Illegal downloading

Originally posted by Palynka
My counter-argument, of course.

I'm not sure what you were countering - you just said it was "a poor argument", but not what it was a poor argument for.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure what you were countering - you just said it was "a poor argument", but not what it was a poor argument for.

Do you see the darker box above that post? Now read it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Today is a day for fun arguments, not good ones.

You're right. This is fun.

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you see the darker box above that post? Now read it.

Amazing! But it's ambiguous. It could be that Bosse de Nage is arguing that illegal downloading is benefitial to musicians. It could also be that he is arguing for illegal downloading in general.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Amazing! But it's ambiguous. It could be that Bosse de Nage is arguing that illegal downloading is benefitial to musicians. It could also be that he is arguing for illegal downloading in general.

You're confusing the argument with what the argument is arguing for. There is no ambiguity.

Originally posted by Palynka
You're confusing the argument with what the argument is arguing for. There is no ambiguity.

Well, if it is argued that illegal downloading is benefitial to musicians he has a point. Musicians themselves not agreeing with it doesn't necessarily invalidate that point - they could simply be making a bad decision.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if it is argued that illegal downloading is benefitial to musicians he has a point. Musicians themselves not agreeing with it doesn't necessarily invalidate that point - they could simply be making a bad decision.

All of them who do not distribute them freely? Right.

Besides, if it's just a bad decision, then informing them should be enough for those who would benefit from it and yet leave the option open in case it isn't a bad decision. Everybody wins.

Originally posted by Palynka
All of them who do not distribute them freely? Right.

Besides, if it's just a bad decision, then informing them should be enough for those who would benefit from it and yet leave the option open in case it isn't a bad decision. Everybody wins.

Of course illegal downloading is not beneficial for all musicians, though it could be beneficial for musicians on average. Merely informing them that this is the case (if it is indeed so - I don't know) isn't going to convince them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if it is argued that illegal downloading is benefitial to musicians he has a point. Musicians themselves not agreeing with it doesn't necessarily invalidate that point - they could simply be making a bad decision.

You have to clarify how they would benefit. It's not just about the money!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You have to clarify how they would benefit. It's not just about the money!

For hobbyists, hippies, and listeners, this is usually the case. But for working musicians, money is often the prime motivating factor in recording and performing. There are several ways that a musician typically makes money, including recordings, performance, merchandise, and publishing. Illegal downloading affects each of these in different ways.

The most obvious impact is on recordings, where an illegal download first results in a loss of revenue for the artist. It could be argued that illegal downloads encourage listeners to "try before they buy", with the end result being a wider audience is exposed to the music and therefore a greater number will purchase it, but I haven't seen any statistics that support this hypothesis specifically. Nevertheless, the statistics from the Recording Industry Association of America do show an overall upward trend in units sold (both physical and digital) over the past 10 years:

http://www.riaa.com/
http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F730-65A0-C0F5871C369D.pdf

I took the time to graph the results, and you can see a significant dip in unit sales starting in 1999-2000 and bottoming out in 2003 (about a 30% from the 1999 level), but increasing after that to about 125% of the 1999 level. This seems to make sense, as Napster was introduced in June 1999 (shut down in July 2001, but by that time many copycat P2P programs existed like Kazaa) and iTunes was introduced in January 2001, so the truth of the "wider audience = more hits" hypothesis is not impossible on the face of it. I also graphed the total value of the sales, and you can see the same dips although they are not as extreme. However, the total value of the sales recovered very slightly in 2004 before taking a nose dive that appears to be continuing in 2008, ending the year at about 60% of the 1999 value. This seems to make sense as well, as digital singles are much more popular than digital albums and cost a fraction of the price. Therefore even though unit sales are up, revenue is down. This isn't a bad thing in itself, it just means that the preferred form of recorded music consumption seems to be shifting back to singles like in the early days of rock 'n roll. It's my guess that the biggest selling artists took the brunt of this drop, although without detailed statistics it's hard to say. Of course, there are always trickle-down effects like labels closing or merging and dropping smaller artists, decreased physical medium distribution, smaller recording budgets, etc... which are smaller, but which can impact smaller acts in a big way.

Performance revenues are self-explanatory, and they would most likely be neutrally or positively affected by illegal downloading. I imagine that listeners are more likely to attend concerts if they've heard and liked the music (of course, not everyone likes what they hear, even if it's free 😉), but I don't have any stats on concert revenues. Some bands make most of their money with live concerts, the Rolling Stones, Dave Matthews, The Grateful Dead and Pearl Jam being prime examples (with Pearl Jam being an especially interesting case as I understand they set up their own ticket company, charge a very reasonable price for tickets, and keep most if not all of that revenue)

Merchandise usually goes hand in hand with performance revenue because bands sell their swag at shows, but I'm sure there are millions of AC/DC fans wearing "Back In Black" t-shirts without ever having seen them in concert. I imagine these sales would be positively (or at least neutrally) affected by illegal downloading as well, especially because merch is often much easier to obtain and cheaper than concert tickets and people tend to only buy merch from bands they've heard and liked.

Publishing involves licensing music to be printed for sheet music, as well being played on radio, television, movies, etc... and record sales. Artists gifted enough to create songs that have lasting impact can make a mint over time, like Paul McCartney. Illegal downloading is likely neutral or negative for music publishing, as distribution to television and movies will likely remain unchanged, but radio may not be able to pay as much for licensing due to decreased listenership and ad revenue (again, I have no statistics on how listenership or ad revenue has changed in the last 10 years), and publishers will be unlikely to pay as much to use songs if record sales and radio play is down. However, I'm the first to admit that I'm not entirely clear on this aspect.

The obvious upside for society is that more recorded music is available for a cheaper cost, although I'm not sure how to quantify this. Overall, artists at different levels will be affected differently depending on their main revenue stream. Whether this will result in a collapse of some sectors of the music business, or simply a shift remains to be seen.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Of course illegal downloading is not beneficial for all musicians, though it could be beneficial for musicians on average. Merely informing them that this is the case (if it is indeed so - I don't know) isn't going to convince them.

Yes, taking decisions for others is much better than informing them and letting them choose. 😕

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why does everyone keep bringing up how rich and undeserving record companies are. How is it relevant? Is it OK to steal from someone because they are rich or exploited someone else? Why is it different when it comes to copying music? If it did hurt musicians, would that change whether or not piracy was morally acceptable? If all this piracy is so good for ...[text shortened]... e the only person it hurts is the government that has been exploiting me for huge sums of money?

Get off the tax analogy it is not even close to the same thing. Musicians are trying to scrap the records companies. The only thing they were good for was distribution and marketing, and now that the technology is different you will see more and more musicians use a different business model for there music, sans record companies. Many small record companies are already changing their model to accommodate the trends. A better analogy would be freeing a slave. Your taking someone's property, but it is morally right.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Unlike stealing, copying is not a zero-sum activity in an economic sense. Therefore you can't really speak of "victims" in the same sense as you would when it concerns real crime.

So piracy is not a 'real' crime?

Originally posted by StTito
Get off the tax analogy it is not even close to the same thing. Musicians are trying to scrap the records companies. The only thing they were good for was distribution and marketing, and now that the technology is different you will see more and more musicians use a different business model for there music, sans record companies. Many small record companies a ...[text shortened]... tter analogy would be freeing a slave. Your taking someone's property, but it is morally right.

My tax analogy is perfect. People are claiming that they are pirating music as a form of civil disobedience. You are claiming that you are doing the musicians a favor (even though they don't want you to.) If I believe that paying tax is wrong, is my best course of action to avoid paying taxes. Should all conservatives find ways to dodge tax?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So piracy is not a 'real' crime?

Apparently he doesn't think so.

What's your position on this? You excel at unravelling others' statements -- which is fair enough -- but I don't know what you actually think about this topic.