARE productive, the industry just hasn't made any effort to monetize them. (It's actually done everything in it's power to alienate them.) The sooner you understand that, the better off you'll be. Then you'll understand my analogy.<br /><br />I'm not saying it's right, or that it's justified, I'm just saying it's a cold hard fact of life... consumer behavior as changed. And those who can't cope with the cold hard facts of life tend to fall to the wayside.<br /><br />I mean... how much did computers used to cost? And, adjusting for inflation, how much would that be today? A lot more than the $300 or so you would spend on a computer comparable to what the Hey! Album was recorded on (of course this is just an educated guess... but what you could get for $300 today is probably exponentially faster than what Butch used in 1998). Now do you REALLY think the price of digital music needs to go up?JonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-48261973832457653502012-04-12T15:40:06.191-04:002012-04-12T15:40:06.191-04:00Oh, about your "swarm of bees" thing - t...Oh, about your "swarm of bees" thing - the analogy doesn't hold. <br /><br />Bees, you see, are productive. Pirates are not, they are parasites.<br /><br />The operant analogy would be an infestation of rats.<br /><br />And you know what we do with an infestation of rats - we kill them.John Eppsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-33454714438137985702012-04-12T15:35:10.843-04:002012-04-12T15:35:10.843-04:00JonWayneCole, that's utter nonsense. If I inst...JonWayneCole, that's utter nonsense. If I install a big walk-in freezer in my house does that mean that I'm somehow "entitled" to have it filled with free food?<br /><br />No, it does not. <br /><br />If I'm so stupid as to purchase a storage device that there is no reasonable way that I'm going to be able to use it's not the responsibility of the world to fill it for me.<br /><br />The fact is that the tech industry has been encouraging piracy of content as an incentive for their customers to buy gadgets they they really don't need.<br /><br />It doesn't mean that content is overpriced. Contrary to what the tech pundits will tell you it still costs pretty much the same amount to produce an album of QUALITY music - i.e. music that people will actually want to listen to more than a few times - as it ever did; you can't make a great album on a computer in your bedroom without professional help and have something with any real appeal to a wide audience. The cost of making movies is only going up.<br /><br />So expecting prices to go down is unreasonable and unrealistic. The fact is that music is underpriced as it is - if you adjust the cost of a $5 album in 1965 to today's dollars it would cost somewhere between $35 and $50. A single song would figure out to between $3.50 and $5. Music prices need to INCREASE, not decrease to restore a decent return on investment.John Eppsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-62991314793413866112012-04-11T14:54:44.607-04:002012-04-11T14:54:44.607-04:00Haha...time will tell. Thanks for all of the insi...Haha...time will tell. Thanks for all of the insightful commentary.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-35062485645166414472012-04-10T19:10:47.249-04:002012-04-10T19:10:47.249-04:00I forgot to mention that they're mutant bees t...I forgot to mention that they're mutant bees that evolve in real time according to methods we use to control them haha But maybe you're right, maybe we just have different perspectives.<br /><br />But that's just the interim, we're all going to inevitably end up on Spotify, anyhow ;)JonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-66368208952695380992012-04-10T12:01:17.319-04:002012-04-10T12:01:17.319-04:00I guess I have more faith than you do, haha. Agai...I guess I have more faith than you do, haha. Again, I don't think piracy needs to be stamped out completely, just reigned in, the way we reign in overall crime. You're assessment of the multifaceted nature of piracy is totally valid, but that just means there may need to be a multifaceted approach to efforts against it (efforts that include holding facilitators accountable).<br /><br />I think the idea that effectively combatting piracy involves the relinquishing of personal liberties is a delusion. As far as I can tell, this delusion is born of the belief that effective anti-piracy efforts would rest on stopping piracy before it starts, through some sort of big brother control of the internet…but I'm not suggesting piracy be stopped before it starts, let alone Orwellian scenarios - I'm simply suggesting piracy be stopped once it does start. Yes, this is a reactionary strategy, but it doesn't follow that reactionary strategies are ineffective a priori. I think it's just that our current reactionary strategies (or lack thereof) are ineffective. Pursuing reactionary strategies also doesn't mean they can't be equally inventive and evolving. And keep in mind, all of law enforcement is reactive. The irony is that those who argue that anti-piracy efforts will violate people's rights and freedoms are apparently content to allow piracy to continue to violate the rights of content owners.<br /><br />The problem with SOPA wasn't the initial motivation of the legislation - it was how the legislation was written. The answer isn't to conclude "it will never work" - the answer is to write appropriate legislation that doesn't leave room for adverse exploitation. Part of what compounds the problem is that anti-piracy camps are all over the map, and piracy supporters under the guise of liberty do a great job in smearing the issues and undermining a healthy discussion of how to proceed.<br /><br />Discussions of evil record labels and exploitative artist deals sidetrack the issue (see point # 2 in the article), and although it's common that they get referenced as having contributed to the flourishing of piracy, I find such arguments to be meritless and merely after-the-fact rationalizations. Regardless though, none of it justifies piracy and none of it has any bearing on where to go from here.<br /><br />Your bee analogy is very helpful, as I think it illustrates the difference between us. You see the infestation of bees as being out of control. I see the infestation as being unruly. And while your solution is to entice the bees with bait...my solution is to have the villagers put on bee suits and remove the bee hives from the village.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-980012751812491432012-04-10T10:02:22.165-04:002012-04-10T10:02:22.165-04:00Very well put, but remedying the piracy industry i...Very well put, but remedying the piracy industry is much more easily said than done. Enforcement technology is, by nature, reactive. And we've seen the evolution of file sharing, clear as day... centralized peer-to-peer sharing (Napster, AudioGalaxy) is shut down, decentralized peer-to-peer sharing (Kazaa, Limewire, etc) pops up. Decentralized peer-to-peer sharing is shut down, bit torrent pops up. And each time a new technology emerges, it becomes bigger than the last. I'd bet real money that there are technologies already developed that are waiting to take the place of bit torrent, should the need arise. It's not like there are just a handful of Kim Dotcoms that you can jail & eliminate the problem, if the case against Kim is even going to stand up to scrutiny. And eliminating hosted file sharing sites by itself isn't going to be easy, as encryption methods & naming conventions & so forth continue to evolve in response to enforcement efforts. But we've seen clearly that whenever the RIAA claims a victory over a piracy facilitator, traffic simply redirects to a new source and file sharing on the whole continues to grow (from publicity, if not the necessary iterating of the software). And that's not even touching on less popular methods of file sharing, both private & public, that are also in use around the web.<br /><br />So I have to disagree with your assessment of the plausibility of eliminating the industry of piracy... it's too multi-faceted, it evolves too quickly, and users are too used to adopting new technologies. Remedying the problem would require the relinquishing of personal liberties that citizens, judging by the SOPA backlash, are not willing to relinquish.<br /><br />And it would be awesome if morality & the letter of the law reigned supreme, but the music industry has never held itself to those standards. And of course that doesn't justify it, but it explains the apathy towards the situation. And the problem can't be approached without a sober realization of that.<br /><br />It's kind of like... oh, the village just got infested with a swarm of bees. We could either try & coexist & remodel our economy around honey, or we could try to lure them out the village somehow. But trying to stomp them out just exacerbates the problem & there is no guarantee of success. The infestation isn't fair, but that's life sometimes.<br /><br />I just think we'll yield much better results trying to convert file sharers to Spotify than trying to stomp out piracy. The up front payments that labels demand & don't share with artists is practically piracy in & of itself, leaving very sad rates for artists, signed & independent. I think that deserves some of our ire, & is going to keep us from solving the piracy problem any time in the near future.JonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-24690289565660692592012-04-09T15:15:18.538-04:002012-04-09T15:15:18.538-04:00There was indeed piracy before it became profitabl...There was indeed piracy before it became profitable, but certainly not on the level of today. And it's my contention that once we remedy the "piracy industry", the same tools that allow us to do so will become applicable to non-profitable file-sharing networks. I'm not suggesting that every illegal file-sharing network across the planet will be, or can be, neutralized in total…but I am suggesting that appropriate legislation and enforcement can effectively reign piracy in (without requiring a reconstruction of the internet), and even more so if coupled with advances in monitoring technology. So piracy doesn't have to disappear altogether - it just needs to become untenable beyond a certain threshold.<br /><br />I agree that the mindset of the general consumer is important with respect to any business. But I don't think it's their mindset that ultimately allows piracy to flourish - rather, it's the complacency of the populace to allow individuals (profiteers or otherwise) to facilitate piracy. Yes, technology will always be utilized as much as possible to achieve what one desires, and to that end has served the general consumer quite well in the area of piracy. However, technology is not a wild animal out of control that exists unto itself…it's a reflection of the will of people, and it can be used in any number of ways, both to facilitate piracy and stifle it.<br /><br />I'm not pro or anti Spotify. But as long as there is rampant piracy, free theft will always reign supreme. I don't see streaming services as superior or inferior to a conventional pay structure - it's just a different model. It will appeal to some content owners and not to others, but it should be the choice of the content owner whether or not to embrace it (a determination primarily based on the deal structure between the rights owners and the streaming service, having nothing to do with the general consumer or the streaming model itself). If they don't embrace it, the consequence should be upset consumers not buying their music because they don't value it enough. But we should not be allowing consumers to steal music, and in so doing, leverage piracy as a means to force legitimate businesses into adopting streaming. <br /><br />It goes without saying that streaming is a superior alternative compared to piracy. But in my view, the future of the music industry does not rest upon a choice between piracy or streaming - it rests upon a choice between combatting piracy, or throwing up one's hands and giving up. If we look outside the music industry, we find crime in many different areas of society…but we don't just throw up our hands and say, "oh well". And despite the fact that it appears impossible to end all crime in total, this does not (and should not) prevent us from investing efforts toward reducing crime to the greatest degree possible. Piracy is no different.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-43191842902265573412012-04-07T23:14:33.938-04:002012-04-07T23:14:33.938-04:00So long as there have been networks, there has bee...So long as there have been networks, there has been piracy. There was piracy on newsgroups, on IRC, on AOL chatrooms, etc. Before there was advertising on the internet, there was piracy. There is piracy on networks & services that ACTIVELY AND AGGRESSIVELY try to stamp out piracy. Napster was just a rebranded IRC client... that Shawn Fanning made a dime off of it was probably a big surprise to everyone. So when the demand was made known, OF COURSE profiteers came out of the woodwork to capitalize on it, but it was already there. Perhaps they have accelerated it. But as long as the ability to share legal files exists, there is also the ability to share illegal files. And so taking down all of the "piracy facilitators" will only redirect traffic. The internet will literally have to be shut down & reconstructed in a completely different way in order for piracy to be stopped. The reason I gave you the Ronnie Milsap example was to prove this point... whenever the industry is not offering a legal way to satiate the demand of a music fan, music fans will use technology to meet one anothers' demands. And THAT'S why the mindset of the general consumer is not only significant, it is PARAMOUNT.<br /><br />Daniel Ek makes this argument all of the time... Spotify appeals to the mentality of the file sharer. The exploration, the ability to listen to a "disposable" song once or twice without having to make a full purchase, the portability, etc. Regardless of whether or not you think the pay structure is ideal, it's a model that prices music according to it's demand & satiates the varying values that different songs have to the modern consumer. If Spotify had launched in Napster's place, piracy would never have been a problem. (Of course the music industry would never have let that happen, even if turn-of-the-century technology had afforded us high quality streaming audio.) In most ways, Spotify is better than file sharing. But the problem is that so many people are set in their ways. They need to be convinced. And that will happen over time. And the profiteering piracy facilitators will gradually lose their influence (at least as far as music goes).<br /><br />That is the response to file sharing. It can not be stamped out, it must be defeated. It has to be bested. And Spotify is the only service currently equipped to do that.JonWayneColehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490486641280875114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-79892878404386862682012-04-07T17:12:54.813-04:002012-04-07T17:12:54.813-04:00Given there is a lot of music you desire, but whos...Given there is a lot of music you desire, but whose value you assess to be less than $1.29 or $.99, I understand why Spotify is appealing to you. However, such a perspective is not a justification for illegal file-sharing, but rather an argument in support of streaming services. In addition, the fact that MegaUpload was the only means through which to acquire a given artist doesn't justify the "piracy industry"….but it certainly explains why you utilized the service. <br /><br />There has never been consensus about what music is good, and there never will be. But there doesn't need to be consensus, least of all today when the majority of music is already streamed (and much of it streamed for free). You don't need a Spotify account to listen to, or evaluate, most music - you need a Spotify account if you want to be able to access an exorbitant amount of music instantaneously from one convenient location.<br /><br />While I can understand your support of Spotify, I fail to see why the model of paying for an item that you desire is an out-dated last-century model. You seem to be of the belief that because a digital copy of a song is not manufactured in a physical factory, and that it can be acquired remotely with unprecedented ease, that it no longer has any monetary value (or at least, it's monetary value has been significantly diminished). I don't see this to be the case at all. The only reason it has little or no monetary value is because assholes are facilitating it's theft. The purpose of my Lamborghini analogy was simply to point out that just because someone wants something doesn't mean they are entitled to it, nor does it give them a license to steal it. If a machine comes into existence that duplicates Lamborghinis for free, and that machine wasn't made by Lamborghini, then Lamborghini shouldn't adjust it's business model - it should stop the assholes that are facilitating the theft of their vehicles!<br /><br />The bottom line though is that a discussion of the mindset of the general consumer is separate from the discussion of the motivations of the piracy facilitators. Moreover, the mindset of the general consumer is only relevant as long as illegal file-sharing businesses are given a free pass to do what they do. So once you undermine the "piracy industry", you render the general user's opinions about piracy insignificant.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.com