TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Artists Don’t Think Piracy Hurts Them Financially, Study Shows

When anti-piracy outfits and Big Media speak out against file-sharing they often claim to be standing up for the interests of the artists. However, a new survey among nearly 4,000 artists has revealed that nearly a quarter are pirating the works of fellow artists. Contrary to popular belief among higher level execs in the entertainment industry, the younger generation of artists believe that file-sharing helps them to gain an audience.

Yesterday, the Dutch Government announced plans to outlaw downloading of all copyrighted material and measures to make it easier to block websites that facilitate copyright infringement. An interesting move, particularly since a survey they published on the same day shows that artists’ views on file-sharing are not all that negative.

Through an elaborate survey the Government wanted to find out more about the views of artists on piracy, DRM, and other opportunities and challenges they face in the digital era. The questions covered in this article were answered by nearly 4,000 artists of all ages, including musicians, filmmakers, authors and photographers. The results give a unique insight into the position of artists on this controversial subject.

One of the results that stands out directly is that artists are pirates too. Not all of them of course, but a healthy percentage. Of all the respondents surveyed on the subject, 22% indicated that they had downloaded copyrighted works without the owners’ permission in the last 12 months. Another 71% told the researchers they hadn’t downloaded anything without permission during this period, and the remaining 7% didn’t know, or didn’t want to answer the question.

A follow up question among those who admitted to downloading others’ copyrighted works, found that music is by far the most downloaded media type. Over 80% of the downloaders downloaded music, and little over 40% also downloaded movies. Other categories such as E-books and games were less popular, with around 5% downloaders interested in these works.

Aside from their own ‘piracy’ habits, the survey also asked the respondents about their role as ‘victims’ of unauthorized file-sharing.

One of the questions dealt with whether the artists think they are being financially harmed by file-sharing. Interestingly, only about 12% of artists completely agree with the statement that file-sharing hurts them (~16% agree). The majority of the artists are not convinced that file-sharing is doing them any financial harm, and some actually think the opposite is true. What’s worth nothing is that higher educated artists in particular believe that file-sharing is doing them no financial harm.

study

Instead of hurting their wallets, the majority of the artists believe that file-sharing helps to promote their work. Little over 50% of those questioned responded affirmatively to the question of whether file-sharing helps to get their work known among the public, while only 5% completely disagreed with this statement. In particular the younger artists (< 25yo) recognized promotional benefits, as more than 80% thought file-sharing increases the popularity of their work.

study

Moving on to DRM, the survey found that 30% of the artists believe that DRM is hurting legitimate customers through access restrictions. Despite this negative view, 70% of all artists still believe their work should be protected by DRM. With regard to DRM there appears to be quite a large generation gap. More than 40% of the artists younger than 25 years old say DRM is hurting their relationship with the public, while none of the artists over 75 years old believes it does any harm.

Finally, the artists were also surveyed on whether individual file-sharers should be treated more harshly. Interestingly, close to 60% indicate that they should, with an even higher percentage among the older artists. Even among the people who admitted that they were downloading without permission, nearly one third said that harsher measures are needed to deter file-sharers.

All in all it can be concluded from the survey that the majority of Dutch artists don’t believe that unauthorized file-sharing is hurting them financially, and that it may actually help them to gain a larger audience. Despite these liberal views, a majority of the artists support harsher measures against unauthorized file-sharing and for DRM to ‘protect’ their works.

A mixed message, but one that’s hopeful, especially since the younger generations recognize the benefits of sharing, even when it’s without permission.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Extragolden

    The questions in the survey seems a little lopsided, as the psychological jump between [(completely) agree] and [don't agree/disagree] is somewhat large. Nevertheless, seems obvious that younger generation of artists would understand the potentially positive aspects of file-sharing.

    • Anonymous

      I know, it seems like they should’ve pushed a “somewhat agree” or equivalent in there somewhere…

      • Nobody Important

        I (completely) agree Extragolden & FrostyC

    • Kurtis Kain

      Also a lot of them have said don’t know…
      Doesn’t this show that the record companies are hiding figures from them?

    • http://profiles.google.com/mckalexee Alex McKenzie

      You’re not reading it right. The scale was completely agree, agree, don’t agree or disagree, disagree, completely disagree, I don’t know. They merged the first two and the 4th and 5th group to make (completely) agree and (completely) disagree to better represent the data…

  • Nemesis02

    The music and movie industries can always spin statistics into their favor. You can always take one set of statistics and spin a hundred different ways but selectively leaving out certain key pieces that would prove them wrong.

    Now I believe this to be a good insight at what the artists truly think, rather than what the music and movie industries assumes they think. We all know that they’re going to try every means possible to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. I just find out funny how they say that p2p is going to be the end of their industry when year after year they’ve shown record breaking profits.

    • Nick

      Um, “record breaking profits”? Music sales have been CUT IN HALF between the years 2000 and 2010. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. You can argue the benefit to the artist all you want but you can’t argue the fact that it’s taking money out of their wallet.

      • Tater Salad

        OR it could be the fact that the majority of music out these days is simply samples of older, better music, or just plain shit, and anyone with a brain wouldn’t pay for it.

        Or, you know, piracy straight up ruins everything. Might be that….

        • Nick

          No argument there. However, the amount of money labels have on hand to sign new ‘experimental talent’ is signifigantly lower than it was in the 90′s because of piracy. This leads to the majors only wanting to invest in a ‘sure thing’, which to them means Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Usher, and all the other dance pop that has been dominating the air waves. Great artists like Pink Floyd, Prince, Radiohead, etc……wouldn’t stand a chance to get signed in todays musical landscape because of that. The desire to hurt ‘the man’ – record labels – also hurts artists and hinders art itself. Think about that the next time you’re torrenting the entire Hendrix back catalog.

        • Autosleep

          So you want me to buy the whole Britney Spears discography so I could *maybe* be able to buy indie music?

          I live in a small city in Portugal, I have trouble getting a good DVD like for example “Clockwork Orange” (Which I would never watch any of Kubrick films if I haven’t * illegally* download them), set aside buying LOCAL music or any other foreign “indie” bands that might only be me and some 100 people in my country that listens to it. (Hipster much :D)

          What do we need is easier methods of payment and cheaper digital content, since in this new age of information, there is no longer the excuse of physical copy = digital copy. (eg. If you buy a video game in a store with DVD and case, you will spend for example 60€, the same price applies if you buy the game in steam)

          And if the Entertainment industries are going to continue the trend of owning right’s removals with DRM, I have no problem with it, but cut the price 10x or more.

        • Nick

          No I want you to buy music that you enjoy, not Britney Spears. Although that could be one and the same, no judgement here :) But you do actually bring up a good point, there are a lot of people who use filesharing because there literally is no way for them to get the music that they want where they are located. And that is something the industry needs to do a lot better job of – making sure that their product is available in all formats everywhere.

          And BTW – physical CDs/DVDs cost pennies to produce. You’re not paying for the actual ‘physical copy’ when you buy one. You’re paying for the intellectual property that is on the disc that cost thousands or millions of dollars to produce, and also time.

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          Interesting, since the last album I produced cost me about 3 hours of my time and the price of the CD-RW. I might not be a popular performer…or even one that someone would recognize, since I don’t distribute under any name, I do it just cuz I can…but the cost is the same.

          So, like, $3.50 cuz I had to buy a whole pack of CDRW’s…

          I guess you think their 3 hours of work is worth $25 a CD? What about some newer artist that isn’t popular enough to draw that kind of money?

          Figure it out. Piracy is no danger to the artists…the danger is for the labels themselves. As it should be.

        • Agedinsoul

          “Think about that the next time you’re torrenting the entire Hendrix back catalog.”

          This is actually a great example – I mean Hendrix. Let’s add Johnny Cash, Mozart, Paul Desmond or any artist who shares Hendrix’ current (!) “life” situation ;) A morbid, yet somehow “evil genius plan”-like way of supporting potential new artists. Are we still talking about supporting the artist or does this imply that we should show some love for the suits behind them? ;)

        • Agedinsoul

          “Think about that the next time you’re torrenting the entire Hendrix back catalog.”

          This is actually a great example – I mean Hendrix. Let’s add Johnny Cash, Mozart, Paul Desmond or any artist who shares Hendrix’ current (!) “life” situation ;) A morbid, yet somehow “evil genius plan”-like way of supporting potential new artists. Are we still talking about supporting the artist or does this imply that we should show some love for the suits behind them? ;)

      • Gest

        Admittedly we’ve had a major influx in artists, and a severe drop in income. More people to hear, less money to spend. Right now cost of food alone is fairly high, people won’t buy culture if they can’t eat first. You could argue that you don’t “need” music, but if you remove all of our privatised culture away, what do you have left? Eat, sleep, work. With a bit of a money problem right now, “buying” our own culture is a bit hard in the sheer numbers that the private companies want us to buy it in. Yes, buy music, buy films but buy them all? thats what advertising is trying to make society do. We just can’t afford that in the current state of the world, and there’s people FAR worse off than us, bickering over a few bits of data.

        • Nick

          Again no argument. Piracy certainly isn’t the only factor, the economy is also partly to blame, as is the fact that people were rebuying all their records/tapes on CD in the 90′s which led to record breaking profits. What we need now is a balance that will allow both artists to be fairly compensated and consumers to not feel like they’re being ripped off. Long gone are the days of $18 CD’s at Sam Goody. You can find a majority of albums on amazon for under $8, which is a very fair price to pay for artists that you supposedly admire. Or if that’s still too much there are an abundance of free streaming sites out there that are legit.

        • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

          Nick says, “… people were rebuying all their records/tapes on CD in the 90′s which led to record breaking profits.”

          And therein lies the problem Nick. You rip-off merchants took unfair advantage of a change in technology when it suited you because we had to buy music we had already purchased at least once before.

          Now you’re moaning louder than a 30-year old whore faking orgasm when the technology changes in our favour. Sorry my friend, but your time of all-powerful control over production, marketing and distribution is OVER.

          You’re no longer needed. At least have the dignity to die in peace.

        • Ugly American

          Ya hit the nail on the head and broke the fvcking hammer: “You rip-off merchants took unfair advantage of a change in technology when it suited you because we had to buy music we had already purchased at least once before.” Exactly! The same thing can be said about movies – forced to purchase VHS, forced to purchase DVD and now, forced to purchase Blu-ray. I’m curious to know how many times the copywrong industry would like us to purchase the same exact content, year after year after year, until their insatiable greed is satisfied. What’s next? Another antiquated plastic disc for just $19.95? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant.

          Die, MAFIAA – die in flames… <3

        • Ugly American

          Ya hit the nail on the head and broke the fvcking hammer: “You rip-off merchants took unfair advantage of a change in technology when it suited you because we had to buy music we had already purchased at least once before.” Exactly! The same thing can be said about movies – forced to purchase VHS, forced to purchase DVD and now, forced to purchase Blu-ray. I’m curious to know how many times the copywrong industry would like us to purchase the same exact content, year after year after year, until their insatiable greed is satisfied. What’s next? Another antiquated plastic disc for just $19.95? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant.

          Die, MAFIAA – die in flames… <3

        • Ugly American

          Ya hit the nail on the head and broke the fvcking hammer: “You rip-off merchants took unfair advantage of a change in technology when it suited you because we had to buy music we had already purchased at least once before.” Exactly! The same thing can be said about movies – forced to purchase VHS, forced to purchase DVD and now, forced to purchase Blu-ray. I’m curious to know how many times the copywrong industry would like us to purchase the same exact content, year after year after year, until their insatiable greed is satisfied. What’s next? Another antiquated plastic disc for just $19.95? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant.

          Die, MAFIAA – die in flames… <3

        • Ugly American

          Ya hit the nail on the head and broke the fvcking hammer: “You rip-off merchants took unfair advantage of a change in technology when it suited you because we had to buy music we had already purchased at least once before.” Exactly! The same thing can be said about movies – forced to purchase VHS, forced to purchase DVD and now, forced to purchase Blu-ray. I’m curious to know how many times the copywrong industry would like us to purchase the same exact content, year after year after year, until their insatiable greed is satisfied. What’s next? Another antiquated plastic disc for just $19.95? Fvck that idea with a rusty hydrant.

          Die, MAFIAA – die in flames… <3

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          Anyone who argues that you don’t ‘need’ entertainment and access to the arts is ignorant or lying.

          Entertainment is as necessary for our mental health as food is for our physical.

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          Anyone who argues that you don’t ‘need’ entertainment and access to the arts is ignorant or lying.

          Entertainment is as necessary for our mental health as food is for our physical.

      • kvk.

        Well your right for album sales…completely wrong in digital sales of singles which has been gaining significantly more sales recently, something like 1000% more sales from 5 years ago. if theyre making less $ in recent years its because the younger generation doesnt want to buy whole albums anymore (yes its a shame). Also nemisis confused his facts, its the movie industry not the music industry, which has had record breaking profits.

      • Aussie

        Music sales have been cut in half? Not from what I’ve seen. Sales of ALBUMS might have been, but thats a reflection in the change from people buying albums to buying singles.

        There is so much FUD (Fearmongering, Uncertainty, Deception) from the industry over sales, profits, etc that I simply cannot believe a single report they support. PROFITS are down, because the industry failed to adapt. They had their chance when they shut Napster down, but let Apple move in and take the whole pie instead.

        Today, people want the singles, not the 11 other tracks they dont care about. And thats where the sales are – music SALES are as strong as ever – there are still hundreds of millions of units sold per year, its just the product volumes have changed. They propped their stats up in decades past by including EP’s and singles, they cant pick and choose now because the profits are affected.

        The study itself is interesting. More and more artists are starting to recognise that the internet is a dual edged sword, and they cant have the good without the bad. On one hand, they get very wide exposure for very little cost – YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace are all free, and global. On the other hand, you lose control of distribution.

        The Industry wants both – control and free exposure. They seem happy to accept that the Internet can get them free publicity across the globe, but wont accept the downside to opening up so readily.

        For the artist, the situation is different. Because the focus has moved from album to single, they wont make their money from the album. But by getting their name out there, they can tour, and tours generate a lot of money. Here in Australia, a band with zero hits can get $80+ a ticket to their shows. Obviously they arent going to get all that, but they get enough to turn a solid profit.

        The value to the audience is in getting something you cant reproduce. That in turn devalues the album as there is little to no reward in buying the album. Some try to value add with extras, but in my opinion at least its too little too late.

      • Anonymous

        Oh hi Nick, the internet just called. It says you’re lying.

        How the music industry garnered record profits in 2008:
        http://medialoper.com/how-the-music-industry-garnered-record-profits-in-2008/

        The demise of the music industry is visible everywhere but in the facts:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/mar/12/demise-music-industry-facts

        A 21st century history of music industry profits:
        http://crunkfish.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/a-21st-century-history-of-music-industry-profits-digital-economy-bill/

        What you’re saying is neither a fact nor an opinion, it’s straight-up RIAA propaganda. It’s easy to argue that filesharing isn’t taking money out of artists’ wallets. You have, after all, failed to provide a damn shred of evidence for that claim.

        Even if music sales had been CUT IN HALF between 2000 and 2010(lol no), it would mean little for a majority of artists considering only the self-publishing indies make anything from music sales. Live gigs and merchandising are most musicians’ financial lifeblood, and they can’t be fileshared. It’s also wonderfully dishonest of you to instantly leap to a conclusion that if music sales are down then it’s filesharing’s fault. The decline of CDs because they’re being displaced by online music stores selling tracks a la carte couldn’t possibly be a factor, eh? But that’s just academic.

        You’re an industry shill. A kinder gentler industry shill, but a shill still. If nothing else, your hilarious line about how a desire to hurt the the major record labels ultimately hurts artists and *hinders art itself*(excuse me while I vomit) is a dead giveaway. Your bullshit has been noted and duly rejected. You should go ply your trade elsewhere, like on a forum where everybody’s too gullible to see through you.

        • Nick

          Wow you guys are really passionate about your thievery!

        • kvk.

          No, we dont like ignorant people who dont know what their talking about. Do me a favour and go do some research, and objective learning so you can come back here with more than a rehash of what the music and movie industry has told you to think…or go jump off a balcony. Your choice

        • Sle7in

          Lol, you can tell Nick got owned because he stopped giving his TL;TR responses and just said something which doesn’t disprove what people said above.

          He also lied…

      • Anonymous

        Yes, sales have cut in half but the companies still have record breaking profits (as per their own statements)

      • Whatever

        There was much less diversion in entertainment in those days.

        There might be unlimited money in economic teachings but in physics the laws it would be looked at as a whole where there is no gain or loss.

        Now they have to divide up the cake between numerous consoles+games, movies, mobile phones+games, pc+games+applications, a few crisis, bankers and other parasites filling their wallets. Money just keeps flowing away from people to all sorts of things.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Mcintier/1146574107 Sean Mcintier

        RIAA represented artist music sales have been cut in half over the past 10 years. You are correct. But… independant artist sales have gone up..a lot.

      • guess

        well one funny thing is the music and movie industries claimed the year after the global finacial crash that the year before (during said global financial crash) erm hello riaa, mpaa and co you DO live in the real world and read the news didn’t you? also how about all the money over the years the labels have “stolen” from peoples pockets with astrinomicaly high prices? ask you parents etc what vinals and concerts USED to cost before CDs, just as CDs got launched as the main stream distibution media, they said the increased prices was a result of new technology, so lets take that statement there, an example of “new technology” at the time was plasma screen TVs originaly going for $50k+ each, as more have taken up plasma and lcd TVs the prices have corispondanly come down, now look at music and movies and the prices etc HAVE NOT COME down… basicly the labels are still living in the past where they could charge what the hell they liked and basicly had a license to print money from it, along came P2P and the internet and suddenly their golden goose aint giving them as much as they used to get. OVER a decade ago they HAD the option of the same system used when a TV station shows a film on their channel, in the industrys greed they rejected that and have firmly stuck to trying grab and grasp every last nickle they can get their grubby little mits on hell from recent news looks like they’ve been stiffing the artists themselfs on revenue, hence why eminem and co are currently suing their own lables. there are a HELL of a lot of people who download albums listen to them and if they like everything on it will quite happily buy the album. how many albums have you bought in the past where you’ve liked maybe 2 songs on the whole cd and the rest you thought were poor or s**t? there’s also a HELL of a lot of peeps out there that if they could pay the artists directly (ie buy directly off the artists websites with the money going to the artists and not the labels) would very happily do so, there’s also a hell of a lot of people who having got stung with some complete turky of a movie, where the trailers made it look great then you watch it and find all the best bits were in the trailers and the film as a whole was a pile of c**p. i know quite a few peeps who watched avatar on streams or avi’s watched them then went to the imax theaters among other places to watch the film on a big screen ( and who can argue a good films not worth watching on a theaters screen? :) hollywood needs to adapt rather than refusing to, they need to throw out the staggered release dates on films so films come out on the same date worldwide the other option they got is to also simultaniously release versions you can download that also have adverts embedded into them, people are used to watching films on TV for example with commercial breaks or even the little banner popups that come up on some stations at the bottom of the screen for example, the advertising revenue from that should cover the costs of letting people download and/or stream them, theres still nothing like owning the PHYSICAL version of something to be able to watch when you like, so there are still plenty of sales available there, plus peeps WILL go see good movies in the theaters, another option that they’ve rejected in the past was a static “tax” on broadband connections with the revenue split that way, again in their own greed they rejected that, which could have been away of ensuring artists etc got paid and do away with the whole issue about copyright infringement etc

  • Him

    i dont think it is ‘Contrary to popular belief among higher level execs in the entertainment industry’. i think they know the benefits of file sharing and it is more a combination of not wanting to believe the benefits/ not wanting to admit the benefits and total fear of losing control, not only of their business of promoting artists (particularly new ones) but of the massive cash-cow they have managed to glean for themselves. when government officials (like the prick in Holland!) and law makers actually start to take notice of everyone else, instead of just listening to a few whining music and movie industry bosses, and those bosses realise that they have to change how they think and act in the digital age, then positive steps can/will be taken. until then, the fight just continues.

  • Foff

    May be the question ought to be where do you listen to music. I would guess that most young people hear their music on the internet. Therefore it makes sense that even artists are using the medium and see it as a way to generate interest in their music.

    I don’t even understand why cd’s are still being sold in the stores. None of the young generation is collecting plastic they all have ipods or phones full of mp3′s. Downloading is just the modern version of the radio. Itunes is not going broke, they seem to be able to compete with free.

    I personally would never buy from itunes because I have issues with the cost. The cost of delivery in the digital age is almost zero. Tracks ought to be .30 or less. My price mark is .10 to .30 in this range I would pay and stop pirating. For others it may be different but for me that is the max value a digital download of music has.

    • Gae

      I agree, the price does need to come down more. Compared to the times of £4 per single cd, 80p or so for a track dosent seem too bad but is still more than I see it as bieng worth and more than I am prepared to pay, but at 15 – 20p per track I would be happy to buy quite a lot of music.
      I believe if they offered music at this price then piracy would face genuine competition.

    • Sdf

      For a 99-cent track on Itunes, 70-cents goes to the copyright holder. Online stores like that are a godsend for independent artists, it’s the selling physical CDs in stores that kills us.

      If there was a good reason not to buy from Itunes (and why CDs are still sold), it’s because they offer songs in 128kbps quality. Human hearing (as dictated by scientists and not audiophiles) can hear quality distinction up to 256kbps. Store-bought CDs play at 320kbps.

      But downloading is not the new radio, internet radio is. Youtube is. Myspace is. You can hear anything you want to hear on the internet. If you like it, go spend a buck and support the artist. Someone above me said that food is too expensive for people to consider buying culture, but there are many artists out there who are making art for food and not culture. You may not like their choice, but it was theirs to make.

  • Ah-ha-ha-ha

    Would like to see the results of a modified (see prev comments) version of this survey for UK/US artists, mainly due to the relatively small demographic Dutch artists must surely cater too.

    Another good Q to ask would be to ask them if they feel a large fine for one user actually works as a deterrent, a second good Q might be to see whether they believe the “internet police” have a full proof method to determine the ID of filesharers.

    An interesting survey none the less tho it’s somewhat contradictory responses at best shows a confused population of artists out there.

    • Ven

      Just my opinion, but I think the contradictory responses may be due to the wildly different markets for film, music, photos, and books. If they were to break down the types of artists responding, I think the results would be far more stable.

  • Toad

    Copy rights protect all artists…it is the Freedom of Speech we are protecting by not pirating books, music, or downloading illegally…protect your Artists and Our Rights

    • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

      Really? You mean the copyright laws that are trying to get ISP’s to monitor all of our traffic in order to ‘catch’ ‘potential’ pirates? Or the Copyright laws that limit our freedom of association by blocking certain domains and websites at the ISP or worse, the BROWSER level?

      Do some research and learn something before commenting…either you’re horribly ignorant, or you’re a complete failure at satire…

    • Whatever

      You chose your nick name correctly here.

      (Would it be another alias of the US military opinion bots like Jack Murdoch)

  • Pingback: Estudio muestra que la mayoría de los artistas holandeses no cree que la piratería les cree daños financieros | Partido Pirata Uruguay

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

    That seems a little hypocritical. 1/3 of them think file sharing hurts them, yet they are more than happy to do it when it’s not their work. This is the same mentality with most filesharers. They dont mind sharing it because they don’t depend on income from the product. If it was your work, im sure you would want people to pay you and you wouldn’t accept “it’s just a copy” or “we are just sharing information.

    • Gae

      If it was my work, I would be happy that so many people wanted to share and enjoy it. The more popular it became then the better I would feel knowing that should I want to make money out of it then there would be fans willing to pay to see performances and buy merchandise. The increased recognition would surely also get me some radio and tv airtime which I would be paid for.

      I would certainly not go around calling my fans thieves!

      • Nick

        Gae, what do you do for a living? That’s not really important, but think about this question – Say you worked a long and hard 40 hour work week. You did some of your best work, were really emotionally invested in what you did, and took pride in the fact that you were going to be able to feed your family with the fruits of your labor. Now at the end of the week your boss came up to you and said “Wow Gae, you did some amazing work this week! Everyone is really impressed with how much you’ve put in and we’re really enjoying it around the office, sharing it with everyone! Now, you might not like this but it doesn’t look like we’re going to be able to pay you this week. We have the money, but we think that the fact that you did such a good job and everyone enjoying it should be reware enough” Would you like it if that happened? No? Well neither do we.

        • Jon7272

          nick sorry dood if you are working for 40 hours with no pay time for another job simple

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          False equivalence. In order for your analogy to be completely correct, you would have to be spending 40 hours a week making air sculptures, or drawings in your own urine. Something with literally 0 overhead and made from materials that are 100% unlimited.

          That’s the thing most people don’t seem to comprehend. If you build a pool, you have 1 pool. If you write and produce a song, you have an unlimited and unlimitible number of copies of that song by the very nature of digital media. When you try to make a ‘living’ on something that is literally impossible to limit, hoard or control, then you’re essentially trying to claim ownership of the air and charge people for breathing.

        • Gae

          The problem with that is there is no real evidence that shows if my work is shared that I lose any money.

        • Anonymous

          Ok, what if you did 40 hours of work this week. and then got paid for it. And then paid for it again next week. and every week for the next 50 years. Then, when the 50 years is about to run out, shouting “HEY! I need more money, can I get paid for the next 20 years as well?”

          In no other industry, do you get continuously paid for a single piece of work.

        • kvk.

          this is completely unfounded and untrue

      • Ven

        “The increased recognition would surely also get me some radio and tv airtime which I would be paid for.”

        This is not necessarily true. Radio in the US is largely controlled by the labels/RIAA, as are TV stations by the MPAA and friends. If you are unwilling/unable to play their game, they can block you out of most paying avenues (even live venues).

        Which leaves musicians (the example I use because they are basically the front runners in filesharing) with selling gear online and at their shows. Of course, if you don’t play metal, punk, polka, or alternative, you won’t be able to really book shows. If you have anything that prevents you from touring, you can’t book tours. I for example am a composer, and since I can’t afford to live in LA I have almost zero chance of ever landing a gig that pays enough to live off of entirely. There is no market for me to tour, and I’d bet that none of you have ever seen a Bach/Brahms/Hendel/Yanni T-shirt being worn in public.

        Only popular styles of music can afford to make that. So if you hate the stale drivel coming out of the “industry” you should consider the fact that a musical future without the ability to sell music is a future filled with cover bands, Nickelback, and Miley Cyrus. Indy bands just barely make it. Sure you may be able to point to a few that had a great gimmick and made their mark, but for each one of those I can point to ten popular (not just good but widely popular) bands that can’t support themselves.

        • Anonymous

          That is a whole bunch of negatives.

          Music has always been a dog eat dog world. Even in the record companies with all their resources and skills only about 1 in 10 to 20 albums makes success. Most bands would love to have that one hit tune that everyone loves or even a whole series of them but the fact is most bands do not even come close.

          They can give the public what they want OR they can make music they like. At least on the Internet those with more unique tastes can find out like-minded people who may appreciate their creations.

          But the fact is so many will fail and I would say “don’t give up the day job”. So expecting every musician to achieve success is never going to happen in any market. From what you just said then a good job to writing yourself out of the popular markets for monetary success.

          Still wherever there is popularity there is money to be made.

          Bach…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/BACH-Music-Composer-Printed-Apron-/180053676594

          Brahms…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAHMS-Classical-Music-Composer-Grey-T-Shirt-NEW-/180139227170

          Yanni…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/MINT-VINTAGE-90s-1995-YANNI-CONCERT-TOUR-T-SHIRT-SZ-XL-/260694662542

          They would not be making them if there was not a market to sell them. Yes a small market but it is hardly like they play this music at nightclubs and rave parties.

        • Anonymous

          That is a whole bunch of negatives.

          Music has always been a dog eat dog world. Even in the record companies with all their resources and skills only about 1 in 10 to 20 albums makes success. Most bands would love to have that one hit tune that everyone loves or even a whole series of them but the fact is most bands do not even come close.

          They can give the public what they want OR they can make music they like. At least on the Internet those with more unique tastes can find out like-minded people who may appreciate their creations.

          But the fact is so many will fail and I would say “don’t give up the day job”. So expecting every musician to achieve success is never going to happen in any market. From what you just said then a good job to writing yourself out of the popular markets for monetary success.

          Still wherever there is popularity there is money to be made.

          Bach…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/BACH-Music-Composer-Printed-Apron-/180053676594

          Brahms…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAHMS-Classical-Music-Composer-Grey-T-Shirt-NEW-/180139227170

          Yanni…
          http://cgi.ebay.com/MINT-VINTAGE-90s-1995-YANNI-CONCERT-TOUR-T-SHIRT-SZ-XL-/260694662542

          They would not be making them if there was not a market to sell them. Yes a small market but it is hardly like they play this music at nightclubs and rave parties.

        • Ven

          My point is that recognition is not the same thing as success in music. Should filesharing be accepted both legally and culturally, there is less money to be made in it (if you disagree with me here that is okay, but I don’t believe that free music will somehow magically make people want to spend more on musical entertainment). That means scratching out a living becomes even harder, which means that all of the time and money people like myself have invested in their art will never pan out financially like we expected.

          I think that is the hangup in talks regarding file-sharing: some people don’t realize that musicians/engineers/producers are invested in their art. I would totally love to make music just for the sake of the art, and I will do that even if I never make a penny. But if I knew the world was going to not pay me what I ask for my music, I wouldn’t do it by spending thousands of dollars. I would do it with a $100 guitar around campfires, not on a top-notch workstation that didn’t cost near as much as the software I run on it. Nobody would buy guitars that cost more than cars, or pay for the R&D that goes into recording hardware and software. I don’t mean any of this as an attack on ideas, but I’m financially invested in the current idea of copyright.

          Here in the USA (and everywhere really), our government is in a similar place. Sure we have statistics and studies being thrown around from all sides, but one fact that our leaders see is the economic boost the entertainment industries provide. Right and wrong aside, no leader is going to sign on to kill that industry without first being certain that there will be no financial boat-rocking. Instead, they wait to see if this new technology will in fact replace the supposedly outdated system the RIAA/MPAA runs on. And we will sit in this dead-zone, where our government neither repeals copyright nor properly enforces it out of fear of rocking the boat.

        • Anonymous

          Should I once again link to the studies that show filesharers buy more music than non-filesharers do?

          We know artists need money to survive. So, suprise surprise, we support them with our money. We want our favourite artists to survive, you know? That’s how free music is “somehow magically” able to generate money.

          Even EMI was facillitating the piracy of its own artists because they knew it would drive sales. They only stopped(or did they?) after it was reavealed in court, which embarassed the hell out of them given their public stance that piracy is pure evil, sending artists to the poor house, and destroying the economy.

        • Anonymous

          If people examine the income for the record labels then their greatest income from sales happened back during the 60s. Beyond a nice time during the 80s then music sales crashed during the 90s. Beyond 2000 there has only been sales gain year after year.

          Internet music piracy really took off in 2003 and so played no part in this former sales crash. Since sales have only increased since 2003 then filesharing has caused no obvious decline and it also could be true to say that wider scale music exposure may have helped increase sales to the post-2000 record sales in 2010.

          We can currently make two fair observations.

          The first would be that the CD will be the final format for hardware-wise music sales when since the digital revolution there is no longer a hardware-wise market to support a new format. These days it is all MP3 and FLAC and tiny portable players not to forget digital files, device transfers and sharing.

          My second observation is that sharing is part of human nature and it is not in society’s interest to teach selfishness and greed. You can imagine that one when one young boy gives his best friend one of his candy. His mother then slaps him on the wrist saying “do not share. he has to buy his own”.

          Now combine those two with the Internet then filesharing becomes unstoppable in a market where more and more people over time will become exposed to this method to fill their music devices. Legality is besides the point when the law simply cannot stop it. All they can do is to remove our freedoms and to invade our homes.

          All is not lost though when most people know to not steal. So common advice would be if you enjoyed it then you should pay for it. Different people have different morality but online music services like iTunes make up a large part of the market with enough income to be noticed.

          As to investment in your art then everyone should start small and work up. No good spending a million when your music sucks and investment wasted. So you can get professional music studio software for under $100 (or fileshare it for $0) and an excellent quality microphone would not cost that much. You make big success then you can buy all the nice hardware you want.

          It is totally wrong to say that Governments play sit and wait to see what happens when they try hard to smother this new market even before it has fruited. One long constant attack fueled by the MPAA/RIAA because they stand to lose control. Governments are limited in their actions because they attack society and try to violate our freedoms.

          No one has a choice because it is a market to meet a social need. There is only those people who can tap this market for profit and those that fail.

          Most interestingly is how easy it is for a bad artist to blame filesharing for their own personal failure.

        • Ven

          My point is that recognition is not the same thing as success in music. Should filesharing be accepted both legally and culturally, there is less money to be made in it (if you disagree with me here that is okay, but I don’t believe that free music will somehow magically make people want to spend more on musical entertainment). That means scratching out a living becomes even harder, which means that all of the time and money people like myself have invested in their art will never pan out financially like we expected.

          I think that is the hangup in talks regarding file-sharing: some people don’t realize that musicians/engineers/producers are invested in their art. I would totally love to make music just for the sake of the art, and I will do that even if I never make a penny. But if I knew the world was going to not pay me what I ask for my music, I wouldn’t do it by spending thousands of dollars. I would do it with a $100 guitar around campfires, not on a top-notch workstation that didn’t cost near as much as the software I run on it. Nobody would buy guitars that cost more than cars, or pay for the R&D that goes into recording hardware and software. I don’t mean any of this as an attack on ideas, but I’m financially invested in the current idea of copyright.

          Here in the USA (and everywhere really), our government is in a similar place. Sure we have statistics and studies being thrown around from all sides, but one fact that our leaders see is the economic boost the entertainment industries provide. Right and wrong aside, no leader is going to sign on to kill that industry without first being certain that there will be no financial boat-rocking. Instead, they wait to see if this new technology will in fact replace the supposedly outdated system the RIAA/MPAA runs on. And we will sit in this dead-zone, where our government neither repeals copyright nor properly enforces it out of fear of rocking the boat.

        • Ven

          My point is that recognition is not the same thing as success in music. Should filesharing be accepted both legally and culturally, there is less money to be made in it (if you disagree with me here that is okay, but I don’t believe that free music will somehow magically make people want to spend more on musical entertainment). That means scratching out a living becomes even harder, which means that all of the time and money people like myself have invested in their art will never pan out financially like we expected.

          I think that is the hangup in talks regarding file-sharing: some people don’t realize that musicians/engineers/producers are invested in their art. I would totally love to make music just for the sake of the art, and I will do that even if I never make a penny. But if I knew the world was going to not pay me what I ask for my music, I wouldn’t do it by spending thousands of dollars. I would do it with a $100 guitar around campfires, not on a top-notch workstation that didn’t cost near as much as the software I run on it. Nobody would buy guitars that cost more than cars, or pay for the R&D that goes into recording hardware and software. I don’t mean any of this as an attack on ideas, but I’m financially invested in the current idea of copyright.

          Here in the USA (and everywhere really), our government is in a similar place. Sure we have statistics and studies being thrown around from all sides, but one fact that our leaders see is the economic boost the entertainment industries provide. Right and wrong aside, no leader is going to sign on to kill that industry without first being certain that there will be no financial boat-rocking. Instead, they wait to see if this new technology will in fact replace the supposedly outdated system the RIAA/MPAA runs on. And we will sit in this dead-zone, where our government neither repeals copyright nor properly enforces it out of fear of rocking the boat.

    • Gae

      If it was my work, I would be happy that so many people wanted to share and enjoy it. The more popular it became then the better I would feel knowing that should I want to make money out of it then there would be fans willing to pay to see performances and buy merchandise. The increased recognition would surely also get me some radio and tv airtime which I would be paid for.

      I would certainly not go around calling my fans thieves!

    • lol

      I’ve given away, or “allowed to be copied” works that I could’ve made money from, but chose not to. Not everyone’s goals are making money.

    • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

      Interesting…since quite a lot of Artists put their own music, videos, graphics and whatnot up via filesharing networks all by themselves…

    • jack.ss

      Pirate Jack
      Given your history of looting Simpsons on FOX to pimp up your old Facebook page, I decided to find out how the creators felt about it.

      So here is the more forgiving/pragmatic view from the Simpson creators:

      http://img848.imageshack.us/i/greetings.jpg/

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      The BIGGEST enemy of the artiste or author etc is NOT non-commercial filesharing (or even idiots like Jack and NIck), but it’s anonymity.

      The internet now bypasses the evil “content industry” with their viciously selfish and unfair contracts that cruelly bind artists to the will of the industry rather than permit true freedom of artistry.

      So this idea that the internet and non-commercial “piracy” is harming the artist is quite simply a blatant lie originating from a dying “content industry” whose time is GONE.

      NOTE to ALL Artists, Authors, etc. – we are the people who will spend cash for your work. You no longer need the industry leeches to promote and control your every action.

    • Whatever

      Talking about digging a hole for yourself, are you turning now ?

      You just confirmed all by yourself the MAFIAA’s evil ways and artist mentality.
      “Do as a say, not do as i do.”

      So now that you know you are on the wrong site are you converting ?

      Most filesharers on the other hand would happily share their work. Youtube wouldn’t exist if nobody wanted to share. Scripts and advice on all sorts of problems are shared all over the internet. And to your suprise even music is shared on the internet.

      @Gae: ofcourse not all artists, just the MAFIAA ones and assiociates.

  • Anon

    By this time, everyone understands the value in free distribution that gathers an early audience and increases demand. No one is arguing differently, nor has. But that choice will be left to the creator/rights holder, not the public. Then an artist can first give it away to build demand, then take control of later works to monetize that demand later in their career, same as always. Without that ability to control and monetize, the artists’ work has value but no price. Pirates would have fine art created on a tip jar.

    With nearly 3/4’s of the artists stating they did not DL anything copyrighted in the time period of the study, it’s pretty clear they understand why this is fair and why they give it their respect. 71% is a landslide in any kind of poll. So it’s obvious the artists “get it” and the law is on the proper path.

    You’ll get it too, someday, or you’ll pay a legal price just like every other unlawful act. Does this really surprise anyone? And does it surprise you that nearly 3/4’s of the artists live their lives along this ethical code? It doesn’t surprise me at all.

    • lol

      Problem is, nobody is following copywrong laws. When will people understand that piracy will never stop? I’m never going to obey to copyright laws, because I feel they’re unjust and unfair. Civil disobedience.

      • Anon

        “Problem is, nobody is following copywrong laws”

        Citation needed. The facts are very different.

        There are hundreds of legal ways to obtain and enjoy digital entertainment, and iTunes—while profoundly successful– is the least of it. Pirates have always bragged they are a large, unstoppable group, but that refusal to accept reality and come to the table of discussion remains their greatest, exploitable weakness. Cast along your terms, you lose and anyone with an understanding of this issue sees that, which is why the trends are clear. You have every means to be civil disobedient and no one contests that, as long as the artists and rights holders have the same chance to track you and catch you, try you and punish you to the fullest extent that the law allows, while that extent keeps growing.

        If that’s the battle you wish to fight, fantastic.

        • lol

          “Citation needed.”
          Oh God. I don’t know where to start! That 28% of my country fileshare (illegally) regularly, or that 72% of the public see (illegal) piracy as acceptable?
          “as long as the artists and rights holders have the same chance to track you and catch you”
          They have every right, under current law, and I have every right to successfully evade them as I have been doing almost my entire life.
          > fullest extent that the law allows, while that extent keeps growing
          Not here it doesn’t. The Digital Economy Act is being challenged in the High Court by our two largest ISPs. If they succeed, there’ll be less and less means by which rights’ holders can go after us.

        • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

          “… come to the table of discussion …” you say? And yet you post with a nick saying “Anon”.

          AAAAaaaaaahahahahahahahah, who’s hiding now my copywrong trolling friend. If anyone needs an injection of reality it’s you guys with your persistent lies, slavery contracts, and closed venues to non-RIAA/MAFIAA protectionist racketeers.

          FUCK OFF and DIE already – artists no longer need you, and we don’t want your evil contracts either.

  • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

    I just passed a room full of 25-40 yr/o sales guys at work discussing how much they Seed. I didn’t know any of them, but I stopped by just to tell them how awesome I thought they were. If I’d ever had any doubt about whether or not P2P is part of general society and culture, it’s gone now.

  • Pingback: Artists Don’t Think Piracy Hurts Them Financially, Study Shows | Torrentfreak.com

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • Anonymous

    From what I can read the younger generation welcomes and enjoys filesharing and see no harm in it. Added protection for their works is besides the point.

    It is then the older old-school generation that is anti-filesharing but you have to question how much are they anti-technology in other ways? I mean like how many of those over 70 have portable MP3 players?

    In any case filesharers could well become the large majority in the long term simply because those at the older age will die while those who enjoy filesharing will simply be older. I would give it about 20 years.

    We also need to take account of the rare few who are hypocritical. Like that one woman who publicly protested over filesharing of her book calling people “thieves” while at the same time she had an MP3 player filled with infringing songs and she also had a counterfeit handbag.

    • Nick

      You have that wrong. Any artist is who is serious about there career is against filesharing. Those who take a casual approach to art and view it as a hobby don’t really care if their work is copied for free, and that’s their right. I emphasize THEIR right as the owner of the work and not the public. It’s not the public’s right to pilfer an artists work when they don’t have permission, sometimes even before it is finished.

      And filesharing will not become ‘accepted’ by the older generation when they get older. Most everyone I know that was a filesharer in high school or college around 2000, 2001 doesn’t do it anymore. You know why? The same reason they don’t shoplift beer, steal cable, or do harmful drugs. Because it’s wrong and illegal.

      • Anon

        “Because it’s wrong and illegal.”

        Not to mention stupid, increasingly dangerous and the sole reason why privacy and freedom online is being taken away. NONE of this was even on the table before Napster. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Use that freedom to break the law and no amount of blaming others for the loss of online freedom will ring true, not now, not historically.

        • Matron

          “the sole reason why privacy and freedom online is being taken away”

          So the reason all electronic communications are monitored is because of filesharing?

          You have your head so far up your backside dude, or is that just the script they’ve given to you to write?

        • Anonymous

          I seem to recall that the EU’s directive that ISPs must keep logs for 6 months was due to terrorism and other major crimes. It has since been exploited for speculative invoicing.

      • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

        Really? I guess Trent Reznor, Cadence Weapon, and IIRC Shad aren’t serious about their careers, then, nor are the folks behind Pioneer One, Zenith, nor were those involved with Riese: Kingdom Falling, Sanctuary… oh, I’m sorry, that was rude of me; I forgot to offer you some salt with your shoe.

        • Nick

          You bring up a good point with Trent Reznor and one that illegal downloaders often point to to excuse their behavior. Trent Reznor is an artist that can play 1 show and make more money than most of us will make in 5 years. I’m not sure of his exact going rate but it is somewhere between 250K – 500K per appearance. That’s a lot of green. Now the only reason that Trent Reznor is able to command such a high fee is because his songs have been on rotation on radio and MTV for the better part of 2 decades allowing him to build a massive audience. How did his songs get onto radio and MTV you ask? Well those evil people at Interscope records were able to get those played for him. You see Trent made millions of dollars because of the label system and the pirates consider him a hero because he’s giving away his music for free now. What he’s really doing is throwing his fellow artists under the bus because not all of us make 500K a show or get paid millions of dollars to score The Social Network. The same exact narrative applies to Radiohead.

        • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

          So despite people downloading and file-sharing his work even before he “legally” offered it free of charge, Trent Reznor and his label(s) were making enough money from MTV and radio-station play to be able to earn between 250k – 500k per concert venue– even without suing those who “pirated” his music? And then this caused him to officially offer his music for free- or occasionally for a donation/rediculously low fee?

          Thank you for pointing that out, Nick! It’s not often that those in the employ of the record industry will be so open about methods artists are able to make money, build up a following, and still offer premium music for free.

        • Ven

          Good for those artists who can take their success and give something back. I like NIN for it. But that really has nothing to do with whether or not artists should be able to choose their distribution platform, free or otherwise.

          But I would give everything I made away with no problem if I had won some dozen Grammys and sold 150 million albums.

        • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

          Dude, you’re awesome! And I’ll tell you why!

          Nothing in your post actually refuted my point: that being that despite “rampant piracy”, corporate entities still paid Reznor- is, his music was still in demand enough by the likes of MTV and radio stations- that he was able to justify being paid 250k-500k per concert venue, and that the corporate market accepted/accepts that price, and that he managed to work himself up to being paid that much without prosecuting a single file-sharer.

          Good job!

        • Ven

          Good for those artists who can take their success and give something back. I like NIN for it. But that really has nothing to do with whether or not artists should be able to choose their distribution platform, free or otherwise.

          But I would give everything I made away with no problem if I had won some dozen Grammys and sold 150 million albums.

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          You spout absolutes “No artist who is serious about their career…” then when your bubble of absolute data is popped, you dismiss it as unimportant?

          Typical troll…get back under your bridge.

      • Matron

        “Because it’s illegal”

        There’s that familiar whine again!!

        Cannabis is illegal and yet millions of people every day around the world quite happily stick it to the law and smoke it anyway. Why? Because they all agree the law is wrong. It’s the same with filesharing.

        “Any artist is who is serious about there career is against filesharing”

        You are so wrong buddy! I know many artists, and whilst their public image maybe that of anti-file sharing, in private they are completely pro-sharing. Why the difference? They are scared of the reaction from record companies. Some of these artists actually release their own work to the filesharing networks (anonymously of course because of the potential problems with the record companies). And no I’m not talking about newbies, I’m talking established acts

        Please don’t try and speak for all artists because you don’t know what you are talking about.

        • Nick

          Really you know a lot of artists that are living a comfortable life as a musician who are pro file sharing? Care to mention any of their names? Oh no, you can’t because the record companies are going to drop them if you write it on Torrent Freak and you can’t sell your top secret friends out like that. Give me a break dude.

          And smoking cannabis doesn’t hurt anybody else and I agree it shouldn’t be illegal. The difference is that piracy (theft) does hurt many people and I personally know many unfamous musicians whose deals fell through because their label went under and they are no longer able to support themselves with their craft.

        • Nick

          Really you know a lot of artists that are living a comfortable life as a musician who are pro file sharing? Care to mention any of their names? Oh no, you can’t because the record companies are going to drop them if you write it on Torrent Freak and you can’t sell your top secret friends out like that. Give me a break dude.

          And smoking cannabis doesn’t hurt anybody else and I agree it shouldn’t be illegal. The difference is that piracy (theft) does hurt many people and I personally know many unfamous musicians whose deals fell through because their label went under and they are no longer able to support themselves with their craft.

        • Matron

          Really you know a lot of artists that are living a comfortable life as a musician who are pro file sharing?

          Yes, more than comfortable in fact. Extremely wealthy to be precise. They know fliesharing doesn’t hurt their pocket. You see some people don’t forget their roots and while they might put on a public image to appease the bosses, they don’t actually believe their own hype. After all it’s the entertainment industry, it’s all just a facade.

          “Oh no, you can’t because the record companies are going to drop them if you write it on Torrent Freak”

          Exactly my point :)

        • Nick

          Oh really, well if they don’t care that people are sharing their music for free then why do they want to be on a record label in the first place? Because you know that’s what record labels do they, um, SELL records.

          What’s that smell, I’ve smelled it before? Oh yeah, it’s the sweet scent of bullsh*t. A record label doesn’t care what the hell you say about them, they just want you to sell records. Ask Pink Floyd, Incubus, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, 30 Seconds to Mars, if their labels dropped them after they talked crap about them.

        • Matron

          There’s a lot more ways to make money as an artist than just selling CD’s. Some artists are clever and make sure they get a damn good cut of the gigs in particular, knowing the more people download their music for free off the internet the more people they got coming to the gigs. The people I know are sitting quite sweetly, you and your unknown friends just don’t know how to work the system.

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          Full Disclosure required, otherwise your ‘personal information’ is unverified, these artists you claim to ‘know personally’ do not exist and your air of superiority is undeserved.

        • Matron

          Full disclosure denied.

          Outing a brother is most dishonourable.

        • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

          I’m in no doubt whatsoever that you think the scent of bullshit is sweet to your warped and perverted senses.

          And “for the record” musicians DO NOT want to be on a record label. You dickheads created a closed market (aka a false monopoly) and wont allow new artists to record and market their artistry or even perform publicly without your so-called industry’s express permission.

          Well no more my fiend – your days of unfair profiteering are OVER.

        • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

          Local 13.

          There’s one. Go cry in your stocks nao.

        • Anonymous

          “piracy (theft)”

          Considering that baldfaced lie of yours up there(even young children are able to grasp the fact that sharing isn’t theft), why should anybody believe your claim that you “personally know many unfamous musicians whose deals fell through because their label went under and they are no longer able to support themselves with their craft”? It’s more likely than not a lie, too.

          And given that you’re an obvious RIAA sockpuppet, that just makes it even more likely.

      • Anonymous

        If thoughts of a career even cross your mind, then you aren’t serious about art.

      • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

        What program did you use to fileshare in 2000 you fuckwit liar?

        Keep posting your alleged facts my MAFIAA-fiend, you’re doing your industry proud – honest!!! Really!!!

        AAAAaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahah

      • Anonymous

        “Any artist is who is serious about there career is against filesharing.”
        Not true. For instance, last year we covered a book publisher that actually releases digital copies and allows them to be spread, even of their ‘just released’ titles. http://torrentfreak.com/e-books-piracy-peril-or-promotional-possibilities-100822/ That was with a book on the NYT bestsellers lists.

        “I emphasize THEIR right as the owner of the work and not the public. ”
        Actually, the ‘copy-right’ is one granted to an artist, via the law, by the representatives of the people. It’s not a natural right, but one bestowed on the artist by the public via the government.

  • Derek

    Nothing against you since I’m not too familiar with your writings, but there are so many things wrong with this post. Above all else the argument that “file sharing helps with promotion” is so ten years ago. That was the thought when artists were trying to be optimistic…before anyone knew the financial impact it would have as more users learned how easy it was to get the media they had been spending so much cash on. Any artist who truly believes that the promotion benefits stemming from their files being shared outweighs the financial hole it creates is either inexperienced or grossly misinformed.

    Your last few paragraphs prove another point that I’ve made in other conversations. A lot of people that participate in illegal sharing do it because they can’t resist. If you found a car dealership that left the keys in all their cars on the lot and didn’t prosecute those who stole from them, would you still pay for a car? The mixed message you got from artists saying they do download illegally yet also want to see better enforcement of copyright laws shows the conflict many artists are going through. It’s the music lover’s side versus the music creator’s side. All musicians are music lovers first, since I’m pretty sure they were listening to music before they were playing it. These artists want to be able to make a living on their music, but can’t stop doing the same disservice to the artists they love because it’s too easy, too free, and too scarcely enforced.

    I’ll spare you nit picking on the presentation of your survey because I don’t like to do that sort of thing, but lets just say there are a LOT of discrepancies between what you asked these artists, and the “conclusions” you have drawn from their responses. To validate my argument I’ll give you one example:

    In the seventh paragraph, you state, “What’s worth nothing is that higher educated artists in particular believe that file-sharing is doing them no financial harm.” First of all, where did this stat come from (was it in the poll?). Secondly, what’s the criteria to be a “higher educated artist?” Do you have to have graduated with a music degree of some kind? Is a psychology major who plays in a band on weekends a “higher educated artist?”

    I hope you aren’t put off by anything in my response, I simply wanted to comment on the validity of the conclusions drawn from this poll as well as the article’s topic in general. You simply can’t conclude that artists don’t see file sharing as financially harmful when that’s not the question you ask them. If someone likes peanut butter, it doesn’t mean they like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches…maybe they don’t like jelly!

    • http://twitter.com/Th3_5p3ctr3 Anonymous

      tl;dr = Your article was too complicated for me!

    • http://profiles.google.com/gatlincura Gatlin Fitzgerald

      I agree with all of what you just wrote. And so far the only response I’ve even considered to have any sort of validity.

      NO one knows what’s going on in the music industry unless you’re so involved with what’s actually happening you can see it and touch it. My band is working with a producer/songwriter who has pretty much ONLY made hit songs so far, whether or not they go platinum or diamond it makes no difference. If people keep downloading music with out paying for it, he makes NO money writing songs for bands like, Our lady peace, Finger 11, Simple Plan and has to go and do 360 deals with them and reconfigure his whole career.

      An artist who tells you downloading his music for free doesn’t impact him/her has do do with these particulars:

      They’re flat out lying to save face for their fans.

      They haven’t even come CLOSE to a decent career to even make the assessment about being affected.

      They’re ignorant.

      Their careers (reznor, radiohead) have had 10 – 20 + years of progression and involvement in the scene so the music industry isn’t even what they’re worried about anymore. Like Sean Combs who just sells material goods instead of music now.

      ————————

      Bottom line if you sell 10 albums a day for a year, then the following year you sell 5 a day. You make less money. You would have to work twice as hard for 5 more a day in order to break even from the previous year.

      How is no one seeing this as a black and white subject?

      All you self entitled, elitist !@#$s who think it doesn’t affect you need to actually meet some people affected by this to even pass judgement on anything you think you may or may not know. Cause I can sure as hell back EVERY thing up that I’m saying.

      Like how about the fact that hardly anyone knows that Live Nation is trying to buy out Warner Universal so they can give music away for free to get people to come to shows. All that does is screw the little guys over. Good luck getting any Can/US indie band outshine the no talent headliners out there today.

      I’m sort of sick of the level of mediocrity being celebrated today in the music industry and it’s people like a lot of the people posting in here that look at music as a limitless hobby.

      Do me a favor. Go home, for a week, don’t listen to any music. Stay home the whole week, watch movies and TV you’ve never seen on closed captioning.Try to not hum or mentally hear any music of any kind.

      People in this world are lucky anyone tries to even make a career out of it anymore. Most of the real industry people I’ve met won’t even give the music industry the benefit of the doubt.

      • Anonymous

        “Cause I can sure as hell back EVERY thing up that I’m saying. ”

        lol. That must be why you DIDN’T back up anything you were saying? Right? Give me a fucking break. You can’t back up anything. And that’s why you’re claiming you can – it’s an attempt to scare people away from questioning your bullshit story.

        This hotshot songwriter/producer of yours… If he’s pretty much ONLY made hit songs so far, then filesharing obviously hasn’t had much if any negative impact on his business. But wait, if people keep filesharing, then BOOM – all of a sudden, just like that, he’ll stop making money? How does that work? Filesharing hasn’t put a dent in his career all this time, but NOW for some reason if people continue filesharing then all of a sudden he’s finished?

        Logic fail.

        Nice job finding a way to dismiss every single artist that supports filesharing, by the way. They’re lying! They don’t have a decent career! They’re ignorant! They’re already successful so they don’t care! They look funny! They smell bad! They don’t count!

        Or maybe they do count, and you’re just yet another internet spamming buttbuddy of the RIAA.

        Aww… You know, it must be tough for self-entitled, elitist douchebag “artists” who think they deserve stellar album sales just because their wonderful selves shat out some noise. But at least they have filesharing to use as a scapegoat, you know, to soften the blow to their ego when their latest CD doesn’t make them a billion dollars. “Is it my fault? No. No, that’s impossible. It’s all those damn people on the internet!”

        They could also blame the decline of CD sales on digital music stores, but what if your sales suck there, too? No, filesharing is the best whipping-boy. You can blame it for ALL of your failure.

        • Whatever

          I think his songwriter/producer doesn’t make enough money because of bands like his that don’t give a fair share to the artist.
          :-)

          (couldn’t find the word i was looking for, it isn’t abused, misused, leeched or robbed)

        • Whatever

          I think his songwriter/producer doesn’t make enough money because of bands like his that don’t give a fair share to the artist.
          :-)

          (couldn’t find the word i was looking for, it isn’t abused, misused, leeched or robbed)

      • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

        Gat, with absolutely no disrespect intended – you’re an outright dummy who’s no clue whatsoever as to how the business-side of the industry actually works by preying on your genuine ignorance of such matters.

        I wish you luck in your career and hope you do well, but for fuck sake – it’s guys like you that allow and even encourage the so-called “content industry” to exist when there’s really no need for them any longer if only you take a look at the ‘bigger picture’ that the internet has to offer you guys.

        Wise up – and stop being puppet apologist for the very guy who will contract you into slavery or financial misery – whichever comes first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jordan.kratz Jordan Kratz

    http://www.bigmeathammer.com
    i am an artist.go ahead and share all you want.i am an artist who does not mind you sharing my art.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000910468539 Umar Bukhari

    http://www.easy-paisa.com/affiliates/uid/umarbukhari_
    This is the best way to make money online.
    You can earn up to $1000 USD per Week. I earning good cash from it.
    Send me a message and I will guide you step by step how to earn 1000USD per Week.
    refrence umar bukhari

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000910468539 Umar Bukhari

    http://www.easy-paisa.com/affiliates/uid/umarbukhari_
    This is the best way to make money online.
    You can earn up to $1000 USD per Week. I earning good cash from it.
    Send me a message and I will guide you step by step how to earn 1000USD per Week.
    refrence umar bukhari

  • Pingback: Survey: Dutch Artists Say P2P Doesn’t Hurt Them Financially | Wbcom Designs | VAPDI

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    The survey result seems to expose that artists are towing the line peddled by their record company/publisher yet when you delve deeper, their own views are in direct contradiction to the corporate line.

  • Powerless Peasant

    You may wonder why the .gov would want to push an issue that always riles up the citizens.
    It is about control.
    The biggest threat to elite rulers and international bankers are an informed, and angry public.
    And without the internet, you are as informed as they want you to be.
    Stupid :P

    • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

      Amusing; I just watched a video that touched on a topic vaguely similar to what you discribe. It’s from TED, the talk was given by public speaker Dave Meslin, and at about 00:55 seconds in, you’ll see what I mean.

    • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

      Amusing; I just watched a video that touched on a topic vaguely similar to what you discribe. It’s from TED, the talk was given by public speaker Dave Meslin, and at about 00:55 seconds in, you’ll see what I mean.

  • Pingback: Survey: Dutch Artists Say P2P Doesn’t Hurt Them Financially | Information Technology Leader

  • MisterP

    Makes you wonder wy artists begin to record albums in the first place? To be appreciated for they’re musical skills? Or to make shedloads of money?

  • Whatever

    @”What’s worth nothing is that higher educated artists in particular believe that file-sharing is doing them no financial harm.”

    Basically, the next time an artists screams ‘pirate’ it is just another dumb artist.

    @”Another 71% told the researchers they hadn’t downloaded anything without permission”

    Translation:
    It is unknown how many of that 71% that told reasearches they hadn’t downloaded anything without permission is lying. Be it for their own interest or fear of prosecution or being used as an example. In light of the fact that most think it doesn’t hurt them it is very likely a large amount of them didn’t admit to downloading.

  • Pingback: Que pensent les artistes du téléchargement illégal ?

  • Pingback: Artists Dont Think Piracy Hurts Them Financially, Study Shows | Red20.net

  • Pingback: Que piensan los Artistas de la “Piratería”? » TePregunte -

  • SF

    Obviously its quite hard to tell if piracy is hurting artists or not (The entertainment industry as a whole are making more money than ever, record sales for the music inudustry are down but their digital sales and live revenue is up, movie and video game industries are stronger than ever.

    At the end of the day consumers have a limited amount of money to spend and we’re spending more per person on entertainment today than we ever have in the past, It is however possible that producers of easy to copy material is losing out as some consumer might opt to spend their entertainment budget on things that cannot be copied (Rather than buying a CD per month they might opt to go to an extra live concert each year instead or pay for that MMO subscription), Harsher copyright could change how we distribute that money but it wouldn’t increase it.

  • Pingback: Przemys? muzyczny ma si? dobrze pomimo piractwa – RIAA i inne k?ami?

  • Pingback: Le piratage, vu par les artistes | Jeromecold's blog

  • http://profiles.google.com/richyrch88 Richy Rich

    It’s almost laughable how piracy advocates try to justify their theft. Try as you might, you are never going to change the reality of what it is. THEFT. What is driving it? MONEY. Look around at all those websites that “share” links/downloads/streams. What do the vast majority of them have in common? They offer the thief a means to make money whether through advertising, subscriptions, or cash per 1,000 downloads (cyberlockers). It’s all about the money. To make money people steal.

  • Pingback: Muy Gráfico « SpaceProf

  • Pingback: SpaceProf

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.